Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[George-ananda]

Yes, but "common sense" is merely unjustifiable prejudice. It was "common sense" that blacks were less intelligent than whites. It was "common sense" that women could not do math and work in the sciences.

'Common sense' is more often than not shown to be correct in the end too. Correctness depends on the quality of our reasoning skills.

Without our overall more helpful than not reasoning ability, how could mankind have survived? If we could make only 'unjustified prejudices' we would be extinct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'Common sense' is more often than not shown to be correct in the end too. Correctness depends on the quality of our reasoning skills.

Without our overall more helpful than not reasoning ability, how could mankind have survived? If we could make only 'unjustified prejudices' we would be extinct.

It is correct some time, But when no evidence is found to support it common sense has a terrible win/loss ratio.

 

[George-ananda]

It is correct some time, But when no evidence is found to support it common sense has a terrible win/loss ratio.

?? I am basing my analysis on the evidence. You are not understanding the word 'evidence' in common reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

?? I am basing my analysis on the evidence. You are not understanding the word 'evidence' in common reasoning.

Anecdotes are not reliable evidence at all. I asked for some a long time ago and all that was supplied was a list of anecdotes. Do you have anything else?

 

[George-ananda]

Anecdotes are not reliable evidence at all. I asked for some a long time ago and all that was supplied was a list of anecdotes. Do you have anything else?

There are investigative and experimental evidence too but no use presenting that to a determined non-believer.

As I said, for me there is ten times over enough evidence for my belief in the paranormal. Our individual beliefs are what matter to each of us. You have not provided sufficient evidence against a mountain of anecdotal evidence (not to mention the investigative and experimental evidence).

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are investigative and experimental evidence too but no use presenting that to a determined non-believer.

As I said, for me there is ten times over enough evidence for my belief in the paranormal. Our individual beliefs are what matter to each of us. You have not provided sufficient evidence against a mountain of anecdotal evidence (not to mention the investigative and experimental evidence).

The problem is that there is no real evidence. Gullible people can be convinced of bogus claims all of the time. I have merely asked for reliable evidence. All you have provided are anecdotes and that is not reliable evidence. And please don't make any false implications about me. I would happily believe if you had some actual evidence and not mere anecdote.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that there is no real evidence. Gullible people can be convinced of bogus claims all of the time. I have merely asked for reliable evidence. All you have provided are anecdotes and that is not reliable evidence. And please don't make any false implications about me. I would happily believe if you had some actual evidence and not mere anecdote.

I believe a successful argument can be made from just the quantity, quality and consistency of the mountain of anecdotal evidence. That becomes a judgment call for each of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe a successful argument can be made from just the quantity, quality and consistency of the mountain of anecdotal evidence. That becomes a judgment call for each of us.

Nope, all it shows is that there are a lot of people with wishful thinking. Nothing more.

 

[George-ananda]

Nope, all it shows is that there are a lot of people with wishful thinking. Nothing more.

In my case, I feel it is way beyond 'wishful' thinking (a passive-aggressive put-down term) but rather objectively determined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In my case, I feel it is way beyond 'wishful' thinking (a passive-aggressive put-down term) but rather objectively determined.

It is merely an accurate assessment. No put down, nothing passive aggressive about it.

ETA: Instead of posting excuse perhaps it would be wiser to see if there is any reliable evidence at all for your beliefs. From my experience there is not any. As one looks more closely at the phenomena the supernatural "evidence" seems to disappear.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In my case, I feel it is way beyond 'wishful' thinking (a passive-aggressive put-down term) but rather objectively determined.

The pertinent question is; how? At what point does anecdotal testimony become an objective determination? How many people are required to agree on a particular thing in order for it to become fact?

 

[Polymath257]

I believe a successful argument can be made from just the quantity, quality and consistency of the mountain of anecdotal evidence. That becomes a judgment call for each of us.

Consistent anecdotal evidence shows there may be something to investigate further. It certainly isn't enough to establish truth on its own. If subsequent investigation finds nothing, the anecdotes can be dismissed.

