Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Which is appropriate, considering I was not replying to RAZD. What is the point, exactly? I don't understand why you take issue with identifying a flying island as magical. You seem to hold that all evidence is subjective, that nothing can be directly known objectively. I can understand why - to paraphrase Morpheus in the Matrix, what we see, smell, hear, taste and touch are all electrochemical signals interpreted by our brains, meaning that the actual sensory experience and its interpretation are all subjective.We determine what objectively exists by finding additional independent evidence that agrees with the initial perception. For instance, if I thought I had seen Bigfoot, in order to verify that my subjective experience was actually an observation of objective reality, I might look for one of Bigfoot's footprints where he was standing, or try to snap a quick photo with my camera phone (presumably photographs do not take pictures of hallucinations, and of course can be analyzed independently).This is fundamentally different from fully subjective evidence, such a dreams or "feelings" that cannot be independantly verified. And again, I wasn't addressing RAZD, so his positions are rather irrelevant. Not quite. We don't need to possess all objective evidence. That's impossible - human beings are not omniscient, and yet we can still draw reasonably accurate conclusions. We don't have all of the objective evidence surrounding evolution, for example - but we know that evolution happens.Key here is that we need some objective evidence, and the likelihood of accuracy increases as more objective evidence is known.The purpose behind reliance on objective evidence and independent validation is to eliminate personal bias and other unintentional (or intentional) distortion of perception. A single person's perception is not, alone, evidence of what that person believes they have observed. The likelihood that the perception accurately reflects reality increases with the amount of objective evidence supporting it; seeing a cat, for example, is supported by the fact that cats do exist, and can be further supported by petting the cat, hearing the cat, examining the cat's pawprints, observing the cat to eat food, etc.Subjectively perceiving that a cat exists in a specific location without any previously verified sensory method (in other words, dreaming about the cat, "feeling" the location of the cat, etc) are all worthless, and the chances of such subjective experiences that actually rely on zero objective evidence are no better than random guessing - in other words, they are not evidence of anything at all.

I know that you weren't, I thought your position about lions and forests were in direct relation to what RAZD claimed. My mistake.But let me then ask the question myself. What's wrong with this statement: "I had an subjective experience and I now believe god exists".Would I be required to show you objective evidence for god?How about this statement: "I had an experience and I believe (X) exists".Since I didn't define or place a characteristic on what I believed to exist, is it now more plausible that something exists?Why? Because magic doesn't exist. It already disqualifies the ability of an island to fly naturally - not that I think they do, but I haven't visited every area of the universe so, as I stated, I know flight is possible and I know islands exist. If you add magic then I'm forced to deny it's plausibility on that basis. But, if you just said "flying island", sans magic, I'll say it's unlikely knowing what I know, but I don't know everything so I can't disqualify it occuring naturally somewhere in this universe. I hold that all life is experienced subjectively. Objective reality is said to exist by people who determined it's existence subjectively. That we all have agreed to it doesn't remove the subjectiveness of the post-experience interpretation. The reality that you experience and are aware of is from YOUR personal subjective interpretation. It is validated by the fact that WE ALL have equal interpretations of what we all happen to experience, but you experience it in your mind, I experience reality in my mind, and we interacting in this third space called the physical world. So even the foot print of said Bigfeet is still your subjective interpretation of what you viewed. I don't agree that there is subjective evidence, so yes it is in no way the same thing.But dreams ARE the same as the reality you experience, especially lucid dreams, which you can control your body image.I wrote this in another thread but it seems relevant here too.

quote:

---

The body that you/me/we experience right now, the thing we call the physical body, is really the phenomenal body, or the body image. In a dream you also experience the body image. When you dream you make a distinction, "thats just dream stuff", but what is the actual difference? And, if you take seriously the insight that one experiences in lucid dreams and the fact that you can control them as you do your physical body image, it can profoundly change the way you look at the "real" world.

