John Platko wrote:Agrippina wrote:John Platko wrote:Agrippina wrote:No. You're claiming that the words "evidence" and "reincarnation" have a secret meaning, or that they are banned or partially-banned. I want you to show where you found this rule, otherwise this thread is over, and you are shown to be misrepresenting the rules of the forum.
I don't remember making a claim that reincarnation had a secret meaning. Can you refresh my memory by supplying a link to me making such a statement?
You said:
I gather you perceive my lucid discourse on the proper use of the words supernatural and evidence and keen observations on how some misuse, abuse, and even wish to redefine such words as some sort of deception...
You're the one saying that we're calling your wanting us to accept your definition of those words, a "deception." We're not doing that. We're merely saying that by twisting the meaning to be one that overrides the generally-accepted meaning of the word "evidence" we're placing some sort of ban on your doing that. Which leads me to believe that you have some other meaning which you aren't able to define without resorting to long quotes from dictionaries, and claims that juries and other officials of court trials accept personal anecdotes and eye witness accounts as valid evidence in court trials, in your opinion, and despite us telling you that this is not the case, you persist in demanding that we should accept personal anecdotes as evidence that reincarnation or some other "supernatural" rubbish exists.
It was establishes early in the thread that, since dictionary compilers are mostly interested in every day [sic] usage of words, which apparently some apologetics used to great advantage, it was/is necessary to develop a rigorous framework with proper definition of terms to use with that framework.
I question your ability to understand how dictionaries work, and how to use them when you don't know the difference between "everyday" and "every day." This is evidence of your failure to grasp basic ideas and definitions: "every day" meaning something that occurs every day, and "everyday" something that is humdrum, usual, normal, and generally accepted. You don't know, or aren't able to consult a dictionary to ensure this difference in meaning, therefore you give the impression, or show evidence that you fail to grasp ordinary everyday meanings of words:
Evidence: That which is used to show the validity of something.
Reincarnation: Rebirth after death, a phenomenon for which there is no evidence.
I cannot see how else these two terms can be defined, and quite frankly, am not interested in seeing copious amounts of dictionaries being thrown at me. Please figure out how to use a spellchecker and an online dictionary before you start quibbling about the meanings of words with me.
To my Catholic way of thinking it seems that we already had a confession on this matter. Here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nontheism/on-the-banning-and-partial-banning-of-words-t45002-20.html#p1992137Dictionary compilers are usually interested in the everyday usage of words. On the other hand, those of us who venture into the arena of discourse, for the purpose of determining the validity or soundness of statements, particularly statements purporting to constitute valid, sound or factual statements about entities and phenomena of interest, are interested in the rigorous usage of words, for the purpose of bringing clarity to concepts, and removing the ambiguities that are unavoidably present in much everyday usage. This is why a good number of us here, faced with the usual apologetics erected in an attempt to pass off assertions as fact, have spent time analysing the concepts involved, and have arrived at a rigorous framework for this purpose. A rigorous framework which includes, of necessity, the construction of proper definitions for terms used within that framework.
I do not have a problem with that statement.
You forgot to add the following:
All too frequently, those who object to this process, do so because they wish to give a free pass to cherished assertions, without the inconvenience of having those assertions subject to test. All too frequently, this is a manifest part of the aetiology of apologetics, and arises due to the fact that again, all too frequently, apologetics consists of erecting convoluted semantic fabrications, as a substitute for genuine evidential support, with which to dazzle the gullible and uneducated, in an attempt to convince that demographic that mere assertions somehow magically constitute established fact. It should be obvious at this juncture, the disdain many here have for apologetics as a consequence, and as a corollary, the reason for the insistence upon proper rules of discourse being adhered to.
Now I simply seek to flush and/or flesh out the documentation of said rigorous framework and proper definitions for terms used within that framework.
I'm particularly interested in what the proper definitions for the words supernatural and evidence are. But perhaps other words have new "proper definitions" too. And I feel a need to know what "ambiguities that are unavoidably present in much every day usage", have been removed.
You have been given ample explanations, and definitions for these words. You happen to choose to ignore those because, according to your loose definition of the word "rules" you merely plough through whatever we say with some snide and condescending comments about homework, or something else you've thought up that your posts show to be without any substance.
By claiming that there are words that are banned, you're suggesting that there is some "rule" defining the use of the words you're trying to get us to accept as having validity, namely "eye-witness testimony" and "reincarnation." You can rest assured that even if this thread goes on ad infinitum, not a single skeptical rationalist is going to accept that these thing are valid. Eye-witness testimony, I shall explain once more, for your edification, is nothing more than the interpretation by someone of what their brain has imagined occurred, and unless verified by substantial impartial evidence, is not worth the breath it takes to report that testimony.
