Posted: Jul 09, 2014 11:12 am
Soral wrote:
By that logic, you also cannot rule out that every atom in my body suddenly turned to silicon, and I turned into an inanimate glass statue (despite the fact that violates the laws of physics, as the likes of spontaneous human combustion does.)
By what 'logic'? I am not appealing to logic, but to critical assessment of claims. I can 'rule out' your claim by examining the evidence you give me. In this case, I can rule it out because you are typing, and you wouldn't be if you were inanimate glass!
One doesn't need to appeal to prior convictions to address claims - one needs to test them to see if they stand up to critical consideration. This is the difference here: you are appealing to a priori knowledge, whereas each and every one of the reasons you offer for rejecting the notion of spontaneous combustion resides on a posteriori knowledge. Unless you believe we have all possible evidence relating to this phenomenon, how can you be so confident? I just don't understand the confidence element.Soral wrote:As I stated earlier, there is a reason why high fevers are so deadly. That isn't a coincidence - it has basis on fundamental physics. It turns out that complex biological functional macromolecules don't hold up (pun not intended) at high temperatures.
Why are you repeating something which I agreed with?
Soral wrote:I really can't believe how many people believe in such crap. It's like believing the Earth is flat, which is actually less outrageous because it's theoretically possible for a somewhat flat (donut-shaped) planet to exist.
You seem to have overlooked the numerous times where I have stated I hold the same position with you with respect to belief in spontaneous combustion. I can say it again if necessary: I don't find spontaneous combustion remotely plausible.
Instead, I am talking about the problems of 'dismissing out of hand' - not a very sound methodology if one's interest is in ascertaining a decent approximation of reality.