i agree that believers in superstition dont exclude emotion but it is not"evidence".
the reason we do double blind studies is to exclude emotion from evidence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
there are sick bastards in canada too.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
i agree that believers in superstition dont exclude emotion but it is not"evidence".
the reason we do double blind studies is to exclude emotion from evidence.
Quote from Ricter:
Stu, your difficulty is that you, a prisoner of your worldview, must exclude emotional evidence, but most people do not. Science cannot meet all human needs. If it could we would not be having this debate.
Don't you see the problem in saying I'm a prisoner of my worldview, whilst you make your own wordlview apparent?
When have I ever said science should meet all human needs? How do you possibly know what I think about the value in emotional evidence. Don't you think you might be a prisoner in your own broad- brush-putting -words-in-peoples-mouths- wordview?
However, human needs are not best met, as must be abundantly clear by now surely, from reaching hysterical conclusions driven by emotional fantasy.Especially religious fantasy.
It doesn't even sound like a plan anymore.
Quote from stu:
Don't you see the problem in saying I'm a prisoner of my worldview, whilst you make your own wordlview apparent?
I guess one could say another is a prisoner of existentialism, though from that point of view all directives are recognized as merely arbitrary, so it's hard to imagine any compulsion...
Quote from Ricter:
Who defined "evidence", Science? See the problem there?
The scientific method is merely a formal methodology concerning how to apply reason. The scientific method works something like this:
1. Collect data by observation and/or experimentation.
2. Form a hypothesis about that.
3. Test it.
4. Predict.
5. See if your prediction pans out and can be repeated under peer review.
if it pans out it is evidence.
Quote from Free Thinker:
The scientific method is merely a formal methodology concerning how to apply reason. The scientific method works something like this:
1. Collect data by observation and/or experimentation.
2. Form a hypothesis about that.
3. Test it.
4. Predict.
5. See if your prediction pans out.
if it pans out it is evidence.
Who says the scientific method is the one true way of experiencing reality?
Quote from Ricter:
Who says the scientific method is the one true way of experiencing reality?
if you want to define reality without evidence you are left with faith. if faith is your only guide you run into the same problem religion has:
If âfaithâ is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for âfaithâ in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require âfaithâ in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the âfaithâ itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions(versions of reality) are true, being they all rely on the âfaithâ of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown
Quote from Free Thinker:
if you want to define reality without evidence you are left with faith...
Really? If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove (like a toothache), are they 1) necessarily lying, 2) merely having faith that they have the feeling or 3) are they actually having that feeling?
That's why you can't make the other side go away, they keep having the feeling.
Quote from Free Thinker:
animals are better than people in many ways. if i were on a sinking ship and i had to choose between saving my golden retriever and some of the redneck,chain smoking,overweight,loudmouth,bible thumping people i run across i would have to save my dog and tell mr redneck sorry buddy, enjoy heaven.
Be nice, I have a few friends who fit that description.