Reincarnation, is simply not true. It is impossible for the brain to revive dead cognitions once it has ceased to function. If you want evidence for this, do some reading up on what happens when people develop amnesia, or brain damage, as a result of trauma. If the brain is at all capable of recalling "past lives" then injured brains would be able to resuscitate previous memories at all times. I can barely remember what I had for dinner yesterday, let alone continue for a few more decades, then die, and after death, go through the process of rebirth, and brain development only to recall that dinner in a previous life. Get this concept into your head and let it go now. Please. (Yes, I know that's a personal anecdote. I could take the time, and make the effort to produce papers on brain damage, I simply can't be bothered because I know you're not interested in having your pet theory debunked).
I hope that clears up any misunderstandings about what I seek.
Have you tried using a magnifying glass?
Edited to fix quotes, and add some punctuation for clarity.
I could not find the link I requested for where I made a claim that reincarnation had a secret meaning in all of that. If it's there please bold and underline it so my tired old eyes can find it.
If it's not there, can you refresh my memory by supplying a link to me which shows that I made such a statement?
Firstly, allow me to thank you for your detailed, and well-thought-out response to my post. I really appreciate how much attention you give to the questions I raise, and how much trouble you take to respond with erudition, consideration, and how much time you take to give thought to what I say.
Allow me further to quote the opening post to this thread, and I shall quote merely a small snippet of your perspicacious observation of the behaviour of the members of this forum:
Therefore, in the interest of tidier discourse I think it worthwhile to compile a list of words, and partial definition of words, that are odious to the mental processes of some members. Such a list may serve as a warning to where the word potholes may be lurking on the forums roads and alleys of discussion.
Further in the thread, as it progressed along the most analytical course I have ever seen in a thread, you bring the following words to our attention, with sufficient definitions, so that their meaning cannot possibly be confused, and I shall give definitions for ease of reference in order to avoid further delays in resolving the claim made in the first post, viz.
t has recently been brought to my attention that some members find some standard definitions of words, or parts of definitions of words, to be unacceptable for use in rational discourse.
Here are the definitions given in the dictionary that accompanied the latest update of my Apple Mac OSX:
Evidence: evidence
noun
1 they found evidence of his participation in the burglary: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for.
2 the court refused to accept Mr Scott's evidence: testimony, statement, sworn statement, attestation, declaration, avowal, plea, submission, claim, contention, charge, allegation; Law deposition, representation, affidavit; rare asseveration, averment.
3 the room showed evidence of a struggle: signs, indications, pointers, marks, traces, suggestions, hints; manifestation.
Reincarnation: reincarnation |ˌriːɪnkɑːˈneɪʃ(ə)n|
noun [ mass noun ]
the rebirth of a soul in another body.
And from Wikipedia:
Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body. This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions.[1] It is also a common belief of various ancient and modern religions such as Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.
Supernatural: supernatural
adjective
1 supernatural powers: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, miraculous, superhuman, supernormal, hypernormal, extramundane; inexplicable, uncanny, unaccountable, unbelievable, non-rational, weird, mysterious, arcane. ANTONYMS natural, normal.
2 stories about a supernatural hound: ghostly, phantom, spectral, magical, mystic, other-worldly, unearthly, unnatural, unreal, mysterious, fabulous; informal spooky.
And further from Wikipedia:
supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD) is that which is not subject to the laws of physics, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature. In philosophy, popular culture and fiction, the supernatural is associated with the paranormal, religions and occultism. It has neoplatonic and medieval scholastic origins.
In my reading of this thread, these appear to be the three words that trouble you the most. I shall therefore deal with them in some depth, hoping that you will respond to this post with reasons for the problems you have with my disquisition:
EvidenceAs may be seen, my dictionary gives three instances of the word, therefore before I continue to work through those, I shall present Wikipedia's explanation:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.
Now, to deal with the three instances in my online dictionary:
1 they found evidence of his participation in the burglary: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; support for, backing for, reinforcement for, grounds for.
Evidence in this instance, refers to the usage of the word with which you appear to be most familiar, as shown in your insistence that courts use this to decide on the guilt or otherwise of an accused.
Remembering that this is a rational/skeptical forum, and not a legal one, and I am not an expert on international law, I am merely able to comment on the situation as it is dealt with in South African courts.
