RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 05:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Damn! You are seriously one smart Space Dork! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Did you read what I wrote about double blind studies and independent confirmation of facts? A scientist does not tell anybody anything - the results of a properly performed experiment do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:06 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Did you read what I wrote about double blind studies and independent confirmation of facts? A scientist does not tell anybody anything - the results of a properly performed experiment do. i did. it was a great read, a real page-turner. i literally couldn't put my computer down. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 09:11 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:06 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Did you read what I wrote about double blind studies and independent confirmation of facts? A scientist does not tell anybody anything - the results of a properly performed experiment do. i did. it was a great read, a real page-turner. i literally couldn't put my computer down. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hey, I love debating this horseshit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 09:11 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:06 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Did you read what I wrote about double blind studies and independent confirmation of facts? A scientist does not tell anybody anything - the results of a properly performed experiment do. i did. it was a great read, a real page-turner. i literally couldn't put my computer down. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hey, I love debating this horseshit! horseshit is hard to deny whether you believe in the supernatural or not - it's there and it smells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya_Big_Tree Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 09:11 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:06 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:55 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Did you read what I wrote about double blind studies and independent confirmation of facts? A scientist does not tell anybody anything - the results of a properly performed experiment do. i did. it was a great read, a real page-turner. i literally couldn't put my computer down. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Hey, I love debating this horseshit! horseshit is hard to deny whether you believe in the supernatural or not - it's there and it smells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Aubrey Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. Dude! Love the Order of the Triad sign thingy! What would Dr. Orpheus say about Ouija boards, I wonder? Probably something about "imperiling your VERY SOUL!" The Alchemist would say they're no good for finding out if your significant other is cheating on you and Jefferson Twilight would only care if you could kill Blaculas with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Dec 29 2009, 11:11 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. Dude! Love the Order of the Triad sign thingy! What would Dr. Orpheus say about Ouija boards, I wonder? Probably something about "imperiling your VERY SOUL!" The Alchemist would say they're no good for finding out if your significant other is cheating on you and Jefferson Twilight would only care if you could kill Blaculas with it! Check out my "door to hell" link I posted earlier in the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Here is the evidence http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/troutbum/exorcist.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (troutman @ Dec 29 2009, 08:51 PM) Here is the evidence http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/troutbum/exorcist.jpg I prefer "The Blair Witch Project!" Signed, Linda Blair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-D-RocK- Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (troutman @ Dec 29 2009, 09:51 PM) Here is the evidence http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/troutbum/exorcist.jpg That girl had some serious skin problems. Oi vey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Dec 29 2009, 11:16 PM) QUOTE (troutman @ Dec 29 2009, 09:51 PM) Here is the evidence http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/troutbum/exorcist.jpg That girl had some serious skin problems. Oi vey! Hey D ROCK! It just dawned on me! Is this now a new CAPTION HEADER GAME? LOL! I think you are in first place sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (-D-RocK- @ Dec 29 2009, 11:16 PM) QUOTE (troutman @ Dec 29 2009, 09:51 PM) Here is the evidence http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/troutbum/exorcist.jpg That girl had some serious skin problems. Oi vey! Don't you mean, OIL OF OLAY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 02:32 AM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. This is postmodernism/deconstructionism BS. It's true if it's true for you. Your personal feelings and experiences invalidate any attempt to define a truth or record a history. Science is pushed aside. Definitions are ignored. If you provide your personal experiences and your interpretations of those experiences as evidence, that evidence is then scrutinized with double blind studies and/or independent confirmation. In science, studies are peer reviewed and a conclusion is reached. Your personal feelings or opinions do not define the conclusion. If new evidence arises a new study is implemented. In legal matters we have judges and juries, it doesn't matter what an individual on trial might "feel" or "believe". Postmodernism and deconstructionism attempt to invalidate science and rational thought to the point where people's "feelings" are more important than facts and certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushgoober Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 30 2009, 12:01 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 02:32 AM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. This is postmodernism/deconstructionism BS. It's true if it's true for you. Your personal feelings and experiences invalidate any attempt to define a truth or record a history. Science is pushed aside. Definitions are ignored. If you provide your personal experiences and your interpretations of those experiences as evidence, that evidence is then scrutinized with double blind studies and/or independent confirmation. In science, studies are peer reviewed and a conclusion is reached. Your personal feelings or opinions do not define the conclusion. If new evidence arises a new study is implemented. In legal matters we have judges and juries, it doesn't matter what an individual on trial might "feel" or "believe". Postmodernism and deconstructionism attempt to invalidate science and rational thought to the point where people's "feelings" are more important than facts and certainty. Oh well, you've heard my point of view and I've heard yours. Further conversation isn't going to change either of our views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hey guys! "The way out is the way in!" Even though a lot of people on here don't agree with other points of view as a guy reading all of this thread on the outside it is very entertaining and very educational. I need to go "Back To School!" Signed, Rodney Dangerfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hey News Flash everyone! This thread has 656 views!! 