For example, there are many anecdotal observations of the Loch Ness monster, or Big Foot, or of UFOs. That doesn't mean such things exist, but rather that people can be easily fooled.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Consistent anecdotal evidence shows there may be something to investigate further. It certainly isn't enough to establish truth on its own. If subsequent investigation finds nothing, the anecdotes can be dismissed.

For example, there are many anecdotal observations of the Loch Ness monster, or Big Foot, or of UFOs. That doesn't mean such things exist, but rather that people can be easily fooled.

This is an important point. The biggest problem with anecdotal evidence is that all an anecdote is is a record of a specific phenomenon, it is not and can not be an explanation of a phenomenon, so anecdotes cannot ever be sufficient evidence for the explanation of an event. What George-Ananda is doing is using anecdotal evidence as evidence of a given explanation, which is ultimately futile. You need to independently verify a phenomenon in order to successfully posit a cause - you cannot assert a cause simply by virtue of pointing out the phenomenon.

 

[Polymath257]

There are investigative and experimental evidence too but no use presenting that to a determined non-believer.

If it isn't enough to convince a non-believer, it isn't sufficient for the conclusion. How well were these investigations controlled for researcher bias (always a concern, by the way)? Were the statistics correctly computed (more of a problem than most would expect)?

As I said, for me there is ten times over enough evidence for my belief in the paranormal. Our individual beliefs are what matter to each of us. You have not provided sufficient evidence against a mountain of anecdotal evidence (not to mention the investigative and experimental evidence).

Perhaps not for a personal belief. But is it enough to establish the phenomenon as real scientifically? No.

Which is a shame: it would be cool to have a whole new area to study and figure out the physics for.

 

[SkepticThinker]

yes there is a reason that the vast majority of countries with any tradition of fair trials, use citizen juries instead of a panel of 'experts' (government appointed lawyers) to pass judgement on important cases

When determining truth, an unbiased layperson beats a biased expert any day- and the history of science has borne this out also

Yeah? How about that OJ trial? George Zimmerman?

 

[George-ananda]

The pertinent question is; how? At what point does anecdotal testimony become an objective determination? How many people are required to agree on a particular thing in order for it to become fact?

It is not algorithmic but a personal judgment each of us must make. I consider all the anecdotal, investigative and experimental data and listen to the argumentation from all sides and form my belief through reasoning as to what is most likely going on with all this.

 

[George-ananda]

As one looks more closely at the phenomena the supernatural "evidence" seems to disappear.

And the more I look the existence of the so-called paranormal becomes overwhelming to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt.

I know the futility of a believer and a non-believer debating the actual evidence. We each must judge for ourselves in the end. If we disagree, so be it.

 

[George-ananda]

Consistent anecdotal evidence shows there may be something to investigate further. It certainly isn't enough to establish truth on its own. If subsequent investigation finds nothing, the anecdotes can be dismissed.

Physical science I agree should remain agnostic on these issues. But I have seen enough to convince me of the limitations of science at this point in history and reject the position of scientism. I consider all the evidence and argumentation from all sides and form my own judgment as to what I reason is going on with all this.

For example, there are many anecdotal observations of the Loch Ness monster, or Big Foot, or of UFOs. That doesn't mean such things exist, but rather that people can be easily fooled.

I think people can be easily fooled sometimes but also sometimes extremely accurate too. We must look at the big picture that considers evidence and argumentation from all sides and form our own judgment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the more I look the existence of the so-called paranormal becomes overwhelming to the point of being beyond reasonable doubt.

I know the futility of a believer and a non-believer debating the actual evidence. We each must judge for ourselves in the end. If we disagree, so be it.

If that was the case one would think that one could find some reliable evidence to back up that claim.

Where is the evidence that supports belief in woo woo?

 

[George-ananda]

If it isn't enough to convince a non-believer, it isn't sufficient for the conclusion. How well were these investigations controlled for researcher bias (always a concern, by the way)? Were the statistics correctly computed (more of a problem than most would expect)?

So we can't form a conclusion on a round earth because non-believers aren't convinced. I go a step further and consider the quality of the non-believers arguments. I believe psi abilities have been statistically proved for example despite non-believers. And I believe the earth is round despite non-believers.

Which is a shame: it would be cool to have a whole new area to study and figure out the physics for.

The paranormal IS part of science that can be studied in the future.