DIRECT EVIDENCE This is the evidence of a person who has experienced something crucially relevant to the case. For example, the testimony of A regarding the murder he saw B committing would be regarded as direct evidence.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE Testimony from A that he heard B telling C that he had seen the accused, D, commit murder would be regarded as hearsay evidence (and, generally, rejected), if B was not in court to be cross-examined. In some cases, however, hearsay evidence will be accepted - for example, if a police officer reports the voluntary confession of the accused.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE If a statement is made to the court from which an inference may be drawn as to the existence or non-existence of a disputed fact, such a statement constitutes circumstantial evidence. For example, testimony from A that he saw B, blood-stained knife in hand, leaving the house in which C was stabbed to death would be regarded as circumstantial evidence that B was the killer. Circumstantial evidence will be accepted only if:
The inference drawn from it is consistent with all the other proved facts;
It is the only reasonable inference in the light of all the facts (in a criminal case);
It is the more plausible conclusion from among several conceivable ones (generally in a civil case).
EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER Because this type of evidence is generally considered to be legally irrelevant, it is inadmissible. In a criminal case, evidence is not normally permitted about an accused's previous convictions until after a verdict of guilty is pronounced. Exceptions may be made if:
The accused asserts that he or she has a good character;
The accused attacks the integrity of the prosecution witnesses; or
The facts in a previous case are so similar to those in the case before the court that it is unlikely to be mere coincidence that the accused was involved in both.
http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=6290631As may be seen from my bolding of parts of the quote from that website, evidence is dealt with under strict rules, and not accepted merely because someone claims that their evidence is valid. Therefore unless you can show that it works otherwise in other courts, your claim that courts accept eye-witness or other evidence, is largely fallacious.
2 the court refused to accept Mr Scott's evidence: testimony, statement, sworn statement, attestation, declaration, avowal, plea, submission, claim, contention, charge, allegation; Law deposition, representation, affidavit; rare asseveration, averment.
3 the room showed evidence of a struggle: signs, indications, pointers, marks, traces, suggestions, hints; manifestation
These two deal with evidence from the point of view of witness evidence, and may be the cause of your confusion about the word, which on this forum is intended to be used in the sense of scientific evidence, which is defined, by Wikipedia as:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Therefore I can only conclude that the problem is not that the word "evidence" is actively forbidden or even partially-forbidden, it is merely that we (i.e. the membership of the forum which does not include you in this case) have a different interpretation of the word. Where you want it to include ALL evidence, the majority of the members of this forum employ the definition as given in this statement by the late Carl Sagan (
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordin ... y_evidence):
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. It is the heart of the scientific method, and a model for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.
The evidence put forth by proponents of such things as gods, ghosts, the paranormal, and UFOs is highly questionable at best and offers little in the way of proof. Even if we accepted what evidence there is as valid (and it is highly debatable if we should), limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims.
I am sure that you cannot disagree that when one makes extraordinary claims, such as those regarding the other two problematic words, i.e. "supernatural" and "reincarnation" (defined above) these are extraordinary claims, and therefore the above does apply in those cases. When one claims that the "supernatural" is above being examined by extraordinary measures, one is making a case of special pleading, and again, I shall cite Wikipedia's definition:
Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
If you would be kind enough to refer to the citation, above, from Calilasseia's post, you will see that he explains that in the case of these two words, they are not forbidden, nor even partially-forbidden, however, they do fall under the application of (my words) the word "woo." (
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo)
Woo is a term used among skeptical writers to describe pseudoscientific explanations that have certain common characteristics.
The term comes from woo-woo, an epithet used in the 1990s by science and skeptical writers to ridicule people who believe or promote such things. This is in turn believed to have come from the onomatopoeia "woooooo!" as a reaction to dimmed lights or magic tricks. The term implies a lack of either intelligence or sincerity on the part of the person or concepts so described.
As a coincidence, the Chinese word "Wū" (巫) means a shaman, usually with magic powers.
Despite the terrible name, it has become quite a popular term. Woo is sometimes synonymous with bullshit, though there are differences. Bullshit is generally just a lie pulled out of wherever, about whatever. Woo is understood specifically as pseudoscience, uses a science-like formula, and attempts to place itself as scientifically, or at least reasonably, supported.
As you are more than sufficiently aware by now, having been a member of this forum for some weeks, you have to know that we do not spend inordinate amounts of time dissecting what woo is and isn't acceptable, but merely discard any claims of the supernatural because as you have pointed out, it cannot be examined by natural means.
What is means is that while we are completely content for you to continue to believe in delusional ideas, and I shall define the word "delusion" for you, for ease of reference:
Delusion
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument
...you cannot expect people who do not share these delusions to agree that any "evidence" which you are able to produce for the verification of the existence of such delusions, i.e. supernatural codswallop (and you can look that one up for yourself), and that this thread therefore has run its course, having had this explained to you ad nauseam
(adverb
used to refer to the fact that something has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome), and that no further discussion is required.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
by 
I'm required to scour the entire forum? 
I must have missed that rule - but I think not.
