RE: street epistemology
December 25, 2015 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: December 25, 2015 at 5:35 pm by Sal.
Edit Reason: added note
)
(December 25, 2015 at 5:11 pm)Delicate Wrote: They present what they believe is evidence.
And you know it's not. Right?
How do you know it's not good evidence?
I'm not Simon Moon, but I'll answer for myself what I find to be valid evidence for god(s).
Verifiable, repeatable & falsifiable evidence that can be verified by outside sources, repeated under controlled conditions and is able to be falsified.
The first 2 requirements - verifiable and repeatable - refers to simple conditions for phenomena or basic logic. The 3rd is the interesting one; falsifiable means that there should be an experiment/observation that would disprove the evidence, and when that is met, would be a condition under which your evidence could be dismissed or verified.
---
EDIT: Also, I've yet to find any theist, (or psychic, diviner, etc. for that matter) to produce any amount of the supernatural and that failed these 3 criteria.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
