Creation/evolution3

[watchamadoodle]

---

Consider two cases:

Two?

(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed

Sighting a bird is potentially replicable by others. However, without a picture or other evidence, the report of a sighting is not empirical evidence.

(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed

See previous.

(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake

You have published methodology and results; others can confirm or deny it.

Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people.

No, the third of your two examples is entirely unlike the first two.

If I read about an experiment confirming general relativity, that is not first-hand observation for me. It is no different from hearing Drich's claims.

Wrong. You could replicate the experiment. You cannot replicate Drich's internal mental state (for which you should be thankful).

The difference IMO is that general relativity has been tested and confirmed by many careful scientists. They are both equally empirical.

What both?

I've had psychosis, so I can sympathize with Drich's reasoning. People with psychosis are being completely rational and scientific, but their senses are giving them weird information. (Of course I'm not suggesting that Drich is mentally ill, but maybe some of his experiences years ago were hallucinatory. Sane people can also hallucinate. That is my theory.)

Their senses do not, in and of themselves, guarantee empirical data for precisely the reason you just gave.

---

@Chas, I agree with your assessment of the differences between the examples. I think the difference is simply definitions and application of those definitions. I understand that most would consider that I'm stretching the definitions. I was simply trying to point-out that these definitions are stretchable. I guess most here disagree and that is fine.