---

Then you, or we humans, cannot say with 100% accuracy what exists and doesn't exist. I don't fully accept that these 5 sensory inputs are all there is to how we experience reality, but if it is then I agree with you.However,Quantum mechanics is still a very complex area of study and many nueroscientist have determined that the brain may function at the quantum level - so perhaps we can some how experience reality at quantum levels that are not yet fully understood. But that's off topic here.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Thanks Straggler. And which still explains existing evidence, namely the constancy of the speed of light. The theory was generalized to explain more evidence, at which point it explains gravity ala Newton in the default mode, and the orbit of mercury, which Newton did not. The more evidence a theory explains the more robust it is, yes? No, my friend, the evidence is simply that Einstein explained existing evidence with each of his hypothesis, this included the KNOWN orbital anomaly, and it included the stable universe, which is why he threw in the empirical fudge factor to make the results match the evidence. There is no need for a fudge factor, if your hypothesis does not explain the existing evidence. Does it or does it not explain the constant speed of light?
Was or was not the steady speed of light known before the hypothesis?Q & A: why constant speed of light | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

quote:

---

The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics, and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed. Now it was logically possible that those laws were only true in one special reference frame, but by 1905 no experiment (including the famous attempt by Michelson and Morley) provided any evidence that they failed to work in any inertial frame. Einstein showed that there was a logical, consistent framework (Special Relativity) in which Maxwell’s equations worked in all inertial frames, and Newton’s laws also almost worked for any objects moving slowly with respect to a frame. From this new framework, all sorts of other effects could be derived, and they were all confirmed. Among those many effects are the energy-dependent lifetimes of particles, the exact dynamics of fast-moving particles, the patterns of radiation from accelerating particles, the magnetism-like velocity-dependent term acompanying each fundamental force, etc.

