Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Yes, Straggler, there is a difference - to the observer. I don't consider a walk in the woods the same as a book of fiction. Now I can tell you about my walk in the woods, but for you that is similar to reading a book about walking in the woods.For a person who has had an unexpected experience, whether it is yeti\sasquatch, alien spaceships, or novel wildlife, whatever, there is a difference between an aware, conscious experience and an imaginary concept.Rahvin's dream does not address this issue, and continues to be a red herring. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for {X}, to a person who has not experienced {X}, as there is for not-experienced {Y}. It's that simple.How good the evidence is for the person who has experienced {X} is a different issue, and this has been the source of many posts.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, tidbits: What I said was that if there was insufficient evidence pro or con for any concept that the logical position is that we don't know. In religious terms this is referred to as agnostic, but this word is inadequate for general use. Another way of looking at is that you can be skeptical but open minded to either answer.Are there dark stuffs? I am not convinced, I am skeptical, but I'm open to evidence being found. What I have seen is inconclusive pro or con.To decide that dark stuffs don't exist is to fly in the face of a lot of (subjective) argument from physicists.To decide that dark stuffs exist is to make a leap of faith, or to rely on personal (subjective) experience.According to your argument I should necessarily disbelieve in dark stuffs until I see bonafide evidence, such as (perhaps) a cell phone picture of it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

How so? Others consider dreams to be perfectly valid evidence for whatever they've dreamed. Many believe their dreams predict the future, others have religious visions, etc.Why are my dreams of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster a red herring? How are they different?

Hi again Straggler, But you have already made up your mind a priori and refuse to consider the ramifications of possibilities. You then fortify your position by arguing your pet tautology to death, that "inherently non-empirical concept"s are - surprise - non-empirical!!!!!!!!!! (it's a shock, I know).Then you conveniently conflate "empirically unevidenced" with inherently non-empirical concept"s ... begging the question.All empirically unevidenced concepts are not necessarily inherently non-empirical, they just are not currently evidenced, whether due to lack of documentation or technology.Nor are inherently non-empirical concepts necessarily fantasy, they just are concepts that cannot be tested, whether due to lack of access or technology. Sorry, but your position is a small subset of what is logically valid, and as long as you argue that the remaining concepts are not logically valid because they don't fit your small definition, you will be wrong.It's like you are arguing that all scientific concepts are valid because they are scientific, but that all other concepts are not valid because they are not scientific. Gosh look - a couple of well built red cars!Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Rahvin, Because they are not an experience of a conscious and aware person. The full quote is (Message 316, with the context):

quote:

---

For a person who has had an unexpected experience, whether it is yeti\sasquatch, alien spaceships, or novel wildlife, whatever, there is a difference between an aware, conscious experience and an imaginary concept.

​

Rahvin's dream does not address this issue, and continues to be a red herring.

---

Color for emphasis. As noted previously (many times) and summarized in Message 301:

quote:

---

Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":
1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,

---

This has been an established element of my argument for some time. Now, unless you are going to argue that dreams are subjective experiences, therefore all subjective evidences are dreams (a different logical fallacy), then you are attempting to distract the discussion away from the subjective experience of a conscious and aware individual. That is a red herring.The issue is whether, or not, there is a class of subjective experiences that are valid evidence of reality. Dreams are not - they can be about reality or they can be about fantasy. They are not, however, something experienced through your senses the way a subjective experience of a conscious and aware individual is experienced..Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Onifre, getting back to old posts. Exactly, and this is why I also believe that faith is a personal journey, that no one person can tell another where the path leads.Which is also why I tend to not discuss my personal faith, because (a) it is personal, and (b) I feel it is (ultimately) irrelevant to anyone else.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I think we have comprehensively established that we both agree that all non-empirical experiences are equally invalid as forms of evidence. As per your comments cited in Message 145. Observing something "unknowable" and citing it as evidence of the "unknowable" remains a contradictory and irrational position. But how rational is the conclusion in question? It is contradictory, and thus irrational, to conclude that an audio-visual experience is evidence of an inherently non-empirical and scientifically unknowable entity. It is logically impossible to consider any supernatural inherently non-empirical entity, being or concept to be evidenced in any way at all if one restricts oneself to empirical evidence. This is simply inarguable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid no one supernatural and inherently non-empirical scientifically unknowable entity, being or concept can possibly be considered to be any more or less evidenced than any other.As long as we agree that in evidential terms the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is identical to any other god or deity you and I have no argument at all.Given that we totally agree about the need for evidence to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point.Why break this new age of agreement and conviviality with silly and irrelevant pictures? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, There you go with the begging the question tautology again.Obviously, if someone observes something, it is not inherently "unknowable" and the rest of your argument falls to pieces. Message 323
Validating evidence needs to be testable, repeatable. This does not mean that concepts with no (apparent, found yet, possible to find with current technology) evidence are not valid indicators of possible reality. You still don't understand the issue about the red cars eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You have unequivocally stated that you only accept empirical observations and experiences to be valid evidence of any sort (Message 145)Can supernatural inherently non-empirical entities, beings or concepts be observed empirically? Obviously not. That would be contradictory.As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid no one supernatural and inherently non-empirical scientifically unknowable entity, being or concept can possibly be considered to be any more or less evidenced than any other. As long as we agree that in evidential terms the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is identical to any other god or deity you and I have no argument at all.Given that we totally agree about the need for evidence to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point. I think we all agree that red cars are empirically observable entities.

