---

I'm indifferent, for the most part, to their anecdotal evidence.  Since it largely has no effect on me, I see no reason to take a firm stance on it either way.  It's about picking your battles, Moridin.

---

For instance, there are people who are trying to put forward anecdotal evidence claiming that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism (there is none). The scientific community is not at all impressed by this since they have refuted the link by several carefully done studies. But through the media, such as Oprah and so on, crackpot people are gaining ground.

This does not most likely affect you as a person, but isn't it morally justified, or indeed morally obligatory to stand up for intellectual principles and honest scientific work against the forces of darkness? After all, it would be enormously damaging if our culture was subverted and undermined by this sort of anti-scientific tendencies, wouldn't you agree?

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm

Post edited at 9:37 am on July 9, 2009 by Moridin

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009

---

Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.

  Ill leave it at that

---

 

 I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others.

---

But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims?

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009

---

Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.    

  Ill leave it at that

---

  I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others.

---

 

 But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims?

---

Im even skeptical about my experiences, but I know what I saw.

---

Do you know what you saw, or just what your brain thinks it has seen?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 7:51 pm on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 9:07 am on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from Prince o palities at 6:21 pm on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 9:12 pm on July 8, 2009

---

Ive had encounters with things I can not explain.

   Ill leave it at that

---

   

  I haven't, but I will not preclude the possibility of it happening to me in the future or having happened to others.

---

  But when they cannot provide any shred of evidence besides implausible anecdotal stories, doesn't that make you skeptical of their claims?

---

Im even skeptical about my experiences, but I know what I saw.

---

Do you know what you saw, or just what your brain thinks it has seen?

---

---

Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't?

---

I thought we were talking about paranormal occurences here.  What does my indifferece about ghosts have to do with anything you just said?  You're comparing apples and oranges.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:37 am on July 9, 2009

---

This indifference scares me a little, to be honest.    

 For instance, there are people who are trying to put forward anecdotal evidence claiming that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism (there is none). The scientific community is not at all impressed by this since they have refuted the link by several carefully done studies. But through the media, such as Oprah and so on, crackpot people are gaining ground.  

 This does not most likely affect you as a person, but isn't it morally justified, or indeed morally obligatory to stand up for intellectual principles and honest scientific work against the forces of darkness? After all, it would be enormously damaging if our culture was subverted and undermined by this sort of anti-scientific tendencies, wouldn't you agree?  

 http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/autism/mmr/sub3.cfm

---

I thought we were talking about paranormal occurences here. What does my indifferece about ghosts have to do with anything you just said? You're comparing apples and oranges.

---

I thought you argued that you where indifferent when someone presented anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim? I went with this and then reasoned that it is very dangerous to be indifferent to someone when you know you are being presenting anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim.

---

I'm indifferent, for the most part, to their anecdotal evidence.  Since it largely has no effect on me, I see no reason to take a firm stance on it either way.

---

No, I didn't.  I said I was indifferent about anecdotal claims about paranormal occurrences, not all extraordinary claims.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one  might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

---

...you argued that you were indifferent when someone presented anecdotal evidence for an extraordinary claim?

---

No, I didn't. I said I was indifferent about anecdotal claims about paranormal occurrences, not all extraordinary claims.

---

That's fair, but the issue is that you should not be indifferent but skeptical about someone presenting anecdotal evidence, in all claims.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009

---

Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't?

---

If undeniable evidence of spirits existed, dont you think we would have it? And I dont think this is something supernatural. I believe it is natural, but we do not have the technology nor the understanding to know what is really going on. Reasonable doubt goes a long with every experience because our imaginations do get the best of us. But does that mean there is no chance of ghosts existing?

---

Yes, because all operational definitions that have been given are self-contradictory, and thus cannot refer to anything that exist in reality. How can you walk through walls and still reflect radiation (that is, be visible)? There are many more what these came from.

Indeed, if ghosts, spirits and so on existed to the extent that paranormalists claim, we should have a profound amount of evidence for this, but we don't, so it is reasonable to conclude that ghosts, spirits and so on do not exist.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Quote: from MushroomSatsujin at 8:08 pm on July 9, 2009

---

Quote: from Moridin at 10:03 am on July 9, 2009

---

Can you provide independently verifiable scientific evidence for your close encounter? If not, why should that which you think you say be taken seriously by anyone? What is the more likely: that you indeed saw a supernatural event that has eluded the grasp of brightest minds and sharpest tools of science for millenia, or that you simply for neurobiology reasons thought you saw something that you really didn't?

---

If undeniable evidence of spirits existed, dont you think we would have it? And I dont think this is something supernatural. I believe it is natural, but we do not have the technology nor the understanding to know what is really going on. Reasonable doubt goes a long with every experience because our imaginations do get the best of us. But does that mean there is no chance of ghosts existing?

---

Yes, because all operational definitions that have been given are self-contradictory, and thus cannot refer to anything that exist in reality. How can you walk through walls and still reflect radiation (that is, be visible)? There are many more what these came from.

Indeed, if ghosts, spirits and so on existed to the extent that paranormalists claim, we should have a profound amount of evidence for this, but we don't, so it is reasonable to conclude that ghosts, spirits and so on do not exist.

---