Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

I didn't read past the usual Ad Hom attack thus I only can say this:

If you can't attack a point without making personal insults to the point maker you are WEAK.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

typo, I missed the word 'NOT' I shall amend , thank you for drawing to my attention, it was NOT deliberate!

Damn no wonder everyone missed my point!

Apologies, please read now in context intended.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

typical 12 year old girl behaviour.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paradigms regained:

"In Paradigms Regained, John Casti reexamines the six big questions he looked at in his 1989 book, Paradigms Lost: Did life begin naturally and on Earth? Is human behavior genetically determined? Is there a language organ in the human brain? Can computers think? Can we talk to ET? Is there a Real World?
In Paradigms Lost, he presents the evidence for yes and no answers to each question as though in a trial by jury, with witnesses arguing for the prosecution and defense, then a summary of the evidence and a verdict. Paradigms Regained takes the same questions to an appeals court, summarizes the evidence from the "trial" and introduces new evidence from the intervening decade.

Casti's goal is to show how science works, how "the single most characteristic feature of science is that its conclusions are tentative." ."

"Publisher Comments:

In Paradigms Regained, noted mathematician and researcher John Casti boldly tackles the Big Questions of science and sets our sights on a thrilling new millennium of discovery. Exploring the extraordinary "what ifs" of the natural world — the origins of Life, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, our genetic destiny, the roots of Language and Learning, the limits of knowtedge — he debates, with penetrating insight, the diverse and competing theories that exist today.

Brilliant, accessible, and totally engrossing, Paradigms Regained offers important new insight into contemporary scientific thought."

 

This is because science seeks to collect reliable and independantly verifiable data. It is not a gambling institution.

 

A large number of people believe in something doesn't make it true. You're post is rather obvious, and by its logic you can assume that pink elephants exist just as easily as religious gods existing.

 

Wrong

The thread is re the constant 'request' in this forum for evidence every single time someone cites something from their own experience. The view being that unless there is a peer reviewed paper on it, their experience is no more than the result of a deluded mind and malfunctioning brain. This is what the thread is about. Not God.

Sorry to disappoint.

 

Only in some cases. A deluded mind is especially evident if the messenger is absolute in his/her conviction but isn't even willing to share the 'evidence', although the evidence itself is beyond questioning. The whole idea of evidence being beyong questioning is indeed a alien concept to the average scientist.

Scientists actually accept a lot more than just peer-reviewed papers and actually reject ideas in peer-reviewed papers. Peer review is merely a check on quality. It doesn't reflect the validity of the ideas presented itself. That will be determined in subsequent peer-reviewed papers. The peer who reviews the paper merely says that the experiments, the data and the conclusions drawn from them is within certain quality limits. That doesn't mean a peer-reviewed paper projects any 'truth'. There is none in science. The truth is subject to change. Once again, the concept that even the 'truth' can be questioned is normal to a scientist. But not to you of course. You know the turth. It is evident to you. But you cannot convince anyone else of this truth being evident. How evident can it be to the skeptical and inquiring mind? 'Absolutely not evident' is the only conclusion. Too many logical rules are broken by your statements.

Needless to say it isn't easy for the layman to understand science. Especially if they don't put any effort into it.

 

I was giving an example, I wasn't aware that there was anything wrong with that. Furthermore, how do you make the distinction between a pink elephant and a god?

 

Some intelligent people speak of how you should run yourself into a building with a bomb strapped to you to goto heaven where virgins await.

Some idiots actually do those things.

Some idiots also preach that "god" is rebeling against homosexuality by killing American soldiers in Iraq.


Basically, it doesn't matter who/what/how many believe in something, it doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.

 

who said it did?

I refer to ones own experience and observation making things evident

Such as knowing chicken soup is good for fever/colds/immune system etc, many hundereds of yrs before science confirmed this was correct. Those that used it made those observations, prior to being proven correct by science, it was relegated to the realms of 'old wives tale', same thing with warm milk aiding sleep and all the other homeopathic, old age herb/flower remedies that have been around for hundreds if not thousands of yrs. Meanwhile it's all bumkum until science confrims the effective ingredients.

This is what I speak of

It annoys me greatly that some very effective natural remedies are being ignored in favour of modern or worse non existant modern alternatives, becuase science has not the 'evidence' required to authenticate the claims.I know they can't do everything, examine and test everything..but in the meanime, keep an open mind, don't be so dismissive. This is my point.

Example HPV virus, alleged no cure. yest there are many herbal remedies that claim to aid this and the results of tests show good results. At least offer patients at low cost and no risk to themselves the opportunity to try these things.

 

it all has to do with money honey.
oh science has the evidence all right but it's the drug makers that are suppressing it.

 

The scientific premise being that nothing is right, but most things are wrong.

 

So if enough people decide 2+2 =3, water cures cancer, etc?

 

Yep, it has nothing to do with science. Drug manufacturers actually put much more money into advertisment than into research. Despite not really being allowed to advertise. Nobody really knows actually where all that money exactly is going. Well, we kind of know of course. Drug manufacturers are not interested in truth, health, or affordable medication. They want profits.

 

In science most people have excluded all options but '4'. Hence currently the answer is 4.

 

Here is a an example of where 'evident' to me cannot be made 'evident' to someone else (due to nature of the 'evident even't and timeliness etc) yet I remain satisfied in my diagnosis and am not deluded or brain impaired.

I recently started experiencing a disturbing change in my 'dreams' they became more real and I had some weird reality trip (hard to explain and no time now to do so) anyway, they came out of blue and repeated, so I wondered what I may have changed re my diet that could be affecting my dreams. I was already aware I was overdosing slightly on B vits as had bright yello urine, wondered if this may be cause.
Mentioned dreams and food to third party who mentioned B bits may be responsible as they experienced similar when taking supplements.

I thus googled Vit b and dreams and found that certain high amounts of Vit b (I forget which now B12 I think) do indeed effect dreams, making them more lucid, vivid etc, and actually reccommend a dose to take before bedtime to enhance the dream experience.

Anyway, I decided to reduce my dose and see if it made a difference, it did.

Now there is no evidence that would satisfy you lot that I can possibly demonstrate again but to me, based on knowledge of my self and habits and experiences etc, I trust I diagnosed myself correctly.

Thus for me it is evident this was the problem.

Now don't even start with analysing this little example and pulling it apart, as the point of this example is, evident to me is NOT necc. evident to you, but really without you being able to carry out the necc, tests AT THE TIME, you can't dipsute it either.

The jury thus must remain out, neither solid evidence for or against.

There may have been some other cause, it just so happens then when I upped the does again at a later time, the same problem re dreams reoccurred and I when I reduced they went again.


Thus evident to me but not to you does not make me deluded. May make me less concerned with solid scientific evidence before I make changes to my diet/lifestyle but who does not do this on a daily basis.

 

Evidence exists....
http://www.buynytex.com/vitamins.html
Possibly not so much a "change" in your dreams as better recall of what you dreamt.

 

What if the evidence did not yet exist?

Would she be "delusional"?

 

If she went round telling everyone that that was the sole cause, then probably.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's too many other possible factors for a judgement to be made by an individual on the basis of one or two episodes. For example how was the vitamin B taken? What else (other chemicals/ vitamins) was excluded along with the B6? Was it just psychosomatic?