[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: There Be Dragons
>From: email@example.com (Ben S. Roesch)
> Sure, but not everyone lies. So then obviosly there are going to be some
> reports that are true, and what are we to make of these?
Human senses are easily fooled. Until there is a *verified*
occurance of something under circumstances which make sensory
error unlikely, I consider "eye-witness" testimony to be very
unreliable. As E.S. Gardner says, circumstantial evidence is
often more reliable than eye-witness testimony - check the
psychology journals for articles on the ways eye-witnesses
can be misleading.
Even many of the people who have seen Elvis truly believe they
have done so - they are "telling the truth" as they know it.
This still doesn't mean that Elvis is alive.
> > Falsifiable
> >hypothese are not the prime focus of most of them...
> I agree. But most are always trying to be as scientific as possible,
You just contradicted yourself. You agreed that they are not
focusing on flasifiable hypoyheses and then you said they are
trying to be scientific.
Being scientific *means* to be focused on falsifiable hypotheses.
If they are not doing that, then they are not being scientific.
The peace of God be with you.