---

Notice that this says Einstein's Special Relativity theory explained the existing evidence for a constant speed of light, and that from it, predictions could be made and tested, and that they validated the theory. Fair enough, I was thinking on similar lines today. Thanks. My thoughts today were along the lines of rephrasing your formula slightly: In this version, the starting point is a body of evidence, so a single observation doesn't make the cut, the hypothesis is your untested scientific conclusion and the conclusions (conjectured new evidence) are the tests for the hypothesis. We then take it as given that none of the conjectured new evidence has been found yet, and the the hypothesis (B) is untested.You will probably note that I have taken the word "objective" out, and there is a reason for that. What is objective evidence?The problem I have, is that I don't think you can draw a clear and distinct line between "subjective" and "objective" evidence. Where does one end and the other begin? All evidence is experienced subjectively, and we derive a sense of "objective reality" by the conformity of similar experiences by different people, and by repetition of the experience. The chair is always were I left it, and other people see, and sit in, the chair: thus the chair gains a sense of objective reality, an existence outside our experiences of the chair. But what happens when someone has a unique experience that can't be repeated?We've had examples of solitary meteor sightings and black cats crossing the road at night, seen by one person, and unconfirmed by anyone else - examples where we can't logically expect to be able to repeat the experience at will ... where we can't expect to be able to turn it into a confirmed experience of objective reality. What then? Is it a "subjective experience of objective reality" or is it a "wholly subjective experience? and - importantly - how can you tell?What we consistently see is that such unique experiences are readily accepted as plausible the more common the experience is, and particularly when the person being told about it has had a similar experience. We've all seen cats, we've all seen meteors, very few of us have seen anything resembling plesiosaurs.The Ivory Billed Woodpecker (the IBW, not to be confused with the IPU) was considered extinct because nobody had seen or heard one for 50+ years.Rather than a clear line between objective and subjective, what I see is a line of increasingly unusual experiences, going from IBW to plesiosaur and beyond.The problem I have, is that the absence of sufficient cause to consider something "objective" is not enough for me to conclude that it doesn't exist in reality.Let's say I have a jar of pennies, and I dump them out on the floor. My goal is to gather all the pennies dating between 1984 and today. The ones that are face up are easy to determine, but I cannot tell whether any of the ones face down fit that criteria, nor can I logically conclude that none of the ones face down fit the criteria.But now let's move the dates back - select for pennies between 1950 and 1984. I'll find fewer pennies face up that fit this criteria, but I still cannot logically conclude that none of the ones face down fit that criteria.Let's say face up pennies are objective evidence of pennies meeting the criteria and face down pennies are subjective evidence of pennies meeting the criteria, and the fact that I have face down pennies means that it is possible that pennies fitting the criteria exist, a possibility that I would not have if I had no face down pennies. And I thought you were going to play nice .... Curiously, no, for all I have ever suggested is that we start with evidence and proceed to do same kind of evaluation or investigation, and whether you call evidence subjective or objective, is irrelevant.
(objective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(subjective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")If all such conjectures are held up to the same scrutiny, the same testing against known objective reality, then the "flawed thinking" will be invalidated, falsified and discarded, and this will hold whether the basis was subjective or objective. Curiously, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by my "pet theory" of "subjective evidence" ... but if we apply the same process of logic to develop conjectures - predictions - that can be tested by objective reality, where flawed thinking is invalidated when falsified by the evidence then I fail to see that there is a problem.Compare this to concluding a priori that a concept is false. Do you know what the logical fallacy of the part for the whole means? It means your list fails to include all of the members, it excludes mention of the failed conjectures, from Haeckel's recapitulation to Lamark's acquired traits and more. It fails to include science fiction, and it fails to include all the conjectures that meet the criteria of your formula --- including conjectures that you can derive from subjective experiences. It's not a hard club to get into. I'll make a deal with you: you stop making silly assertions like this, and then if I ever do go there, you get to jump all over me, k? Then we don't have to clutter up more threads with mistaken representations countered by repeated attempts to set you straight, and we can get on with the discussion/s at hand.Perhaps a little ground work could help. First let's refine what we mean by conjecture:
definition 1 - Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.Because we are using the hypothesis as a basis for the conjectures, and the hypothesis explains evidence we can say this is an "educated guess" - we could use the term "informed conjecture" as opposed to "scientific conjecture"Then if we go back to my suggestion above:
(A: a compiled and organized set of evidence) + (B: a logically derived hypothesis to explain A)
→ (C: an informed conjecture of new evidence)I think we can set some criteria by which to judge relative validity of concepts in spite of them being untested.For instance, if we have a large body of evidence, then we should be able to determine some common trait\trend\facet in order to develop the hypothesis, but if we have a small set (1?) then it is much more difficult to develop an accurate hypothesis about it. Thus, because an hypothesis explains the existing evidence, the confidence of the hypothesis should be related to the amount of evidence that it explains.More evidence → more confident hypothesis
Less evidence → less confident hypothesisAnother condition, of course, is that they are not invalidated by any known evidence. The hypothesis is no good if the selected set of evidence excludes evidence that contradicts it.Perhaps that is enough tonight.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 see that you are still in denial about the difference in validity and reliability of applying logic to objective evidence as compared to any conclusion derived from subjective "evidence". A denial which causes you to equate the predictions and in some cases whole subjects of theoretical science with the proposed existence of alien visitation, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, goblins and fairies. An equivalence achieved by placing them all under the dictionarily defined banner of "conjecture".I know that you like dictionary definitions so here is one:Postulate:

Take as a given; assume as a postulate or axiom; "He posited three basic laws of nature"

(logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning

​

Please bear this in mind.

​

Straggler writes:

​

You have completely omitted Special Relativity which has nothing to do with gravity and which simply determines the logical consequences of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames.

​

And which still explains existing evidence, namely the constancy of the speed of light.

​

Oh silly me. I thought the theory of Special Relativity treated the constancy of the speed of light as a postulate and then went onto derive the logical implications of this. That is certainly how I was taught it when we went through Einstein's 1905 paper in detail on my degree course in theoretical physics. Funnily enough Einstein says this himself:

​

Special relativity - Wikipedia

​

Wiki writes:

​

In his autobiographical notes published in November 1949 Einstein described how he had arrived at the two fundamental postulates on which he based the special theory of relativity. After describing in detail the state of both mechanics and electrodynamics at the beginning of the 20th century, he wrote:

​

"Reflections of this type made it clear to me as long ago as shortly after 1900, i.e., shortly after Planck's trailblazing work, that neither mechanics nor electrodynamics could (except in limiting cases) claim exact validity. Gradually I despaired of the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive efforts based on known facts. The longer and the more desperately I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assured results... How, then, could such a universal principle be found?"

