Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Wow..."sciency". Explains a lot.

(Nov 22, 2016 08:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 08:01 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 04:59 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 06:07 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what there is that even could have been made up. But I know your beliefs are the one tenuous thread of significance you have, so don't let me upset your applecart.

I base my beliefs on evidence. There's not a thing tenuous about them.

Yes they're not tenuous, just borrowed.

As are all beliefs..even the sciency ones.

I'm prepared to flush any or all my beliefs down the toilet with just one shred of evidence to the contrary. Are you? (just asking)

(Nov 22, 2016 08:26 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 08:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 08:01 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 04:59 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 06:07 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what there is that even could have been made up. But I know your beliefs are the one tenuous thread of significance you have, so don't let me upset your applecart.

I base my beliefs on evidence. There's not a thing tenuous about them.

Yes they're not tenuous, just borrowed.

As are all beliefs..even the sciency ones.

I'm prepared to flush any or all my beliefs down the toilet with just one shred of evidence to the contrary. Are you? (just asking)

Already have. And with very many shreds of evidence. That's why I believe in ufos and the paranormal now. I used not to, because I never looked at the evidence.

(Nov 22, 2016 09:20 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 22, 2016 08:26 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I'm prepared to flush any or all my beliefs down the toilet with just one shred of evidence to the contrary. Are you? (just asking)

Already have. And with very many shreds of evidence. That's why I believe in ufos and the paranormal now. I used not to, because I never looked at the evidence.

Believing is not factually knowing. If you have indisputable evidence then you shouldn't have to believe. Are you trying to get everyone to share your belief or to accept that your belief is fact? 

At no time have you ever posted genuine irrefutable evidence for your primary belief(paranormal exists). Tells me that like religion, all your proofs are just secondary beliefs, there's nothing we can definitively say proves anything paranormal. I like many others have no other choice but to dispute your paranormal claims. Secretly  I'm hoping some day you might accomplish this, it would set science and our way of life upside down plus we all love surprises.

Quote:Believing is not factually knowing. If you have indisputable evidence then you shouldn't have to believe. Are you trying to get everyone to share your belief or to accept that your belief is fact?

Actually philosophers generally define knowing as "justified true belief." So yes it is believing. Even science is about believing what they tell you.

Quote:At no time have you ever posted genuine irrefutable evidence for your primary belief(paranormal exists).

No evidence is irrefutable. Even a DNA test can be faked or contaminated. Does that mean that evidence is unreliable? No..just because evidence for ufos and the paranormal, or DNA evidence for that matter, can be faked doesn't mean it is therefore unreliable. This is a subtle but crucial distinction most debunkers fail to make.

(Nov 23, 2016 04:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Actually philosophers generally define knowing as "justified true belief." So yes it is believing. Even science is about believing what they tell you.

Aside from the fact that knowledge requires that the belief be both justified and true, the Gettier problem illustrates that what may seem justified and be true may not be knowledge. I grant that the paranormal may exist, I am a theist after all, but even if it does, it coincidentally being true and having a faulty justification does not make it knowledge. For example, all paranormal activity could equally be justified as the work of real magic (telepathy, illusion, etc.). You can cite the "evidence" and it could be true that the paranormal exists, but since the cause ultimately is not the aliens,ghosts,etc. purported, the belief does not count as knowledge.

Knowledge is also falsifiable. Would anything dissuade you of your belief? And can you distinguish "real" from hoax without having to rely solely on what someone tells you?

You don't seem to know the difference between an appeal to authority and widely replicable fact...a product of your anti-science scoffing.

Quote:No evidence is irrefutable. Even a DNA test can be faked or contaminated. Does that mean that evidence is unreliable? No..just because evidence for ufos and the paranormal, or DNA evidence for that matter, can be faked doesn't mean it is therefore unreliable. This is a subtle but crucial distinction most debunkers fail to make.

Wrong. The evidence that the earth is round is irrefutable. We can consistently replicate the results of DNA evidence to verify them. Being replicable is what makes them reliable. The fact that we cannot readily determine if paranormal evidence is faked makes it unreliable.

Quote:The evidence that the earth is round is irrefutable. We can consistently replicate the results of DNA evidence to verify them. Being replicable is what makes them reliable. The fact that we cannot readily determine if paranormal evidence is faked makes it unreliable.

Nope. Someone could always be fabricating the evidence. Even repeated results can be fabricated. Hence no evidence is irrefutable. There is always a possibilty of fabricating it in each case. And yet we still rely on the evidence. Funny how that works isn't it?

(Nov 23, 2016 06:39 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:The evidence that the earth is round is irrefutable. We can consistently replicate the results of DNA evidence to verify them. Being replicable is what makes them reliable. The fact that we cannot readily determine if paranormal evidence is faked makes it unreliable.

Nope. Someone could always be fabricating the evidence. Even repeated results can be fabricated. Hence no evidence is irrefutable. There is always a possibilty of fabricating it in each case. And yet we still rely on the evidence. Funny how that works isn't it?

Fabricating the evidence that the earth is round? Okay little buddy, sure. Repeated false results by different labs would have to involve a conspiracy. Multiple labs who don't have any motive would have to conspire to effect someone they don't know. You have to believe the preposterous to doubt actual, reliable evidence. But then, what you deem evidence is usually preposterous.

Quote:Repeated false results by different labs would have to involve a conspiracy. Multiple labs who don't have any motive would have to conspire to effect someone they don't know. You have to believe the preposterous to doubt actual, reliable evidence. But then, what you deem evidence is usually preposterous

Bingo! So now you see the absurdity of dismissing all the evidence for ufos and the paranormal as conspiratorial fabrications just to deceive people for the hell of it.

(Nov 23, 2016 07:28 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Repeated false results by different labs would have to involve a conspiracy. Multiple labs who don't have any motive would have to conspire to effect someone they don't know. You have to believe the preposterous to doubt actual, reliable evidence. But then, what you deem evidence is usually preposterous

Bingo! So now you see the absurdity of dismissing all the evidence for ufos and the paranormal as conspiratorial fabrications just to deceive people for the hell of it.

LOL. I never claimed they were "conspiratorial fabrications".

Did you miss the questions I asked, or would the answers just be to inconvenient to the belief you desperately cling? Would anything dissuade you of your belief? And can you distinguish "real" from hoax without having to rely solely on what someone tells you?