Chance vs Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

Not seeing how your comment follows from what you quoted from me.

Good day.

That is because you are not using critical thinking. You are only going by what you want to believe. If you really believed then you would not be afraid to test your ideas.

Do you understand that? A person that truly believed would not be afraid to test one's ideas because that should show that you are right. And if by some small chance you fail then it also saves you from wasting your time on frivolous ideas.

You almost sound as if you are insulted. You should not be insulted by logically drawn conclusions. That is another indication that one knows that one is wrong.

 

[George-ananda]

That is because you are not using critical thinking. You are only going by what you want to believe. If you really believed then you would not be afraid to test your ideas.

Do you understand that? A person that truly believed would not be afraid to test one's ideas because that should show that you are right. And if by some small chance you fail then it also saves you from wasting your time on frivolous ideas.

You almost sound as if you are insulted. You should not be insulted by logically drawn conclusions. That is another indication that one knows that one is wrong.

It almost reads like you may be confusing me with another poster??? Those are not things I would ever say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anecdotal evidence is evidence for consideration in the court of an 'all things considered' judgment. For example a court will consider (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing) witnesses descriptions of conversations that were not recorded. I am fully on-board with giving paranormal claims the best skeptical analysis possible.

No, it is not even at the level of hearsay. And hearsay is not allowed in courts.

If we want to go on the tangent of Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) I agree with your methodology to separate pareidolia from real EVP. However, in my time I have heard some Class A EVP meaning something everyone hears the same independently. This influences my opinion on the genuineness of the phenomena. Most EVP is not Class A though.

I doubt if that is true. In fact if you were told ahead of time that it was "EVP" your perception was already biased. One has to eliminate all bias if one wants a valid test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It almost reads like you may be confusing me with another poster??? Those are not things I would ever say.

No, you stopped reasoning rationally in post #98 where you said this:

"There we disagree. If someone presents an understanding of reality that much better fits the data than another paradigm, I am going to call the former 'more reasonable'."

I then explained why that was irrational reasoning and also told you that possible consequences of it . You appeared to resent that.

 

[George-ananda]

No, you stopped reasoning rationally in post #98 where you said this:

"There we disagree. If someone presents an understanding of reality that much better fits the data than another paradigm, I am going to call the former 'more reasonable'."

I then explained why that was irrational reasoning and also told you that possible consequences of it . You appeared to resent that.

Are you sure you’re not misunderstanding that paragraph you quoted. Read that I’m following the paradigm that makes best sense of reality and the facts. Maybe my wording wasn’t clear.

 

[George-ananda]

No, it is not even at the level of hearsay. And hearsay is not allowed in courts.



I doubt if that is true. In fact if you were told ahead of time that it was "EVP" your perception was already biased. One has to eliminate all bias if one wants a valid test.

Sworn testimony is commonly used in court. What are you talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sworn testimony is commonly used in court. What are you talking about?

Sworn testimony is not anecdotes. The person has to have actually seen what they are under oath for. And that is the weakest sort of evidence allowed in a court.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well thankfully I don't make that mistake as shown in your pixie example.

I start with the materialist worldview as the base and ask with alleged paranormal phenomena if it can all be satisfactorily explained with the straightforward materialist paradigm. If not, then what are the frameworks proposed by those alleging clairvoyant insight into a greater reality and wisdom traditions based off such (alleged) masters. And how does their understanding make sense of paranormal things versus other models of reality. And further and further into such considerations is how I employ reason here.

Now, that is why I call 'reason' my approach and not 'faith'.

So your "reason" is based on arguments from ignorance (="science can't explain it") and assumed faith-based conclusions (="the paranormal exists").

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually we agree there. I am suggesting things like etheric and astral realms are part of the naturalist paradigm that we cannot directly detect with our physical three-dimensional senses and instruments

There's your faith-based premise right there.
Those are your version of the undetectable pixies.

Well, I consider Randi a dishonest showman

So do all the con-men he exposed.

But anyway, let's say 99% of the paranormal events happen unpredictably to people.

Why? Why would we say that?
Why would we even assume they actually happen at all, "unpredictably" or otherwise?

