Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 5:25 am
After reading Fred's replies to Rhythym more closely, I think I can take a guess at the point here. I think what he is saying is that personal experience is by its very nature unprovable objectively, so lack of evidence proving that experience is not a reason to dismiss it.
At least that's what I think he's getting at. Could be wrong.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1336
Threads: 21
Joined: July 24, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 5:34 am
But of course it's a reason to dismiss it. How could someone else's personal experience convince me of something?
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 5:37 am
Like I said, I could be wrong.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 6:48 am
It's the Invisible Pink Unicorn sending him a vision.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 8:10 am
Why not try and answer him directly instead of trying to second guess him? You're scared of falling into a trap? Thought so.
I feel like pretending to be a materialist just so he has someone to answer the damn question!
<materialist hat>
No Fred: the pony doesn't exist objectively. As I cannot fathom anything existing that I can't kick that means it cannot exist at all. QED. Now shut the fuck up. Because I said so. OK!?!?!
</materialist hat>
How'd I do everyone? Did I stick him one for the team? eh? eh?
Posts: 1336
Threads: 21
Joined: July 24, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 9:16 am
Exactly. How can we answer him directly when he's not questioning directly? You might think he's been clear, but EVERYONE else has expressed difficulty grasping what the question or point is. If you think you can clarify, throw us a bone. If not, we'll wait for Fred to see if he can manage it.
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: A question regarding proof
September 8, 2011 at 9:24 am
(September 8, 2011 at 8:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How'd I do everyone? Did I stick him one for the team? eh? eh?
Nope, you fail.
![[Image: FAIL1.jpeg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=blogs.saschina.org%2Foliver01pd2016%2Ffiles%2F2010%2F03%2FFAIL1.jpeg)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
