Date: July 27, 2015 11:39PM
> You are presuming that your personal definition of
> 'evidence' is the only valid definition. You
> should qualify your statement with 'According to
> the only definition of evidence I am willing to
> accept ...'
I make no such presumption. Claimed "evidence" that has problems (such as being based on fallacy) isn't evidence. It's pretty simple. It's only when people who WANT such things to be evidence won't admit the problems with them that there's any issue.
> By accepting ONLY your own definition of
> 'evidence', you leap to the conclusion that
> explanations based on anyone else's concept of
> 'evidence' are just made up from nothing and
> therefore beyond 'plausible'.
Your premise is false, and your conclusion doesn't follow from it anyway.
> You are invalidating
> opinions of others from your self-appointed throne
> as "Master Keeper of the Dictionary".
Now you're adding ad-hominem fallacies -- it's going downhill fast.
I'll point out that opinions aren't facts, anybody can have any opinion they want to. I *can't* "invalidate" them.
> By defining
> the words of others differently than how those
> words are intended, you get to invalidate all
> conclusions that do not coincide with your own.
Yes, the typical response when someone points out that outrageous claims without any evidence to support them are just that -- get angry, call names, act insulted. And don't address the claimed evidence or any of its problems.
> is your right to disagree, but I see your
> rationale for disagreement as fundamentally
You can see whatever you want -- you've used nothing but fallacious arguments. So what basis do you have for "seeing" that?
> Once again, you are defining opinions different
> than your own as 'irrational' by implying that any
> opinions based on soft evidence are not rational.
> You definition of 'evidence of any kind' excludes
> soft evidence.
And yet, in case you didn't notice, I never said "irrational." I pointed out there isn't "soft evidence," a made-up term for people who want things that aren't evidence to be evidence. Never said anything about opinions, either. Nice straw-man -- the fallacy fest continues.
> You are presuming that we are so advanced that our
> box now contains everything that exists, that is
Read it again. It says no such thing.
> I claim that you have 'found your toes', and
> that's a good start.
If "the box" is my body, and I've found my toes, "the box" still includes my body even if I haven't found the rest of it yet. Get the point?
You, on the other hand, claimed that "the box" is tight and confining and unable to hold the universe. A claim which, of course, you have no evidence for.
> What would you rate as your own Humility Index ...
> 0-100? In other words, what inverse percentage of
> everything there is to know do you consider that
> you now already know?
I have no way of knowing how much of everything there is to know I already know, since nobody knows how much of everything there is to know. Making up a number, lacking knowledge, would be worthless and rather silly. I know what can be demonstrated, I don't know what can't (and neither does anyone else), and none of us know how much there is to know. Surely it's a lot. Incidentally, it's not at all "humble" to PRETEND to know things that aren't known -- in fact, it's dishonestly arrogant. Which is what people like Newton do. I honestly say, I don't know, I don't pretend fallacies are evidence, make up "comforting" stuff, and con people out of money to read about it.
> If you would 'like it' if we survive death as
> non-physical entities, then why don't you consider
> that the evidence for such a concept might also be
> non-physical aka soft?
Why should I pretend fallacious made-up stuff is evidence just because I might "like" it? That's not honest. And it doesn't lead to knowledge -- it leads to believing stuff that isn't known and doesn't have any evidence for it.
> I have not met any ET beings personally, but if
> you look with a sincere heart...
Hearts are organs that pump blood. The long-help ignorant superstition that they are the source of thoughts, knowledge, and even feelings was proven false a very long time ago.
>, with real intent,
> having a desire to find whatever you find, there
> are lots of other humans out there who claim to
> have had contact with ETs.
Have you noticed how your intro to that sounded almost *exactly* like the "book of mormon challenge?" Seriously.
Yes, there are people who claim to have had contact with ETs. Is there any evidence to back up their claims? No. Are their claims consistent with what is known, by evidence, about the universe? No. So there's no reason to "believe" them. And since their claims have at least (if not more) likelihood of being hallucinations, mistaken perception, imagination, or outright fraud as being "true," they're not "evidence" of visits from ETs.
> You are free throw out
> all of the bathwater without even checking. Sure,
> there are lots of frauds and hoaxes out there, and
> genuine videos of weird shit in the sky.
You've pointed out the biggest, most fundamental fallacy of all such (in your words) "soft" evidence.