10 more and uh oh! 666! We are all doomed!! Signed, "2012" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowdogged Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Please, do not fool around with these things! I was a skeptic and thought it was all fun and games. I know first hand the evil and supernatural things can be unleashed upon you and your families with these things. Sure, you might think this sounds crazy but I went through years of horror because of these things. I myself would have laughed at someone claiming the same thing fifteen years ago but I have learned first hand that there are powers that we do not understand in this world and we should leave them alone. I usually do not discuss these things with anyone but I do not want anyone to go through what I went through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Cocky Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. Interesting thread. It's not religious in nature at all, but it is a discussion of the spiritual. I'm a little late to this party, but I'd like to briefly weigh in and focus on this statement. When referring to the spiritual, scientific evidence is always going to be hard to come by. There are just certain things in this world that cannot be measured in a discrete form. Can anyone show me five meters of love? How about 15 ounces of justice? For that matter, how much does a soul weigh? I think it's ridiculous to look at the abstract in strictly objective terms. Indeed: The more we think we know about The greater the unknown We suspend our disbelief And we are not alone... - - We feel the powers and wonder what they are In fact, if I'm not mistaken there is a Oujia board in this particular video, so how appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Aubrey Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 06:48 PM) Who does that? Who opens a door to hell? "Stop being a pud!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 30 2009, 03:01 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 02:32 AM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. This is postmodernism/deconstructionism BS. It's true if it's true for you. Your personal feelings and experiences invalidate any attempt to define a truth or record a history. Science is pushed aside. Definitions are ignored. If you provide your personal experiences and your interpretations of those experiences as evidence, that evidence is then scrutinized with double blind studies and/or independent confirmation. In science, studies are peer reviewed and a conclusion is reached. Your personal feelings or opinions do not define the conclusion. If new evidence arises a new study is implemented. In legal matters we have judges and juries, it doesn't matter what an individual on trial might "feel" or "believe". Postmodernism and deconstructionism attempt to invalidate science and rational thought to the point where people's "feelings" are more important than facts and certainty. Science deals with absolutes. Therefore the Supernatural has no place in science. Science does not define every aspect of life no matter how many tape rimmed glasses, white lab coat intellectuals would like to think so. The Supernatural realm is quite real, and a Ouija board is just one small way of manifesting a portion of it. Just because you choose not to believe truth, does not make it any less true. I will still contend, for many a Ouija board will produce zero results, but for others it can open a doors to trouble. When someone posts of an experience with the Supernatural, I tend to take them at there word, and I believe the validity of what they say. I don't know if I wanted to believe in flying saucers, but when I saw one up close it became real, and nothing I could do afterwords could change the fact that I saw one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 30 2009, 07:01 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 02:32 AM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. This is postmodernism/deconstructionism BS. It's true if it's true for you. Your personal feelings and experiences invalidate any attempt to define a truth or record a history. Science is pushed aside. Definitions are ignored. If you provide your personal experiences and your interpretations of those experiences as evidence, that evidence is then scrutinized with double blind studies and/or independent confirmation. In science, studies are peer reviewed and a conclusion is reached. Your personal feelings or opinions do not define the conclusion. If new evidence arises a new study is implemented. In legal matters we have judges and juries, it doesn't matter what an individual on trial might "feel" or "believe". Postmodernism and deconstructionism attempt to invalidate science and rational thought to the point where people's "feelings" are more important than facts and certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanadoood Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 30 2009, 02:01 AM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 02:32 AM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Dec 29 2009, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 30 2009, 09:55 AM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 05:44 PM) QUOTE (rushgoober @ Dec 29 2009, 08:34 PM) QUOTE (ReRushed @ Dec 29 2009, 04:38 PM) Personal testimony is not evidence. True, but being able to scientifically prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt based on whatever criteria a scientist or layman chooses to use is far from essential for a lot of people in terms of believing something exists or not. Personal experience is hard to deny, at least to the person who is experiencing it. "Evidence" really is a subjective term. Science is based on the evidence at hand. If more or different or better evidence arises a new study or experiment is implemented. Science is on-going and self-correcting. Also, proper studies and experiments are double blind and there needs to be independent confirmation of the facts. Hence, evidence is not subjective. My evidence is my own personal experience, not what a scientist tells me based on their observations using whatever methodology is currently available. It sounds like my version of evidence differs from yours. Hence, subjective. Of course whether evidence is subjective or not is also, apparently, subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Evidence proves or disproves something. If you believe something that's fine but it doesn't make it evidence. It's been a long time since I've said this but are you on acid? If I have an experience of something, I have my own personal evidence that thing happened. You might not believe me even if I tell you that it happened to me. That evidence within myself that something happened isn't objective evidence, because it only proves it for me, not for everyone, therefore it's subjective. Scientists once believed the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Just because something is proven scientifically doesn't necessarily make it objectively true, despite what evidence is apparent. Conversely, just because something can't be measured by scientific methodology currently at our disposal, or can only be measured by methodology that isn't generally accepted as legitimate doesn't make something necessarily untrue. Often a law is superseded by a higher law, or by widening our view of reality or seeing something from a larger dimension. Of course no manner of semantics is likely to have you see things my way, which often makes such arguments pointless as people rarely change their fundamental views on anything. Still, it's interesting conversation. This is postmodernism/deconstructionism BS. It's true if it's true for you. Your personal feelings and experiences invalidate any attempt to define a truth or record a history. Science is pushed aside. Definitions are ignored. If you provide your personal experiences and your interpretations of those experiences as evidence, that evidence is then scrutinized with double blind studies and/or independent confirmation. In science, studies are peer reviewed and a conclusion is reached. Your personal feelings or opinions do not define the conclusion. If new evidence arises a new study is implemented. In legal matters we have judges and juries, it doesn't matter what an individual on trial might "feel" or "believe". Postmodernism and deconstructionism attempt to invalidate science and rational thought to the point where people's "feelings" are more important than facts and certainty. So if one of my best friends tells me a story of how he had a freaky, F-ed up experience using a Oiija board, i should tell tell him hes full of shit because the scientific evidence doesnt back up his claim?..Ill go with my own or, someone who i trust, personal experience over that any day. And i work in the science industry. But some shit you just cant explain in a rationale, scientific, clinical trial type way. All IMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.