​

He discerned two fundamental propositions that seemed to be the most assured, regardless of the exact validity of either the (then) known laws of mechanics or electrodynamics. These propositions were:

​

(1) the constancy of the velocity of light, and
(2) the independence of physical laws (especially the constancy of the velocity of light) from the choice of inertial system.

​

In his initial presentation of special relativity in 1905 he expressed these postulates as...

​

And the rest, as they say, is history. No matter how much you may wish to rewrite history to prop up your flawed assertions.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Notice that this says Einstein's Special Relativity theory explained the existing evidence for a constant speed of light, and that from it, predictions could be made and tested, and that they validated the theory.

​

Einstein disagrees with you as to the foundation of his theory. Thus you are refuted.

​

http://www.gap-system.org/...tTopics/Special_relativity.html

​

Einstein's paper is remarkable for the different approach it takes. It is not presented as an attempt to explain experimental results, it is presented because of its beauty and simplicity. In the introduction Einstein says:

​

"... the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous since, according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in absolute rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity vector be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place."

​

Emphasis mine.

​

"Superfluous" is how Einstein described the existence of an aether as explored by the Michelson Morley experiments. I will grant you one thing though. Einstein humbly refers to his work as "conjecture". But do you think he would appreciate his "conjecture" being equated to subjective "evidence" of the existence of ghosts?

​

RAZD writes:

​

Notice that this says Einstein's Special Relativity theory explained the existing evidence for a constant speed of light, and that from it, predictions could be made and tested, and that they validated the theory.

​

Well Einstein disagrees with you as to the derivation of his theory. Nothing personal RAZ but I'l go with Einstein on this one.

​

If by citing Maxwells equations (which I also derived on my course) and Michelson Morley's experiment (which I also conducted on my course) you are giving us the objective evidence from which Einstein formulated his postulates then nobody will disagree with you. These were indeed the objectively evidenced basis from which Einstein logically extrapolated the theory of special relativity.

​

Here is Einstein's actual paper: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

​

(objective evidence) + (logic) = (Special Relativity). Indisputably.

​

And from special relativity we can derive General Relativity by applying exactly the same principle of applying logic to known evidence. GR is, as nobody here has ever denied, indeed an explanation for gravitation and thus slightly easier to force-fit into your flawed assertions. But the great achievement of GR was not explaining the existing evidence (although it did do this) but the huge number of phenomenon it successfully predicted purely on the basis of theory. GR could have been derived from SR without anyone ever having looked at the orbit of Mercury. It could technically have been formulated by someone who had never in fact experienced gravity. That is why the methodology is completely the opposite to that which you are suggesting. GR is NOT revolutionary because it explained a few observed anomolies in Newton's otherwise perfectly valid calculations. It is revolutionary because by the application of logic to known evidence a whole paradigm in science was shifted.

​

Now I know that this does not fit in with your wider argument. I know that basing your whole argument on a definition of "conjecture" that can be applied equally to the formulation of Relativity and an entire paradigm shift in science as it can the existence of poltergeists makes your argument look rather ridiculous.........

​

But RAZ that is not an excuse to rewrite history. Please desist from this.

​

There is a reason why academic institutions have departments of theoretical science. Proven track record of results. There is a reason why these academic institutions don't equally have departments dedicated to the application of subjective "evidence" (whatever the hell that is - you have still not told us) to derive conclusions relating to the real world. A proven record of failure. Simply claiming that this is just the result of "subjective world view bias" and that the two are actually evidentially equivalent is a simple denial of evidence and fact.

​

I am not claiming that untested "hypotheses" are any substitute for verified conclusions. At all. But there is a long and distinguished history of investigating nature as Einstein did. By the logical extrapolation of known evidence to predict new phenomenon and provide radically different explanations of known phenomenon. I don't know if you are familiar with the work of Dirac at all but he had what can best be described as "disdain" for experimental results. But despite this "disdain" he achieved great success from purely theoretical constructs. From an evidenced starting point and the application of logic he predicted antimatter and formulated the beginnings of quantum field theory. Feynman's work carried on this legacy and whilst you can cite explanatory components in order to "force fit" these theories into your paltry definitions this does not mean that such an exercise is either historically or methodologically justified. The great achievement of these works was not the explanations of known evidence that you hold so dearly but the radical paradigm shifts and discovery of new phenomenon that they resulted in. All derived from the "mere" logical extrapolations of known evidence. Or as we are calling it "conjecture".