And that is that even IF it's "genuine" and not fraudulent, it always comes down to "I can't personally explain this." If it stopped there, it would be an honest statement. It doesn't stop there -- it goes on to, "So it must be ETs." No, it mustn't. That's an argument from ignorance.
Have an "experience" during surgery while unconscious you can't explain? It must be "the afterlife" (no, it mustn't). See what you perceive as a ghost? It must be a disembodied spirit (no, it mustn't). And on and on. Replacing "I don't know what this is" with "it's this." That's why your "soft evidence" isn't evidence at all -- it's fallacy.
> You get
> to decide whether to take a serious look, or
> presume your foregone conclusion is correct and
> not investigate.
It's arrogant to presume I *haven't* "taken a serious look." I have -- the claims are unsupportable. Many of them are demonstrably fraudulent. The few that aren't are simply "unexplainable" -- which means they're unexplained, not aliens.
> Just google 'UFO videos' and spent a half hour
> watching with a mind that's not welded shut. Lots
> of it is BS. You get to decide that ALL of it is
It's not having a mind "welded shut" to think reasonably and rationally, and discard fallacious nonsense. I'm open to ANY actual evidence. There just isn't any. That doesn't mean there AREN'T aliens out there, or visiting earth -- it does mean there's no evidence of either.
> If you've seen the Kepler Telescope data on the
> number of Earth-zone planets recently discovered,
> and factor that by the numbers of stars per
> galaxy, number of galaxies, etc., the numbers get
> ridiculous on how many Earth-like planets that
> could support life as we know it are out there. To
> seriously believe that we are the only
> 'intelligent' planet feels like mathematical
> illiteracy to me.
There no "belief." We do not as yet have any evidence that there is life of any kind on any of those planets. So to "believe" there is, is not supportable. Once again, you're taking "we don't know" and turning it into, "yes, we do, and it's this." That's worthless fallacy. You don't know there's life out there. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else. When and if we have evidence there is, then we can say there is. Until then, we can't -- at least not honestly.
> I won't play my 'your definition of evidence
> determines your conclusions' broken record again.
Good thing, because you blew it the first time.
> So do you believe MN does not believe what he
I don't care what he does or doesn't "believe." Evidence doesn't back it up. His stuff is full of "comforting" fallacy, not facts or evidence.
> That he is an intentional deceiver? Or do
> you believe that MN is honest, but that his 7,000+
> subjects were making stuff up and deceived MN?
I don't know or care if he's intentionally deceiving or not. I don't care if his subjects are intentionally deceiving or not. Those are irrelevant to facts. Facts aren't decided by, "Gee, do I trust what this guy says or not?"
They're decided by evidence. None supporting his conclusions is available. If YOU will bother to read some of the honest criticism of his "subjects" and his "studies," you can learn why his claimed evidence isn't evidence.
> With your definition of 'evidence' you get to
> ignore all reports of subjective experience as BS.
You're making another common mistake: pointing out that evidence doesn't support a claim doesn't mean you're calling the claim false.
But "subjective experiences" aren't evidence. Evidence can be verified, tested, repeated. If not that, at least it should be conclusive. Is a "subjective experience" a (for example) real supernatural "vision" of an afterlife, is it a dream, is it an hallucination, is it mistaken perception, is it chemical imbalance in the brain, or any number of other possible things? We don't know. Not even the person who has the "experience" knows. It's another case of "I can't explain this," yet then giving only one explanation. "I don't know" is honest. Try it.
> I respect your right to do that. What I am trying
> to point out is that you are rigging your own
> investigation by pre-determining what limited data
> you will allow to be admitted as evidence - and it
> includes only data that agrees with your foregone
You've done a poor job of it. And by the way, I have no "foregone conclusions." In fact, it's the ones who "believe" claims without evidence that have "foregone conclusions," without evidence to support them. Provide some evidence of aliens and afterlives, and I'll accept them. Gladly. I just won't accept them without evidence, as you do.
> That is also your right, however your inference
> that you stand on some kind of 'solid rock of
> absolute reality'
Another straw-man. Sigh.
> Confirmation Bias is natural for all of us humans,
> and it's a tall challenge to detect and neutralize
> one's very own, dearly cherished
> 'my-favorite-color colored glasses'.
Yes, it is. Which is why the scientific method and how it uses evidence are so useful, because it has methods to overcome human biases of many kinds. You should try it sometime.