- #36
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,142
- 1,755
.Originally posted by Yahweh
You have inadvertantly created a strawman. The underlined part is the strawman.
If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there
I clarified that this references on demand, repeatable ESP. This is a far cry from random, transient events. Are you saying there is no difference? It could well be that we have no evidence for genuine ESP because we have never conceived of a good test. We have anecdotal evidence. Your argument assumes that ESP does not exist, therefore no evidence can ever be had for transient, random events. Your conclusion that mine is a strawman is without any basis. I am not aware of any effort to test for random, transient, ESP events. For example, perhaps one day the lie detector technology, or even advanced brain imaging techology will be made so accurate that such claims can be better evaluated with a high degree of certainty.
One must be careful not to confuse a lack of creativity with someone elses potential strawman.
One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but where no scientfic tests are yet possible. I don't call people liars because I can't think of a test.
There are a few different ways people try to get around this:
1. You scientists are too narrow-minded
2. You scientists know you're wrong, you just won't admit it
3. You scientists wouldn't accept evidence even if it was shoved in your face
4. There is no evidence that would satisfy you scientists.
5. [Insert Conspiracy Theory Here]
6. Science hasnt come far enough to prove such-and-such
7. Science can't explain everything
Funny, I never said any of these things, except that the last could be true. Certainly we don't have a complete theory by which we may gauge what is and is not possible beyond any doubt.
The rest of your reasoning excludes human experience completely. This may be fine for formal definitions, but that's all. It may have no practical value beyond that formalism.
Prove to a blind person that color exists.
[qutoe]String Theory has a bit more credibility (i.e. Math and generally accepted laws to back it up), its not comparable to that of the paranormal. Dont try to put String Theory in the same boat with metaphysics.[/quote]
Until it can be tested, or at least offer the promise of such, its Philosophy; by definition.
At least one well known physicist has declared String Theory "forever safe".
Its Philosophy!
Pseudoscience is not a method. Pseudoscience is a word that means "theory or facts put down as scientific when they are clearly not scientific".
well, actually it is this:
noun: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions
Claimed personal experiences are not pseudoscience; nor is the investigation of such claims. Your statements have no bearing on mine.
Last edited: