• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

MarkCorrigan said:
The guy whose "research" has critical methodological flaws that renders it worthless? Really?
Click to expand...
The Sagan Standard starts from a materialist premise, assuming that only physical and measurable phenomena are real. This is a bias that excludes a priori the possibility of the existence of non-material realities, such as spirits.
 
Calderaro said:
The Sagan Standard starts from a materialist premise, assuming that only physical and measurable phenomena are real. This is a bias that excludes a priori the possibility of the existence of non-material realities, such as spirits.
Click to expand...
More gibberish. Deal with the issue raised. His research is worthless.
 
Calderaro said:
The Sagan Standard starts from a materialist premise, assuming that only physical and measurable phenomena are real. This is a bias that excludes a priori the possibility of the existence of non-material realities, such as spirits.
Click to expand...
Never mind the “Sagan standard”. We have asked if it is unreasonable for us to dismiss evidence that is produced fraud or sloppy research.

Or perhaps you think it is unreasonable, or “extraordinary“ if it goes against what you want to be true, but not in any other case?
 
"...and then...no, stop laughing...34 pages in, and they are still asking him to stop repeating the mindless drivel..."

Groundhog Day on an industrial scale.
 
What on earth makes you think we should waste time watching videos when you've already demonstrated you'll post this rubbish when you don't even know what the very words you're using mean.

Answer the question


P.J. Denyer said:
Calderaro, people on this forum have given you a lot of time & attention and had very little engagement back. How about you reassure us that you're not just another seagull poster by answering a really basic question?

Since you introduce introduced this hypothesis (it certainly isn't a theory), what do YOU understand the terms "Microtubules" and "Quantum Information" to mean and how do they relate to each other and/or interact?
Click to expand...
 
Calderaro said:
How to refute pseudoskepticism in the case of the existence of spirits?
To refute pseudoskepticism regarding the existence of spirits, it can be argued that the traditional requirement for scientific proof may be inadequate for phenomena that, by their nature, are not easily reproducible in the laboratory
Limitations of science: Science, as classically defined, requires a subject matter, a language, and a method. Pseudoskepticism often invokes the authority of science to disqualify claims that do not align with its beliefs, but the opinions of scientists should not be taken as authority outside their specialty. Nature of phenomena: Psychic or spiritual phenomena may require special conditions to occur and cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Non-reproducibility should not be a reason to deny their existence.
What is pseudoskepticism:
Pseudoskepticism can manifest itself in the a priori rejection of claims without rigorous investigation, adopting scientific explanations in a dogmatic way and
disregarding subjective experiences and the possibility of phenomena not yet understoodEpistemic basis: Belief systems can arise from the need to fill cognitive gaps, resorting to imaginary explanations. The distinction between the "existent" (verifiable and independent of the observer) and the "non-existent" (restricted to a belief system) is fundamentalGenuine skepticism:
True skepticism involves rigorous investigation, without rejecting any claims a priori, and considering all evidence and possibilities before reaching a definitive conclusion

Click to expand...

Why have you rejected without thorough investigation the claim that after you die, you personally, you will be reborn, again and again till the end of time, as a goat with just one testicle? Are you a closed-minded pseudoskeptic yourself, then?

Or have you actually investigated that claim, and rigorously tested its veracity? Do tell us the full details of how you did that, if so.

Or: Do you want to be a goat with one testicle? Does the prospect of eternally having one testicle, and spending your days literally bleating about it, actually attract you? If not, and provided you haven't directly rejected the claim out of hand: then why have you not repented and recanted your heresy about spirits already?
 
This is reminding me of a "discussion" I had elsewhere with a Bigfoot Believer.

He cited all the supposed eye witness testimony; I pointed out the known flaws with this sort of testimony; he repeated himself; I pointed out the lack of any other evidence which would be accepted by a zoologist or taxonomist for the existence of a novel species; he repeated himself; I repeated my last point; he accused me of demanding a very high standard of evidence; I pointed out that this was the standard required for every known organism; he lost his rag; the thread was closed.

All I want is the same sort of evidence which is used to show the existence of a bacterium, or a bird, or a fish, or a mammal. Is that too much to ask?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom