Originally posted by KellyJayBut they work so well, don't you think.
Actually that was also my point as well and had you not injected your
mind reading abilities into this I think you would have seen it too.
Kelly
Actually, what you say makes no sense at all. My point was to discredit you. Is that what you were saying? You were attempting to discredit yourself?
Originally posted by amannionYour point was to discredit me, belittle and so on. I'll leave that type
But they work so well, don't you think.
Actually, what you say makes no sense at all. My point was to discredit you. Is that what you were saying? You were attempting to discredit yourself?
of behavior to you. With respect to evidence you cannot get past your
views about me I guess to just carry on a conversation.
My point was and is there needs to be some understanding, some
reason to accept anything as evidence, or reject anything as evidence.
If you have little or no grasp about a topic evidence good or bad can
be meaningless to you.
If you do not recognize certain symbols as letters, words could be right
in front of you and you could miss it completely.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd indeed we have such an understanding; we have such a reason to accept or reject evidence - as I've pointed out.
Your point was to discredit me, belittle and so on. I'll leave that type
of behavior to you. With respect to evidence you cannot get past your
views about me I guess to just carry on a conversation.
My point was and is there needs to be some understanding, some
reason to accept anything as evidence, or reject anything as evidence.
If you have little ...[text shortened]... bols as letters, words could be right
in front of you and you could miss it completely.
Kelly
We have science?
What's your response to that?
Oh wait, I know, it'll be something like 'oh yeah, but science isn't everything, there's also religious viewpoints ....blah blah blah'
Originally posted by amannionWhat do you have, science?
And indeed we have such an understanding; we have such a reason to accept or reject evidence - as I've pointed out.
We have science?
What's your response to that?
Oh wait, I know, it'll be something like 'oh yeah, but science isn't everything, there's also religious viewpoints ....blah blah blah'
Science isn't like a car you can own and direct, science also does not
separate the people who are involved from the subject they study
either. Saying you have science does not address the points I brought
up, are you trying to avoid something here?
I'm all for science, and I do not think there is anything you can write
here that suggests science some how makes the points I made about
having to understand a subject to know what to look for, with respect
to evidence good or bad meaningful. You may as well say, "God did
it" as say "we have science" if that is all your going to add to the
discussion why say anything at all?
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by doodinthemoodSorry, did not mean to ignore your post.
I'm going to need an example of "evidence you don't understand" thingummy, because I cannot think of any given case where scientific analysis doesn't yield a sufficient conclusion where evidence is concerned.
I didn't say evidence I didn't understand, I said subject we do not
understand! Different point, completely! I have to have a grasp of
what I trying to find to know what it is I need to look for, if it were
an animal and I saw foot prints if I didn't know the type of feet
the creature in question had, it does not matter if I see foot prints
that I do not recognize it does not mean that I'm seeing evidence
for the creature I wanted to find. While at the same time I could
standing where a herd of the particular creature passed through and
if I didn’t know what to look for I could miss the evidence completely.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou must not just look at evidence in isolation. You must also look at alternative explanations. The scientific way is to accept the most parsimonious explanation even when there are multiple possible causes for the evidence at hand. Also one must look at just how clearly the evidence points at the explanation. For example, if we had a look in a persons stomach and found remains of a given type of food, we would parsimoniously conclude that they ate it. It is not however the only explanation but certainly the most parsimonious and certainly far more likely than any other explanation. However, if we find dirty dishes in his house with remains of food, then we can be far less sure about whether or not he ate the food or whether somebody else did. We would still possibly say that the most parsimonious explanation is that he ate the food, but we would leave some amount of doubt in the statement.
Evidence is a funny thing, for example evidence for seeing what
someone ate last night could be found in a number of places, I'll
leave it up to you to list a couple if you feel the need to. The
evidence will be some sort of sign or foot print left behind that
many will agree upon, we know if you ate this or that we
could or would find this or that her ...[text shortened]... ou’ve never experienced would you know evidence if it were to
be right in front of you?
Kelly