​

To deny this fact and to continue to equate such leaps in human understanding with conclusions derived from forms of evidence that you cite as predominantly relevant to examples such as Nessie, Bigfoot, alien visitation, ghosts, fairies, supernatural entities and a host of other such largely refuted or fringe lunatic examples is frankly intellectually dishonest.

​

By your definitions Special Relativity, in particular, is included under the banner of "conjecture", along with ghosts, goblins and fairies, rather than "hypothesis".

​

If you cannot refute the words of Einstein himself please have the decency to concede that youir definition of "conjecture" includes Einstein's theory of special relativity as described and derived by Einstein himself.

​

Curiously, no, for all I have ever suggested is that we start with evidence and proceed to do same kind of evaluation or investigation, and whether you call evidence subjective or objective, is irrelevant.

​

(objective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(subjective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")

​

Do you agree or disagree that the methods of science (prediction, testing, independent corroboration, repeatability, peer review etc. etc. etc.) seek to maximise the objective component and minimise the subjective component?

​

I also want to make a proposition. We both want to explore the idea of "wholly subjective evidence". Yes? You think this is valid. I do not. But regardless of differing opinion on this our mutual aim should be to try and envisage the best means of seperating and establishing this as distinct from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence". Simply saying this cannot be done in practise is not good enough. In fact it seems evasive. We can attempt to get as close to this situation as possible through use of relevant examples. We can also potentially establish the reliability of a "wholly subjectively evidenced" conclusion even if it cannot actually be known when such a situation exists.

​

Do you accept this proposal?

​

If so I would ask that you answer the questions in Message 44 to give us at least some idea of what you mean by "subjective evidence". At the moment it just seems to mean anything that is "seen".

​

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.

Not quite - we need the Principle of Equivalence - more inspired "guess-work" Probably the next best example of guessing our way through physics is Yang-Mills theory - non-abelian gauge theory - which at first was thought to be too good not to be found in physics, but we had no clue where, and then it was found that it solved the mystery behind the Stong force, and gave rise to Quantum Chromodynamics.

Straggler says: here's a case - right now this statement is ALL the evidence i have regarding your love of your son.so wouldnt you agree that i am better off believing your testimony regarding your love of your son as valid subjective evidence versus a Random Guess?

---

- xongsmith

methinks for a few seconds the island of Krakatoa was flying. might have had a big cat of some kind on it, but not likely a lion. maybe a relative of Homo Floriensis(sp) which could have been construed as a fairy by some observer......so - yes, no magic needed.

---

- xongsmith

I also love my googlesplat.Do you think that the love of my son and the love for my googlesplat are equally evidenced?Wouldnt you agree that you are better off believing my testimony regarding my love of my googlesplat as valid subjective evidence versus a Random Guess?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I knew I would get pulled up on something by one of our resident experts. If that is my only ommission then I don't think I have recalled the historical narrative and foundations of Einsteins work too badly. We followed a sort of loosely historical approach on my degree course. Farady, Maxwells equations, constancy of c, SR, Michelson Morley etc. etc. GR was a couple of years later after some long hard hours in the maths department. Inspiration, clarity of thought, unhindering belief in the logicality of nature... Call it what we will.None of this justifies RAZ's insistence that theoretical physics be equated with the sort of evidence cited in favour of the existence of ghosts, goblins and fairies.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

but you didnt - part the face can sense things on the skin.anyway the distinction you are making between "subjective evidence" and "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" is inside something like a black box or one of those software clouds on the whiteboard - we dont need the details of what's inside, we just need the box or cloud to be there to make the conviction. it would have to be a lot of subjective evidence. for example, unlike RAZD, i'm still unconvinced that there was a God at the formation of this universe. but there are billions of people who believe in deities of some kind or another.on the other hand, i'm pretty sure you do love your son. and i hardly have any subjective evidence of that. i have ZERO objective evidence of that nor do i ever expect to encounter any.