How does science study anecdotal evidence? The inability to study after the event in a controlled environment does not mean the event didn't happen.

That's a blatant shift of the burden of proof.
The question is not if it did NOT happen. The question is if it DID happen.

You seem to be insinuating that we should just assume claims are true until they are proven wrong.

If that's the case, we should all believe that people are abducted by aliens, that bigfoot is real, that the loch ness monster exists and that pixies make my grass grow.

And that Tom Cruise is an Operating Thetan.

It becomes a matter of reasoned opinion on if there is something in need of further explanation at all. I believe there clearly is beyond reasonable doubt. And that's why I have taken the next step.

IOW: you believe on faith, regardless of actual evidence.

So just like I said, you start with faith based premises and then use reason to come to your assumed conclusion. aka, faith-based reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would be true if I was claiming proof. But I am just claiming 'the most reasonable (IMO) theoretical framework out there'.

Simply assuming things are real because they haven't been proven false, is not reasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sworn testimony is commonly used in court.

Yes.

Innocence Project - Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!


Just about every person that was wrongfully convicted, was wrongfully convicted based on such "testimony". It is the worst kind of evidence.

People lie, make mistakes, misremember, are biased, etc etc etc

There's a million reasons of how mere "testimony" can lead you to false answers.
The fact of the matter is that "testimony" are in fact just claims.

If you hold testimony in such high esteem, does that then mean that you believe in things like bigfoot, sasquatch, loch ness monster, alien abduction,...etc?

After all, sincere and honest people "testify" to such things and they have never been proven wrong.

 

[Audie]

So your "reason" is based on arguments from ignorance (="science can't explain it") and assumed faith-based conclusions (="the paranormal exists").

Hey, without fallacies there's no woo woo.
Is that really fair?

 

[Audie]

Yes.

Innocence Project - Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!


Just about every person that was wrongfully convicted, was wrongfully convicted based on such "testimony". It is the worst kind of evidence.

People lie, make mistakes, misremember, are biased, etc etc etc

There's a million reasons of how mere "testimony" can lead you to false answers.
The fact of the matter is that "testimony" are in fact just claims.

If you hold testimony in such high esteem, does that then mean that you believe in things like bigfoot, sasquatch, loch ness monster, alien abduction,...etc?

After all, sincere and honest people "testify" to such things and they have never been proven wrong.

Sworn testimony has to be credible and
have some sort of confirmation.
The woo woo people only have words.

 

[George-ananda]

So your "reason" is based on arguments from ignorance (="science can't explain it") and assumed faith-based conclusions (="the paranormal exists").

The error in your analysis is that i am not assuming faith-based conclusions. I am considering their explanatory power versus reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The error in your analysis is that i am not assuming faith-based conclusions. I am considering their explanatory power versus reality.

Really? I cannot remember any of your posts doing that. In what specific post did you do this?

 

[George-ananda]

Simply assuming things are real because they haven't been proven false, is not reasonable.

I agree, That's why I only consider things (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing).

How many times must I repeat myself.

'Assuming things are real because they haven't been proven false', you say???? How illogical is that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, That's why I only consider things (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly dismissing).

How many times must I repeat myself.

'Assuming things are real because they haven't been proven false', you say???? How illogical is that.

Your claim is refuted by your acceptance of woo woo.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes.

Innocence Project - Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!


Just about every person that was wrongfully convicted, was wrongfully convicted based on such "testimony". It is the worst kind of evidence.

People lie, make mistakes, misremember, are biased, etc etc etc

There's a million reasons of how mere "testimony" can lead you to false answers.
The fact of the matter is that "testimony" are in fact just claims.

If you hold testimony in such high esteem, does that then mean that you believe in things like bigfoot, sasquatch, loch ness monster, alien abduction,...etc?

After all, sincere and honest people "testify" to such things and they have never been proven wrong.

?? How does considering testimony go to 'blind acceptance' from anything I've said?

You're flying off the tracks in desperation.

 

[George-ananda]

Really? I cannot remember any of your posts doing that. In what specific post did you do this?

What? You're making the claim about me, right?

Show where I assumed a faith-based conclusion for the tenth time.

 

[George-ananda]

woo woo.

Now you're getting childish.