RE: Creation/evolution3
February 3, 2015 at 8:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2015 at 8:25 pm by Mr.wizard.)
(February 3, 2015 at 7:56 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote:(February 3, 2015 at 6:48 pm)Chas Wrote: 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.)
Which is why empirical evidence can not be subjective. By using just the definition of empirical to describe empirical evidence is where you are having the confusion. Just because you collect data empirically about a phenomenon does not make your data, evidence of your conclusions. i.e., I saw god, is not "evidence" for god.