(November 10, 2016 at 9:22 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:I assumed from your response, that the limitation you proposed concerning scientific testimony to a courtroom came from the word science. Did I make a mistake? Also, I think you should understand, the reason I am calling it testimony, is that it matches the description of testimony. Since A=A (law of identity), then even if not commonly used, I think it applies; along with all the characteristics you ascribe to testimony.(November 10, 2016 at 5:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are you saying that testimony is limited to a courtroom?
Um, No. Where did you get that from what I said?
Quote:
I do understand that these are your starting assumptions. I am trying to understand how you justify them. That is the point of the thread, that you keep asking for, and I keep answering. I have made (perhaps hastely) some comments, which could be assumptions of my own, concerning your reasoning. So far I haven't gotten much (besides people lie, and they make mistakes). Both of which can also apply to testimony about science (I don't think these are very good criteria). Now I do think, that we can test our witnesses, and try to avoid contamination of the evidence. Someone trying to decieve with false evidence is always difficult, but I believe that can be detected too (especially by corraborating evidence). However we would need to establish testimony as evidence first, before we start to discuss how to handle it. We can move on, to my position if you like. But I will be assuming that my starting observation that your rules are ad hoc, begging the question, and shifting the goal posts where correct, and I don't think that we will get very far.
A few months ago, on another blog I frequent, there was a discussion in that it was brought up that the interlocutors (atheists in this case) had a problem with abstract thinking. It was questioned, if this was a defeciency, that seemed to be attracted to this worldview, if it was taught, or just group think. Another offered another option, that many just don't take religion very seriously, and thus their arguements reflect that (lack of thought). I can see both, but I think in this thread the abstract thinking theory seems apparent. It would explain the difficulty in reasoning through the principles, why answers seem to not even register and questions asked multiple times. It would also address the difficulty in applying the principles equally, or offering a justified qualification for the difference that should be observed.
I do realize, that I am different in this area, and very abstract in my thinking. I have noticed this at work, and the way many approach a problem.... There is a difference in the way people think. I don't say this to demean anyone, but I do think that some abstract thinking is called for, and that it may help you understand me.