[ETA: By the way, whats with you highlighting everything in black color font? Its pretty rendundant and makes replying to such a long post more tedious than necessary... -_- ]
I typed the reply in Word then transferred, most likely an artifact of that process.
Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?
What I stated was that the combination and examination of multiple first hand accounts can lead to a better udnerstanding of the event than that given by any individual first hand account. You want to know why I get upset? Because of your statements like this, that simply apply an apparently random meaning to what I actually say.
So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.
No, it's a matter of resources. If there is no need to investigate something, then don't. However, when we are looking into whether or not something is true...when it actually matters, then it warrants a more careful look.
Not to mention that no event occurs in a vacuum. We know people make coffee, we know people drink coffee, so there is no need to prove that coffeee exists, that it was available in the area, that it can be ingested by people, etc, etc, etc. Compare that to a case where we're positing a whole new category of energy, entirely new entities that do not mesh with what is currently known. THe coffee exampel does not have to overcome any previous evidence. A claim for psi powers, spirits, or similar has to overcome a host of past experiements that show failed results, as well as have a valid way to overcome the problems that would develop in fitting it with current knowledge.
I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.
So you argue for solipsism.
there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?
I mean to argue that differences between the accounts of the same experience can help one determien which parts are true, and which are not. It can help determine which aspects of the accounts are more likely to be true (i.e.-more consistent), and which are more the result of failed perception, faulty memory, or simple lying. If ten people witness a robbery, and 9 say they say a white man and one says they saw a black man, in the absence of other information what is the likely color of the robber? This is not a complicated concept.
The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.
I agree, something is either true or not, regardless of Belief. But the argument here is how one can best arrive at truth, by what method(s). The metaphysical argument you keep trying to turn this into is unanswerable and essentially meaningless.
You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.
Well, since my own experience is the only real knowledge, you are wrong.
We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.
No, it isn't. There are certain properties it must have to act in ways as reported. Many of these properties are incompatible with current understanding. This makes them, at the least, very implausible.
I wouldn't jump to
conclusions on that just yet.
I was waiting for you to bring up quantum. Are you familiar with actual research in quantum mechanics? Do you have any understanding of what it means when it talks about entangled states? Do you undertsand why it uses the modifier "pseudo-" in front of telepathy? That you believe this supports the existence of telepathy as reported simply confirms your limited understanding.
Hey, if you're right about my 'incomprehension' of the scientific process I've fooled the system well enough to progress in my major. Thats gotta count for somethin', right?
Not really.
I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.
But science already has methods to do this. Social science do look at personal perspectives and introspective study, but
with the understanding that these can often be flawed. That's the part you've been arguing against. Your claim seems to be that your own personal experience trumps everything else (the generic you here, as in any individual). Yet, assuming this simply leads to solipsism. It's a form of special pleading, especially when there is ample evidence that the personal perceptions of people are often incorrect. The only way to form this into something coherent is to assume that only your own perspective counts.
If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.
Then why bring it up to begin with if you don't plan to prove it? And I'd argue about details...you've been vague. You typed a lot of words, but said little. Technically, you gave enough details for an honest assessment, that assessment being that you have not sufficiently ruled out mundane reasons for your experience.
If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject [including those with positive and negative reports] till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.
Did you understand what I actually said there? Because, from your response, I don't think you did.
The whole point is that you haven't given enough information for anyone to even attempt to recreate your experience. And replication matters.
And yes, there are studies and such on this, and other accounts. But you know what? They aren't consistent. Studies with good controls are invariably negative. Accounts with successes range as far as the imagination in methods to achieve them, including some of the same methods that failed when tested more rigorously.
Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but
Katopale's. The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he
[and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.
Actually, I never made the claim that science could not be dogmatic, or that individuals always behave rationally. That's your straw man. I asked for examples of where a well-tested theory was overturned. Where is the contravening evidence? In cases where it existed, it has been accepted...not immediately, not without growing pains, and not without haeartache on both sides. But even then, I'm still waiting for an example where a fundamental, well-tested theory was shown to be wrong.
I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.
I agree. And this is where our disagreement lies. These scientists relied on their own, personal experience instead of looking at and accepting the evidence beign presented. And on the flip side of this coin are the numerous examples of scientists who based conclusions on personal experience, and very little evidence. Pauling and vitamin C, for example, or Newton and Alchemy. Hoyle and the Steady State theory.
Theories and principles are not knowledge. That you don’t understand this is not my failure
Just out of curiosity, what are they if not knowledge? Are do you simply equate knowledge with your own personal experience? Let me ask you point blank...are you a solipsist?
The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.
If I want a rational exchange, I'll most liekly have to go elsewhere. My "knickers get in a twist" because I have to keep explaining what should be simple, obvious concepts (such as more matching eyewitness accounts means the event in question is more likely to have occurred as reported). It's not that you make a point that I don't feel comfortable with, it's that you continually and, unless you are truly ignorant, intenitonally misunderstand straightforward statements. It's that you claim knowledge of subjects (quantum telepathy, for example) that you are proveably ignorant of. It has nothing to do with an "ego shoving match"...I'm not the one claiming my own personal experience as the sole arbiter of reality. I'm not the one making "pronouncements from the mountain" on what is really real, or on what is true "knowledge". But I agree, if you want to drop the insults, condescention, and "I have a secret window to reality" attitude, and actually respond to my arguments instead of what you think I'm arguing (or what you might prefer someone were arguing), I'm more than happy to. Besides, it takes two to argue, you're in this just as much as I am. So it's really your call, too, "dude".
