Posted: Sep 13, 2012 12:31 pm
I think what we have in this thread is an absolute gem.
An obviously intelligent man has demonstrated for us with absolute clarity how it is possible to be convinced of the supernatural by things that you desire to be regarded as evidence, but which aren't convincing to those who hold them to the same standard as scientific research.
He exibits just like a textbook example all the characteristics of the religious convert, but without the religion. He has bought into a concept, invested in it, to a point where it is extremely difficult for him to see the faulty reasoning he has employed in granting it unwarranted acceptance. The only faults he sees involve lack of acceptance by others, despite providing nothing that qualifies as convincing.
One by one he casts aside all the principles of scientific investigation and gives greater and greater weight to the numerous varieties of logical fallacy, while losing sight of the difference.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.
You can call anecdotes weighty, well documented, or numerous all you want, they remain lacking in the features that would qualify them as evidence. Anecdotes can be a great motivation to go searching for evidence, to explain what they APPEAR to illustrate, but until such evidence is found and tested, there is no explanation that qualifies as a theory rather than a hypothesis.
An obviously intelligent man has demonstrated for us with absolute clarity how it is possible to be convinced of the supernatural by things that you desire to be regarded as evidence, but which aren't convincing to those who hold them to the same standard as scientific research.
He exibits just like a textbook example all the characteristics of the religious convert, but without the religion. He has bought into a concept, invested in it, to a point where it is extremely difficult for him to see the faulty reasoning he has employed in granting it unwarranted acceptance. The only faults he sees involve lack of acceptance by others, despite providing nothing that qualifies as convincing.
One by one he casts aside all the principles of scientific investigation and gives greater and greater weight to the numerous varieties of logical fallacy, while losing sight of the difference.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.
You can call anecdotes weighty, well documented, or numerous all you want, they remain lacking in the features that would qualify them as evidence. Anecdotes can be a great motivation to go searching for evidence, to explain what they APPEAR to illustrate, but until such evidence is found and tested, there is no explanation that qualifies as a theory rather than a hypothesis.