---

- xongsmith

For the sake of argument lets assume that nothing would have touched his face during the alleged incident.Answer the question. If the evidence is subjective why do we need any form of empirical objective evidence to be possible?Your need to use the only limited empirical sensation that is even possible in this example suggests to me that you actualy unwittingly concede that "subjective evidence" as opposed to the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" is of absolutely no use at all in a courtroom situation. Billions of people believe in astrology, ghosts and all sorts of other things too. Have you ever seen the film "Beautiful Mind". John Nash could not seperate reality from "subjective evidence". He had to go round asking people if they too could also see the people he could see.Why do you think it plausible that I love my son? My word alone? Or a host of prior evidence regarding the existence of, and love for sons, that is not in any way specific to me?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ah, nice. i was almost going to be flippant and say i love my googlesplat, too, only i dont go around telling anybody about it.it's true that the term "son" conjurs up a whole set of objectively gathered notions of what a "son" is. we know "sons" exist.it's believable that you have a son, but given that your googlesplat is something akin to an IPU, it is not believable that you have a googlesplat. maybe you do and that's your own word for it or her or them or him. it's more likely that you made up that term for this discussion.you could even be legitimately defining it here, and here only, as a new word for your other child or spouse or even your job.this is all the evidence i have? hmm. better than a Random Guess?YES, but not much compared to the son.which group below should i put the statement
"i saw my googlesplat yesterday" in?GROUP 1:
"i saw my son yesterday"
"i saw a cat yesterday"
"i saw the defendant kill the victim yesterday"GROUP 2:
"i saw a flying saucer yesterday"
"i saw God yesterday"GROUP 3:
"i saw a Higgs boson yesterday"
"i saw a flying island yesterday"
"i saw an unassisted triple play yesterday"

---

- xongsmith

Well I disagree with your groupings for a start. So how can I answer that question?Answer my question. If evidence can be wholly subjective why is it that creating an, admittedly morbid, example which attempts to eliminate any objective component so objectionable? Why will you not consider my quadripligic witness example on the terms stated?Surely this is the way to consider such a claim. Rather than citing numerous examples that could arguably be objectively evidenced as well as subjectively "evidenced" in some way. This just conflates the issue in favour of those who claim the validity of "subjective evidence" by allowing them to take potentially objective evidence and claim it as their own.In science we use a "control". Let's try and do the same in this argument. Eliminate the possibility of objective evidence and see how valid the subjective component really is.

What exactly is "subjective evidence"...?How is it different from the "subjective interpretation of a subjective experience"...? Yet none have any evidence aside from their own, personal, subjective interpretation of a subjective experience, so it does not in any way validate any claims of god(s). It only validates the fact that we have subjective experiences. After that experience, the interpretation of what it was is left up to the person to desipher.But their testimonies are not considered "subjective evidence", they would be considered "subjective interpretations of subjective experiences".So we have evidence of billions of people with similar interpreations, but not billions of people with similar evidence. This takes it back to the degree to which your subjective interpretation can be plausible within the reality that we can all agree on that exists.However, I feel that the degree to which it can be plausible is only good when all of the facts about nature are known, which is of course impossible.So, IMO, the degree to which something can be plausible is a matter of opinion based on the limits one places on future undiscovered aspects of our reality. If you place no limit to it, then anything becomes equally plausible because there is no limit to what might exist.But if you limit it to objective evidence only, then the degree of plausibility becomes an issue when the interpretation can't be objectively verified.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

RAZD - This extended argument has now been going on for some time. As a result of this discussion I am genuinely baffled by a seeming contradiction that is so obvious that I feel that I must have your position wrongly conceptualised. But in support of your beliefs you have also cited subjective evidence. You have said: Now given that your main defence of "subjective evidence" seems to be that it is actually indistinguishable from objective evidence in practical terms AND given that you are also now claiming that a conclusion (or "conjecture") is derived from the combination of subjective evidence and logic........It seems to me that you are claiming that your beliefs are both faith based (and thus entirely devoid of both logic and evidence) whilst also claiming that they are derived from evidence (that may or may not be objective) combined with logic.I don't get it?If you want another thread that is fine. But please please do not just shout "Off Topic" at me. I want to understand this seeming dichotomy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.