Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Life after death- What’s the evidence?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#46    OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2010

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:28 AM

View Postsinewave, on 17 November 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Courts of law are not courts of science.  Anecdotes without evidence are virtually useless to science.
The belief that science is the only source of truth is easily discredited. Your statement above is a truth claim that cannot be validated through science yet you expect us to believe it.

Courts of law are a super set of science in determining truth as anything submitted for peer reviewed science could be introduced into a court of law. Of course, also, both science and a courtroom can make mistakes.


#47    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,808 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:28 AM

View PostSSilhouette, on 14 November 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Then compelling witnesses testimony in courtrooms is just "anecdotes" and cannot be used to reach a verdict.
Who are you charging?


#48    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:29 AM

View PostOrdinaryClay, on 17 November 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

The belief that science is the only source of truth is easily discredited. Your statement above is a truth claim that cannot be validated through science yet you expect us to believe it.
I suppose you would substitute authority and ancient myths as sources of truth?


#49    OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2010

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:39 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 16 November 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Well here we go with Critical Thinking 101.  Two and a half rules:

1.  When presented with two or more choices, take the most probable.
Which probability interpretation are you using. You certainly cannot be using the frequentist approach. https://en.wikipedia...Interpretations

Quote

This will invariably be the most mundane and the simplest.
Possibly, but certanly not invariably, unless of course again you are simply assuming the supernatural is impossible and then you are not engaging in critical thinking.


#50    OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2010

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:42 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 17 November 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

Who are you charging?
I fail to see how that is relevant. The question is whether you, I or anyone would accept testimony as evidence under the right circumstances, and the answer is most certainly yes.


#51    OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2010

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:45 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 17 November 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

I suppose you would substitute authority and ancient myths as sources of truth?
That's a red herring with respect to the subject of whether testimony can be evidence. Testimony is evidence regardless of my belief in the Bible.

I'm a Christian, of course, I accept the Bible as truth. I'm a devout Christian.


#52    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,586 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:48 AM

View PostOrdinaryClay, on 17 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

That's a red herring with respect to the subject of whether testimony can be evidence. Testimony is evidence regardless of my belief in the Bible.

I'm a Christian, of course, I accept the Bible as truth. I'm a devout Christian.
Of course you do.  We could tell from various clues.

I don't think anything like the Bible is of any use at all in assessing truth.  It has too sordid a history and contains to many things that are problematic to be of God.


#53    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 17 November 2013 - 05:01 AM

View PostOrdinaryClay, on 17 November 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

The belief that science is the only source of truth is easily discredited. Your statement above is a truth claim that cannot be validated through science yet you expect us to believe it.

Courts of law are a super set of science in determining truth as anything submitted for peer reviewed science could be introduced into a court of law. Of course, also, both science and a courtroom can make mistakes.

That is what you got out of my post?  What I actually said was, law and science have very different standards for evidence.  Asserting that if something is good enough for the law it should be good enough for science is naive and overly simplistic thinking.

Yes, mistakes are made in both but they are designed for that inevitability.

Edited by sinewave, 17 November 2013 - 05:03 AM.


#54    OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2010

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:46 AM

View Postsinewave, on 17 November 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

That is what you got out of my post?  What I actually said was, law and science have very different standards for evidence.  Asserting that if something is good enough for the law it should be good enough for science is naive and overly simplistic thinking.

Yes, mistakes are made in both but they are designed for that inevitability.
You missed the point. Truth may be had with out science. Not all truth of course, but there is a set of truth that can be established with out science. That's the point. So the distinction you draw is not relevant in this case.

What I asserted was that what is good enough for science is good enough for the law. I said clearly that the court room can establish a super set.of truth that includes all scientific truth. Why? Because any per reviewed science can be introduced.


#55    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,905 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:59 AM

And even though you are still missing the point that testimony can NOT be the basis for a case (there must always be an undisputable crime) - the peer-reviewed science you have for l-a-d is....?

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#56    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,099 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 17 November 2013 - 07:36 AM

View PostOrdinaryClay, on 17 November 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

You missed the point. Truth may be had with out science. Not all truth of course, but there is a set of truth that can be established with out science. That's the point. So the distinction you draw is not relevant in this case.

What I asserted was that what is good enough for science is good enough for the law. I said clearly that the court room can establish a super set.of truth that includes all scientific truth. Why? Because any per reviewed science can be introduced.

That has nothing to to do with what I said.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users