(February 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Chas, I don't think we are disagreeing on any of those issues where you are correcting and clarifying. I'm sure part of the fault is my poor writing, but I wonder if you are making assumptions about my views that aren't fair.
I said I was just clarifying. I assumed you basically understood evolution.
Quote:I do disagree with your post quoted below (that empirical doesn't allow "stuff that happened only in my head"). We don't know if anything is real outside our heads. If I'm a scientist taking a measurement, I can't know that I'm really taking a measurement.
Useless solipsism.
Quote:In the example of auras, if we had several people that claim to see auras, we could form a hypothesis and do experiments. For example, I might show the same set of 100 people in randomized order to each psychic who claims to see auras, and I can find out if their aura measurements are consistent. If one psychic sees an aura for Joe while the other psychic does not see an aura for Joe, then I would disprove certain hypotheses about auras.
While their testimony might prompt you to investigate, it still does not qualify as empirical evidence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.