(June 16, 2014 at 8:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(June 16, 2014 at 7:31 am)Esquilax Wrote: I looked, and then if you look, you'll see I corrected you: we're talking about evidence in general, not merely empirically measured scientific standards. At least, that's what I was talking about when I made the first statement you responded to, the idea that you should need some indication of a thing before you believe it exists.
Yes I ignored your dodge.
What evidence besides empirical evidence would you be prepared to accept?
As I've said earlier, your willingness to open the field to include non empirical evidence is a smokescreen. You have no idea what that means, you're just using it as a get out clause.
Still I see you refuse to do any leg work. I guess you're just not interested in anything but your own ideas.
As far as I know, only empirical evidence seems powerful enough to derive knowledge from. Do you have any other method I don't know of that you believe I should trust?
