(October 11, 2016 at 6:16 am)robvalue Wrote: I'll be honest, what it seems like I'm seeing here is an attempt to bend science and standards of evidence so that religious beliefs become accepted as credible. This is what I see the danger as. Religious beliefs are not rational (in my opinion) so if the person tries to make themselves "consistent", they end up leaking further irrationality into their thinking. I don't know why this would be required. No one is stopping anyone believing anything they want. Believe Lord of the Rings really happened if you want. I won't stop you.
I'm not trying to bend science or the standards of evidence. Testimony as evidence has been regarded for some time, in legal and historical investigation. And I think that you are more focused on the consequences in regards to religion in this discussion than I am. Now as far as I can gather, the only rational argument you have made is that testimony can be unreliable. This included mistakes and lies. If you wish to continue in the discussion, I think that it would be good, to expand further on this, and why testimony should not be considered evidence (as it is now). It may be news to you, but anything involving people, can have mistakes or be lied about. In the areas mentioned above (legal and historical) there are methods to detect these as well.
Quote:This is just my take on it. I've tried hard to see how this could be anything else. Otherwise it's just a general attempt to smear science; I don't know why. Yes, so and so someone reported could have happened. So what? If anyone can see anything more going on here, please point it out to me. I've tried not to be cynical. We appear to be descending into semantics rather than expanding into reality.
I'm not trying to smear or diminish science, however a principle being advocated can be applied to this area of knowledge, then it is rational to do so.
