RE: Creation/evolution3
February 3, 2015 at 7:56 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 8:03 pm by watchamadoodle.)
(February 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Chas Wrote:(February 3, 2015 at 5:41 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: 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.
Consider two cases:
(1) I go to the Amazon and report sighting a strange bird species which is eventually confirmed
(2) I go to the Amazon and report seeing a flying saucer which is never confirmed
(3) I am a scientist who publishes my breakthrough in cold fusion that turns out to be my mistake
Those are all sensory observations for me, and they are second-hand sensory observations for other people. 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.
The difference IMO is that general relativity has been tested and confirmed by many careful scientists. They are both equally empirical.
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.)