Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Here we have once again. Where is your evidence John? Where is the evidence used John? You are making the claims produce the fucking evidence. You have not done so. Notice?

Remember scientific evidence not waffle.

BlackBart wrote:Remember the flopping out on the table thing?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

How can evidence not be evidence?

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

Link John LINK. Get it. You just cant write things down John.

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

It won't be saved for any scrutiny, as it won't be evidence.

How can evidence not be evidence?

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

John Platko wrote:
We have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that if reincarnation is a supernatural phenomenon then it is inappropriate to expect to use scientific evidence to support it.

John Platko wrote:We have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that if reincarnation is a supernatural phenomenon then it is inappropriate to expect to use scientific evidence to support it. Of course, it's whole different kettle of fish if reincarnation is merely another natural phenomenon. In that case perhaps one day science will resolve the misclassification error.

Note to Paul: notice the request for scientific evidence of reincarnation.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote: On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Who's going to challenge my stance if I don't? A bunch of woo heads? I'm shaking in my shoes. I'm concerned about my relations with people who have evidence for their claims, including claims that they have evidence.

John Platko wrote:
How do you determine if evidence goes lollipopless into the dustbin?

It depends how much I shake in my shoes if a bunch of woo heads are miffed that I don't accept their claims.

No one has any obligation to examine any kind of evidence, unless they're concerned about their relationships with people who rely on evidence rather than on claims that claims of evidence alone are evidence.

John Platko wrote:On what grounds do you reject the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Do you have any non scientific evidence to support your rejection.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Remember scientific evidence not waffle.

John Platko wrote:Note to Paul: notice the request for scientific evidence of reincarnation.

John Platko wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

It's quite simple John. Just because you flop something out on the table and proudly announce that it's evidence doesn't actually mean it is evidence.

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

Link John LINK. Get it. You just cant write things down John.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Scots Law[edit]

An important part of the Law of evidence is that of corroboration in Scots law. This is a vital element of the law to protect the accused from unjustly being convicted. Each essential fact (facta probandum ) of a case must be corroborated by two independent pieces of evidence and one witness alone cannot corroborate an essential fact, it must be corroborated by a second independent source. Essential facts are those listed in the indictment and used to charge the accused and the sources of evidence come in many forms, such as documentary, DNA, forensic and report evidence or from a scientist or forensic pathologist.

Corroboration will normally include direct evident, such as an eye witness and could include circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that has a relationship to the crime and can assist in 'proving' the essential fact also known as indirect evidence. Two pieces of indirect evidence which both relate to the same incident, may mean that direct evidence is not required, this is known as evidential facts and they do not require corroboration. The essential facts will vary with each case and the complainer is likely to lose, if an essential fact which is vital to their case cannot be proven.

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

How can evidence not be evidence?

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

What evidence John? Remember the flopping out on the table thing?

1)Doughball Divination: This method is practised mainly in the monasteries or by individual lamas when an important decisions needs to be made, such as in the search for the reincarnation of very high lamas. A number of possible answers to the enquiry, such as the names of likely candidates for a reincarnation, are written on slips of paper. These are then encased in equal sized balls of dough. Great care is taken to weigh the dough balls to ensure that they are exactly the same size. The doughballs are then placed in a bowl, which is carefully sealed and placed in front of a sacred object, such as the Jowo statue in the main temple in Lhasa, images of Dharma protectors or the funerary monuments of great lamas, requesting their inspiration in deciding the outcome. For a period of three days monks remain in the temple reciting prayers day and night. During that time no one is allowed to touch the bowl. On the fourth day, before all those present the cover of the bowl is removed. A prominent lama rolls the doughballs round in the bowl before the sacred object until one of them falls out. That is the ball containing the answer.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well John I don't accept any so called evidence until you prove it because that is the whole point you have none do you?

Just heresy. Nice. Just imagine if the scientific world was based on the quality of your evidence?

John Platko wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

If it isn't accepted. We'll always have Paris. Cry me a river.

I'm struggling to wrap my mind around what you say here.

Perhaps an example would help. On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

What evidence John? Remember the flopping out on the table thing?

