|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Scientific Evidence 2
#18874742 - 09/22/13 05:34 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Many times I have read here and on M&P a statement something like "I have evidence, but not scientific evidence." This generally is in reference to some sort of paranormal claim. Here is the dealio: there is no difference between evidence and scientific evidence.
Another popular one is 'your logic' and 'my logic'. A person does not possess a type of logic nor have a logical style. The conclusions drawn are either are valid or invalid; sound or unsound, based upon the starting assumptions and facts presented. Personality only plays a part in the presentation or discussion, not its veracity.
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
"Many times".
This thread had been closed.
I did a peer reviewed study of it, and found it lamo, from the beginning.
Of course there might have been things I missed, even in the double blind.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Stevie Wonder is a good example of 'double-blind'.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
A distinction I find useful is conclusive evidence versus persuasive evidence. A hearsay testimonial from a witness of an alleged murder is persuasive (motherfucker could be lying), but a clear video recording of the murder may be conclusive. Mathematical proofs? Conclusive. Scientific evidence? Well, if you follow the notion that the scientific approach never 'proves' anything but instead gathers evidence for or against hypotheses, then it follows that scientific evidence is persuasive rather than conclusive. And given that most controversial arguments in this forum are not strictly in the purview of mathematics, nearly all arguments will rely on persuasive evidence.
And what about the standards for evidence? We gonna be tighty righty or loosey goosey? Well, in any case, one side will argue for a narrow, stringent standard ("hearsay about ghosts? Blah, direct recording or GTFO!") and the other side will argue for a broader, more inclusive standard ("man, homeless lady correctly read my mind 1 out of 50 attempts, she be psychic for reals!"). Along with debating definitions, this is pretty much what every debate revolves around. Wee.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
but a clear video recording of the murder may be conclusive.
One would think so. A number of years ago, in a murder trial a woman ran down her husband with her car, backed up and ran over him again. It was all on video. After the spin from the defense attorney, the jury had major difficulty deliberating. Go figure.
--------------------
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 1 month, 14 days
|
|
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Scientific Evidence [Re: andrewss]
#18880476 - 09/23/13 12:50 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Is that more shocking than invading Iraq after 9/11 when not a single terrorist was Iraqi and 85% were Saudi? And nearly everyone swallowing the WMD myth? How about going after Saddam Hussein for the Kurds (and Whey) he killed 25 years earlier when we were allies and didn't give a fuck about some obscure (to us) tribesmen?
There is almost no limit to blindness and gullibility.
--------------------
|
|