Now a couple people in this thread came close. They asserted there was evidence. They even provided links to other people claiming there was evidence. Yet still, as of yet, no evidence has been provided. Therefore there is no reason to assign a non-zero prior.
Sorry, this is nonsense. We have experimental evidence and we have anecdotal evidence. The only question is, is it valid evidence, and how robust is it?
Science does not have the capacity to rule definitively either way. Many here simply refuse to acknowledge this fact.
Quite obviously, we acknowledge self-report as evidence of a great deal of what transpires within our subjective experience….simply because we have no scientific means of definitively adjudicating neural activity (despite what many idiots frequently assert).
I could (and have on previous threads) presented an all-but endless list of human characteristics that only exist phenomenally because they have been established to anecdotally.
Love (for example) only exists as a fact because of anecdotal evidence.
There is obviously not just a precedent, but a vast precedent for acknowledging the evidentiary nature of self-report (there are about a half-million practicing psychoanalysts whose livelihood is founded upon it). Just as obviously, there are constraints to any conclusions that can be generated.
Anyone who has taken any time to study the issue of ESP knows…without a shadow of a doubt…that the issues are complex in the extreme. That there are so many here who insist on such a simplistic and juvenile depiction of the issue (‘just show me someone who can read my mind and I’ll believe you’) demonstrates quite clearly how little interest they actually have in understanding any of it.
Whatever…the point of it all, is that anecdotes matter. You know they matter, and I know they matter. They matter because they influence opinions / conclusions / feelings / thoughts. That which influences in such a manner is called evidence. The anecdotal representation of yourself that you present to your wife will fundamentally inform her understanding of you…as it will the understanding of everyone around you. It is ‘evidence’ of you. Other people rely upon your anecdotal representation of yourself to be credible, valid, authentic, and reliable.
…and we ‘all’ make every attempt possible to live up to that expectation.
Thus…in our personal lives…anecdotal evidence is fundamental to our existence.
To suddenly suggest that, as soon as this same evidence enters the scientific arena it becomes questionable is inconsistent and illogical. It may lack features that enable it to be successfully adjudicated within a scientific epistemology, but that is because of the limitations of science, not because of the limitations of the evidence.
Thus…if someone claims to have experienced some variety of anomalous psychological phenomena, they deserve the same respect and acknowledgement as if they had come to any other fundamentally relevant conclusion (this is obviously a generalization)….especially given that science has absolutely no way to even begin to establish what did, or did not, actually occur…and, as of this point in time, has come nowhere close to establishing how anything at all actually does occur when it comes to the relationship between the brain and human consciousness (and yes…unlike so many of the idiots on these threads, I can actually provide links to support these conclusions).