Hi Straggler, let's see if I can clarify the differences. A represents subjective experiences - ie all our experiencesB represents your "empirically evidenced" experiencesC represents Rahvin's dreamsD represents other concepts, experienced by conscious and aware individualsAll red cars fit in the category of red cars, all "empirically evidenced" concepts are supported by empirical evidence, with the evidence sensed by aware and conscious individuals.Dreams may or may not represent reality, and can involve a high degree of fantasy, however they cannot be considered valid evidence of reality, not having been sensed by an aware and conscious individual.Other concepts where there currently is no empirical evidence, and no evidence of validity other than the experience by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality, or they may just be a mockup shell of a concept. For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation. Given that we totally agree about the need for validation to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point. And yet, curiously, there are other cars, other entities, other glimpses of reality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Finally. At long long last the true nature of your flawed position is revealed. How many times have I told you that you are seeking to include non-empirical evidence by means of conflation and ambiguity and how many times have you twisted and contorted you argument in order to evade conceding this fact? So RAZ - On what rational basis do you conclude that non-empirical evidence is even potentially superior to biased guessing in terms of reliability? And if you cannot then on what basis can such a thing be called "evidence"? I am guessing you won't actually answer these questions. Well maybe if I pursue you for another three threads you might eventually be shamed into confronting these inherent difficulties in your position I suppose...............For the sake of completeness lets remind ourselves of your previous position on the validity of experiences that cannot be empirically perceived. So non-empirical evidence that cannot be experienced by an empirically challenged insensate witness is in fact a feature of RAZD's argument. Are we now clear of RAZD's position? Enlightened?Rather than be tempted to make any derogatory comments that RAZD will no doubt respond to as a means of evading confronting the flaws and contradictions in his position I will leave it to others who have witnessed our 3 thread (and counting) battle on the nature of evidence to judge for themselves whether his position is rational and consistent or not. But I must say that I am experiencing the really rather warm (and very non-empirical) glow of vindication at the moment. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No Straggler, you really really fail to understand the distinction There is a whole land of possibilities between what we have evidence for and what we may find evidence for.You cannot draw a line, and say "beyond this line not further possible empirical evidence will ever be discovered" You are living in fantasy again - that is not what I've said, it isn't even CLOSE. Another lie. It seems the only way you can talk about my position is to lie about it. Curiously, my challenge still stays open: you can filter all the threads involved for just my posts and search to your hearts delight to find anything close to what Straggler claims. You, Straggler, have not done this - is there a reason that you can't find an inkling of support for your fantasy? And yet here in Message 302 YOU have agreed that non-empirical evidence can be a basis for further investigation: Are you now recanting? Equivocating? Changing your mind? So now you are implying (falsely) that my position on dreams applies to ALL unconfirmed subjective experiences of conscious and aware individuals -- this is the extent to which you are willing to lie about my position? Here's the real RAZD position: Message 102
There you have the full context of my statement. With empHAsis and the link to the post added for absolute clarity.You are caught in a lie. Shame on you. Sad really. This is no surprise to me, because I have been noting for some time that you have somehow convinced yourself of falsehoods.Anyone want to discuss my real position, see Message 301:

quote:

---

Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":

​

1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
2. it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
3. this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
4. however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
5. we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
6. likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
7. without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
8. additional validation is best provided by either
   (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or,
   (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
11. additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.

​

Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.

---

Perhaps we can discuss the issue rationally, without lies and falsehoods.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Don't get all warm and fuzzy yet.RAZD wrote:

quote:

---

For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation

---

Note: He didn't claim that non-empirical evidence exists.He did state that non-empirical evidence can be used in logic, as a means of further investigation.Here is a possible example:

If (a particular deity) exists we should see (a specific evidence)

That does not claim that non-empirical evidence exists, but it makes a logical statement of what we might see if it existed. That is a way to pursue further investigation, as RAZD stated.Further example, with some specifics filled in:

If there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago we should see evidence of flood-related sediments in many places, and we should see discontinuities in fauna and flora, at that time period

This use of non-empirical evidence in logical constructions, as a means to further investigation, is not quite what you claimed in your post. It does not claim that the global flood exists, but it does use that non-empirical "evidence" in a logical construct to permit further investigation--that is, looking for flood-related sediments or discontinuities in fauna and flora. That such have not been found suggests that the premise, a global flood about 4,350 years ago, is fiction rather than empirical.I have to supported RAZD's take on this rather than yours.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The context of this is the evidential basis for concluding that supernatural inherently non-empirical entities might actually exist in a reality external to the mind of the experiencee. If the evidence and the conclusion are both non-empirical how can either be derived from anything perceived externally to the experiencee? A sixth sense would necessarily be required.If evidence is non-empirical and the conclusion is non-empirical how can we establish that any conclusions drawn on the basis of non-empirical "evidence" (even regarding mere possibilities) are superior to simply randomly guessing as to what might exist?If a form of "evidence" cannot be shown to lead to superior results to guessing then on what basis is that "evidence" meaningfully called "evidence" rather than just "guessing"? OK. Then you too must conclude that the possibility of empirically unknowable gods is evidenced by means of experiences that can only be products of the mind. Unless one assumes that a sixth sense exists as a means of detecting otherwise undetectable phenomenon.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.