Well, for example, sometimes the Doughball method is used to determine if someone is the reincarnation of someone else.

http://www.esoterism.ro/english/tibetan ... nation.php

1)Doughball Divination: This method is practised mainly in the monasteries or by individual lamas when an important decisions needs to be made, such as in the search for the reincarnation of very high lamas. A number of possible answers to the enquiry, such as the names of likely candidates for a reincarnation, are written on slips of paper. These are then encased in equal sized balls of dough. Great care is taken to weigh the dough balls to ensure that they are exactly the same size. The doughballs are then placed in a bowl, which is carefully sealed and placed in front of a sacred object, such as the Jowo statue in the main temple in Lhasa, images of Dharma protectors or the funerary monuments of great lamas, requesting their inspiration in deciding the outcome. For a period of three days monks remain in the temple reciting prayers day and night. During that time no one is allowed to touch the bowl. On the fourth day, before all those present the cover of the bowl is removed. A prominent lama rolls the doughballs round in the bowl before the sacred object until one of them falls out. That is the ball containing the answer.

How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

John Platko wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well John I don't accept any so called evidence until you prove it because that is the whole point you have none do you?

Just heresy. Nice. Just imagine if the scientific world was based on the quality of your evidence?

Heresy?

Quality of evidence? All I'm saying is that you need to use domain appropriate evidence. Science explores the natural world and needs scientific evidence. To explore the supernatural world you need non scientific evidence - and that comes right out of the definition of "supernatural".

In different domains there are different criteria for quality of evidence. For example, if reincarnation is determined by the doughball method, it's important to the quality of evidence for the balls to be properly weighed- you can't just flop your balls on the table!

John Platko wrote:Well, for example, sometimes the Doughball method is used to determine if someone is the reincarnation of someone else.

/snip/

How would you go about determining whether or not to accept the evidence that comes out of the doughball?

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:On what grounds do you reject the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Do you have any non scientific evidence to support your rejection.

What utter cock. I don't need evidence to support my rejection of anything.
For a start it's just fucking ludicrous to suggest that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama.
It's up to anyone that suggests the 14th Lama was indeed the reincarnated 13th Lama to convince me otherwise.

Where's your evidence that atheists persist in asking for 'scientific evidence'?

This

Scot Dutchy wrote:Remember scientific evidence not waffle.

John Platko wrote:Note to Paul: notice the request for scientific evidence of reincarnation.

doesn't count and may well have been asked ironically, coming after your assertion that atheists persist.

Where are all the other instances?

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote: On what grounds would you not accept the evidence that was used to determine that the 14th Lama was the reincarnated 13th Lama? Please give all non scientific evidence that you use in your determination not to accept that evidence.

Who's going to challenge my stance if I don't? A bunch of woo heads? I'm shaking in my shoes. I'm concerned about my relations with people who have evidence for their claims, including claims that they have evidence.

John Platko wrote:
How do you determine if evidence goes lollipopless into the dustbin?

It depends how much I shake in my shoes if a bunch of woo heads are miffed that I don't accept their claims.

No one has any obligation to examine any kind of evidence, unless they're concerned about their relationships with people who rely on evidence rather than on claims that claims of evidence alone are evidence.

I didn't say you had any obligations. I'm just wondering how you make such determinations without the aid of non scientific evidence.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Actually, it does.

From Wikipedia:

Link John LINK. Get it. You just cant write things down John.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

John when you are cherry picking do it properly:

Scots Law[edit]

An important part of the Law of evidence is that of corroboration in Scots law. This is a vital element of the law to protect the accused from unjustly being convicted. Each essential fact (facta probandum ) of a case must be corroborated by two independent pieces of evidence and one witness alone cannot corroborate an essential fact, it must be corroborated by a second independent source. Essential facts are those listed in the indictment and used to charge the accused and the sources of evidence come in many forms, such as documentary, DNA, forensic and report evidence or from a scientist or forensic pathologist.

Corroboration will normally include direct evident, such as an eye witness and could include circumstantial evidence, which is evidence that has a relationship to the crime and can assist in 'proving' the essential fact also known as indirect evidence. Two pieces of indirect evidence which both relate to the same incident, may mean that direct evidence is not required, this is known as evidential facts and they do not require corroboration. The essential facts will vary with each case and the complainer is likely to lose, if an essential fact which is vital to their case cannot be proven.

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:In different domains there are different criteria for quality of evidence.

For example, if reincarnation is determined by the doughball method, it's important to the quality of evidence for the balls to be properly weighed- you can't just flop your balls on the table!