(May 10, 2011 at 10:14 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Peace...
I don't believe in Woody Woodpecker, Ookla the Mok, or the Captain Caveman..And I don't think I could ever be convinced that these fictional beings actually exist and interact with humanity in this reality. For me, believing in any of the aforementioned is absolutely irrational, however, if someone else, Lets call him Professor Neihl Jackson, a man of impeccable character, and good standing within the academic community, under oath and during a polygraph examination declared that a meeting occured between himself and Ookla the Mok, (which was also attended briefly by Thundar the Barbarian), wherein he received strict instructions via Ookla from Princess Ariel which warned of an approaching doom for all Earthlings who refused to remove their eyebrows and replace them with stitched on denim infused with aluminum foil. For this meeting he was transported to the future and spent 30 days in the world of Thundar and Ookla..he was even bitten by a strange Rat-lizard hybrid animal which left a very distinctive scar on his shoulder which remained after his return to his own time...
After a thorough medical examination it was determined that Dr. jackson was perfectly fit, and seemed to be in his right mind. The memory was real for him..of course his eyebrows were shave and he had the unusual denim/aluminum foil thing going on..
Would it be rational for him to believe? Would it be rational for others who knew of his impeccable character and good mind to become believers? Would it be rational for others who expereinced the same thing?
Whirling Moat
Polygraphs don't determine what actually happened, they determine if the person is lying about an experience, not to mention they can be beaten and aren't all that accurate to begin with. Determining that he is mentally fit still doesn't mean he couldn't have had a lapse in judgment and imagined this all. What you're essentially asking is: "Is it rational to believe a person's outlandish claim just because they believe in it themselves?"
The answer is no. If he can't bring back anything verifiable (not just his subjective experiences), then there's no rational reason to believe him.
My blog: The Usual Rhetoric
