So I went looking for evidence of a soul...

[Violet]

Sae,

I guarantee that if there was hard evidence that contradicted what the witness said, the testimony would be thrown out. A court is NOT a laboratory and a court proceeding is NOT an experiment. What passes for evidence in a court does not define what passes for evidence everywhere else.

You must consider the topics in any possible court case to understand why personal testimony works as evidence. It only relates to natural physical entities like gun, knife, person, time of day, ya know, basically objectively provable things so there is no need for scientific evidence. If a witness ever brought testimony that they were remote viewing a scene of a crime, their testimony would be thrown out because remote viewing is not considered believable.

Rhizo

That's the thing about witnesses... unless hard evidence presents itself: their testimony is considered highly. What passes for 'evidence' in court... is no different than what passes for 'evidence' in a laboratory... unless a double standard is held in one of the two... which is unreasonable.

How does remotely viewing a crime make it any less a crime... or any less believable? You may have stumbled on the crime scene by chance... but stumble upon it you did. Evidence comes in many forms... fingerprints, chemical processes, odors, tools present, wether a person saw a person killed... walked in as the murderer was leaving... stumbled on the body hours later... or discovered the bones after fifty years.

Personal testimony is something we take on faith... as with the accuracy of our evidence. I believe I presented my existentialist stance to you not so long ago?

---

Sae,

Sure, and the witness could have been paid off, hallucinating at the time, memory wiped, mentally unstable, anything really. If there was no corroboration as far as a spirit or soul goes... then there would be no organized religion. Take Christianity for instance... if Arcanus says something: you usually agree with it. That is corroboration with Arcanus's statement. A soul or spirit should be no different.

This idea commits the argument from popularity fallacy. No amount of people agreeing adds weight to a proposition no matter how many people seem to agree. Fr0d0 makes a good point and thoughts along those lines have led me to believe that personal experience is not evidence.

Rhizo

So our experiences mean nothing at all? It is evidence, as evidence is the assumption that we can trust knowledge, which is assumed to be right. I know I missed my bus this morning, and had to catch it somewhere else... that is purely from personal experience. I might have been hallucinating, or other such things... but I know it happened... I have faith in my correctness here. Here I am giving personal testimony that I missed my bus... and you would have to take this evidence on faith in my testimony (Or deny it).

Personal experience is not perfect evidence... but no other evidence is so perfect either. Even at the fundamental of all logic (1=1)... I am presuming that I have thought correctly on this issue. Essentially: we can know nothing without faith... faith in reasons... faith in others... and faith in ourselves.