On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

I feel we've gone as far as we're going to without repeating ourselves. My larger point in posting this, beyond simply the nature of evidence in it's different forms, is to address our communal level of discourse by drawing attention to the fact, that lacking scientific data on either side, other people's experiences are just as valid to them as yours are to you. A failure to recognize this when debating any philosophical topic results in a failure to consider things seriously from the other person's point of view. If you wish to do this, that is fine, but it is both non-productive and has a tendency to perpetuate wars of words instead of spirited, friendly, enlightening debates, which is all anybody can hope for on this topic at the moment. I think this is a bad thing, and if you would like your conversations with other people to be more productive, you should try to be the kinder, more understanding person, as this is the only part of the conversation you have any control over. I would like to think I have done so to the best of my ability during these exchanges, even when bated.

---

It looks like you have a sufficient artificial knee and it's already been fixed well enough for you. What more would constitute fixing it at this point?

Well done! You have a future as an idiot apologist.

You presume that the repair is sufficient, and imply there isn't more to be done.

You're an arse.

I implied nothing and politely asked a followup question, which you ignored, and you failed to answer said question while implying none was asked. You, sir, are a quisling. You appear more interested in venting your personal frustrations than discussing the topic outlined in a calm and rational manner. Please express your personal internal frustrations to someone else, and thank you for book-ending the post which I just made in such an appropriate manner.