Non Scientific Evidence

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by CKava, Apr 22, 2006.

  1. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Maybe God gave me the mind-power? :confused:

    We can only take testimony as evidence if we know something is possible of happening. That's why testimony is not evidence for aliens. If my friend tells me "Don't get 'blah blah blah', it's crap." I might believe him because things have been crap in the past. But I would still do a search myself to see what other people say. If he told me "my refrigerator burned all of my food!" I would not believe him, because that has not happened in the past. I would have to see it or have other people tell me they had the same thing happen.

    And I am argueing that you are wrong.
     
  2. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    In some ways that is true but on another hand its like "hear say". In fact, actually, it is "hear say". Its claims that ppl have had while they were praying, in near-death (although I don't quite believe that)or under enormous problems or stress. Also, and that makes it hear say to me is that it only ever occurs to ppl that actually have belief in god. Never to ppl that don't believe. Hence, in some ways it can't be taken as prove or considered valid.

    The only ppl that believe in scientology and think all of us are aliens are followers of it, the only once claiming to have seen god are religious ppl, the only once believing comitting suicide will get you 72 virgins are ppl in the islam. Nobody outside sees these things or believes them. And since its only centralized on these groups its not really evidence or truth. In order to see god you need to become a christian, in order to get 72 virgins you need to become a follower of allah and become a suicide bomber, etc.

    Non-scientific evidence might be in existence but believe me, I'd rather put my stake on someone seeing a UFO than someone seeing god. Because ppl seeing UFO's are all different kind of ppl of varying backgrounds, religions, etc, not just priests, followers of religion and cultists.

    Christian
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2006
  3. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    You make a good point about the UFO thing, but I still won't take eye witnesses as evidence. ;)
     
  4. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Thats why ppl who see UFO's get asked to produce evidence, which often gets disproved very fast. Its just easier doing that with a minor thing like UFO's than with a religion/religions that have millions of followers. One reason actually why scientology is so successfull. It might all be bull what Ron Howard made up but he's got enough ppl, including celebrities, believing the bull that the media can't do much. Even though Tom Cruise hasn't helped its image much with his couch jumping, constant control over his wifes baby birth and life.

    Christian
     
  5. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    Are you sure . . . because when I watch the Discovery Channel things on UFO's, all the people that have "seen" them all seem pretty wacky to me (intended to be a slight joke, I did not mean to bash anybody's friend or aquaintance who have actually claimed to have seen a UFO and seem like a regular person).

    I also don't know very many people who have "seen God." Actually, I don't think I know any! If they had seen him, it wouldn't really be faith then would it?
     
  6. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    I do know many ppl though that have claimed to have
    seen god and actually use that as further evidence of their belief. Of course, if you ask them to show you evidence they can't. Don't quite get what you mean with the bold bit, by the way. I think that is exactly what makes it faith otherwise why wouldn't they ask for evidence of his/her existence but atheists/agonists do ?

    Christian
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2006
  7. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Hmmm....i've only read bits ofthis thread so forgive me if i repeat anything.

    The difference between scientific evidence and none scientific evidence is the nature of prooving them. When i'm in scientist mode i will go about a strict and thurourgh way of dis/prooving my work and what i'm on about. I will get as much evidence together as i can that is for or against my views and talk about the merrits of each, much like the way i'm approaching this post. Being human there will be a small amount of subjectivity in my approach but that will only be shown on something in with the evidence could point to a number of possibilities, but it's just a case of interpreting the facts and that will depend on the pet theory your following.

    Now when i'm in normal mode i'm less thurough, i won't spend hours hunting down the evidence i need, at most i'll speak to a few trusted friends and see what they think. I'll be more open to the subjective arguments go with my gut instinct. Which essentially means that none scientific evidence just lacks the oomph that scientific evidence has to back it up. Not that that's wrong, i don't fancy doing somesort of indepth statistical analysis to see if putting brand Y petrol in my car as opposed to brand X will have more benifits.

    There is a time and a place for in depth rigorous study to prove something, and that's not every day life or some of the more personal aspects of life i.e. a persons religious tendencies. So if someone wants to believe in god for some personal reason based on somehing they consider evidence that i'd consider daft then that's up to them, i'm not going to ridicule them over it. As was said well by CK, so long as someone can seperate the things that require the different types of evidence then what's the problem?

    Moony
     
  8. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    You're still using scientific evidence, you're just not as strict about it. So I don't see what you're saying.
     
  9. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Eeerrr......no. In a word.

    Scientific evidence is tried and tested and if you are to question it successfully you need to to further study just as rigourusly.

    Non scientific evidence is the likes of wanting some advice on which make of TV to get, then talking to a few friends and finding out what TV makes they have then going down to the shops to get one. Now if you think that's scientific just not so strict then your very much mistaken.

    Moony
     
  10. iamraisen

    iamraisen Valued Member

    :D i think you mean L. Ron Hubbarb. Ron Howard waa in happy days :) oh man im almost crying.
     
  11. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    Uups, Yes, thats who I actually meant. :D Well, you never know, now that Ron Howard is also a successfull film director he will also start his own religion called happydaystology. :D :D

    Christian
     
  12. iamraisen

    iamraisen Valued Member

    lol :D i must say when i first read it i didnt notice at all and when i read it back i almost wet myself :p

    there has always been something slightly sinister about ron howard and, if i remember rightly, he is directing da vinci code so he isnt that far away from religious intrigue.
     
  13. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    It's still different than believing your friend who saw aliens/bigfoot/God.

    EDIT: And besides, that's still not evidence. The only reason you do that is because it's better than nothing and you don't want to do any other kind of research. Would you take your friends advice if you were to decide on a life-changing choice?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2006
  14. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    Actully i have had to make a modestly important desition recently. And talking things through with a fe friends using them as a bounce board figured as a big part of my mental processing.

    Your assuming that because i'm a scientist that my prefered route is to do research, it's not. If i'm doing something scientific or otherwise academic i'll put in the research time, although depending on the subject it's likely to be tedious, time consuming and dull, even if i do strike gold and geta couple of sources bang on the money...

    If someone wants to believe in a higher power because they've chopped open a tomatoe and seen a resemblence it's the deity's name i might think them a little kooky for doing it but it's their beef. To them it's evidence, which is where the subjective part comes into play, but to everyone else it's just coincidence.

    Moony
     
  15. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    That's not what I'm saying at all, actually. I didn't even know you were a scientist.

    The friends scenario is different. If your friends have been through something and tell you about it in order to help you decide, that's more like a teacher. You trust your teachers, right? Granted, your friend might be way off, but it's better than nothing. More importantly, your friend is telling you about things that have happened or are real. I would never believe it if my friend had told me (and one of them has...) that he saw an alien space ship or something. To me those things aren't real, because society as a whole hasn't proved their existance. If he said he saw a new model car that isn't released yet, I might just say "cool", because I know those things get test-driven. That's the big difference hear.

    Would I ever say "Yeah, the new model car looks like Such and Such, because my friend told me!"? No. That's not evidence. You might say "my friend told me the new char is such and such", but you wouldn't believe it 100%, would you?
     
  16. Moony

    Moony Angry Womble

    This thread. Post 27. Third line.

    Your mixing up objective and subjective evidence. None scientific eveidence is subjective, it's open to interpretation, and encompases the real i.e. choosing a new household appliance, and the unreal i.e. nessy sightings. Granted the former my have a bit of objective stuff layed out in support of it but not everyone goes out and buy's Which magazine. Anything based on any form of personal recomendation is in the realms of the subjective.

    Scientific evidence is objective in nature. It either needs to bee seen directly or have a substantial amount of evidence that can be used to prove it. Yes scientific evidence is open to interpretation, but such interpretations are based on a body of knowledge and are applied using analytical stratagies. Yes as someone with a scientifically trained mind i'm likely to apply this sort of approach to some day to day things but not everyone has had that sort of training or has the practicle nature to apply something similer.

    Moony
     
  17. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Poop-Loops:
    You are significalntly down playing the role that subjective evidence plays in our lives. We deal constantly with subjective statements and evidence. After all, when your friend says "My foot hurts", do you accept it or quiz him? Do you attempt to quantify the pain? Do you comapre pains, is it less or more then giving brith, less or more then getting your toes stepped on by a thirteen hand horse?

    There are many things that I will spend the time gathering objective evidence for, say in the scientific comparison of early and late H. erectus specimens to determine if speciation has occurred. There are many things that I do not collect objective evidence for, my fiend saying "I am cold", there are a few things that I do a combination of- in my personal studies of the Bible, I collect objective data concerning archeaological evidence in a very informal way and I collect subjective data about what I read- how do I feel about it? I conbine that and come to a conclusion.

    Very rarely does anyone spend time collecting objective data for day to day choices- many choices we make out of habit. For some things, there should be a combination of subjective and objective study- independent questioning is, after all, always a good thing. Very little in our day to day lives dwells on purely objective data, though for those of us who study science or orther "hard" subjects (rather then the "fuzzies" as they are offectionately known around the labs) our jobs are to think objectively and it tends to bleed more into the rest of our lives.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2006
  18. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    I've said already that objective data is a pain in the ass. "I am cold" or the like is not nearly important enough to warrant it. Second, the subjective evidence you get is actually believable. Sure, it's not 100% and could be wrong, but you've been cold in the past, you know it's possible. Claiming you've seen God is entirely different.
     
  19. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Highly Skilled Peeper Supporter

    What is all this claiming to see God crap?! I don't know anybody who has claimed to have seen God. Now, I may hear the occasional "God helped me through this" or "God played a part in it" and hell, I do that too but that is a HUGE downplay from "I saw God!" Also, according to our Bible, you CAN'T see God. Why, because you would die. Apparently we can only handle his back :eek: . I'm a Christian, and I would be skeptical about a person who goes around saying "I saw God!" Why is this such the forefront of the argument?
     
  20. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Fine. "God spoke to me", "God helped me through it", and even "Thank God!" are substitutes.

    The last two irk me the most, since it's usually due to people that good things happen (rescued, got through a tough time, etc.), so you're not giving credit where credit is due. Especially since God could have stopped it from happening in the first place. But that's for another discussion.
     

Share This Page