I disagree. None of that stuff is evidence pointing to proof and needs to be called on it minute one. Better that then quibbling later about crap like reliability of testimony and repeatability of experiments.
To help, here is the Google define: definition of testimony
The first is court testimony, not relevant here. The third is too broad to be useful, being basically evidence. The second is the common usage of testimony.
With this definition, Dio is exactly right. Scientific papers these days are not written in the form of “I did this” or “I saw that.” You get experimental results, nowadays electronically recorded and available for reference, and you get pictures. Someone writing about a black hole won’t talk about what she saw, but will publish a photo illustrating gravitational lensing, for example. Even better, for any important issue no one will depend on even this, but will reproduce the results themselves.
I’ve been reading a book containing scientific papers from the 18th century and before, and those were mostly written as testimony. The results were buried in a narrative. However even then there was a move to publish enough information about the experiment so it could be reproduced, which was done especially for the early electrical work.
If anything can be used as evidence, then “evidence” is a null term. You may wish to believe the mouth-flapping of someone who tells you what you want to hear, but neither the mouth-flapping nor your belief should count as evidence…unless you are gathering evidence of gullibility.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t speak to whether love is a purely internal thing or has an objective definition. If it is purely internal, and is whatever a person feels, an assertion of love is unfalsifiable, since any external actions that contradict the eternal state of love might just be indications that a person has an internal definition of love different from ours - like your psychotic.
If there is some sort of objective definition, we can measure a person’s actions against it, and thus falsify the guy who is beating his wife’s claim that he actually loves her.
This is relevant to discussions about God. If you think God appears to people internally, through visions or spiritual experiences and the like, and never says anything factual about the world and never has a direct physical impact, then claims of God are unfalsifiable. Especially if your model of God includes him saying different things to different people. If the model of God is more objective, it can be falsified. Just ask him some verifiable question about the future, or have him do tricks visible to all.
And the claim that the Western God won’t do this in order to encourage belief are bogus, since the Bible is full of instances of God and Jesus doing tricks for this very reason.
In case you didn’t get to post #223 yet:
You know damn well what he meant by “testimony.” You accept black holes exist (or some other scientific claim) based on what evidence they tell you there is and not because you’ve gathered evidence on your own and he wants to know:
That’s why courts have rules of evidence. I don’t think testimony of a “psychic” who claims to have seen the murder scene in her crystal ball would be admissible - why be less rigorous than this in examining one of the most important questions there is.
Wrongo. I have the training to understand the evidence, and I am enough a part of the scientific world to know the vacuity of claims of conspiracy. I haven’t read the papers myself, though I could with a bit of a brushup on my math, but I have read multiple books over the years that are written at a pretty advanced level. I’ve also directly studied relativity in physics.
Do you think that evolution is based on “testimony” also? How about the efficacy of drugs? How about semiconductor physics?
Do you know what is true about such evidence?
It is falsifiable. It is there to be examined and/or tested. It is up front-nothing is hidden and no one is saying “Of course I’m telling the truth-isn’t my word good enough for you?”
Edited to add: Such evidence is freakin’ consistent, much too consistent to be faked by the number of scientists it would take to do such a thing.
What part of what I said was wrong? I made a statement about what Dio believes according to the OP and rephrased the questions he asked. Nothing I said is “wrongo”.
I NEVER claimed evolution or any scientific theory is based on testimony. Read my posts again.
That’s a fine answer, but the point of my rephrasing the questions by the OP was that Dio ducked them and continued to do so after I brought it to his attention multiple times. What was particularly annoying was taking the OP’s statements out of context and answering something the OP wasn’t saying. I would usually not going through the trouble of bringing it up at all but I’ve witnessed Dio do this repeatedly lately and his disingenuous posting caused me to finally call him on it.
Point of order: psychotic =/ psychopathic. They are distinct and separate syndromes.
I would assert that true “love” can be objectively defined by emotion AND deeds. Lower forms of “love” may contain only one or the other, but True Love must contain both. Therefore:
(1) Emotion + Good Deeds (no wife beating) = True love.
(2) Emotion + Wife Beating = crazy psychotic, not true love.
(3) No Emotion + Good Deeds = Not true love, potentially psychopathic (the problem here is that “good deeds” could change without warning) but could also be interpreted as a marriage of convenience for mutual gains…Bill & Hillary Clinton, for example.
(4) No Emotion + Wife Beating = 100% psychopath, not love in any way shape or form, and I hope the woman sets the bastard’s bed on fire.
That’s basically my take on “God” – there’s absolutely zero consensus on how to define who or what “God” is. To make matters worse, people like Pascal assume there is only one definition of “God”, and reject any alternate definition. Therefore, any scientific test of “God” can’t even reach the hypothesis stage, due to lack of any clear, definitive terms.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
I basically agree. Case 3 is interesting, since it demonstrates the provisional nature of confirmation of a hypothesis. One can observe someone in this category and provisionally assign them to category one - but it can change once you find the stained dress.
Dio (to put words in his mouth) is not accepting black holes just because someone tells him they exist, but as an output of a scientific process he understands reasonably well.
There is a lot of difference between a snake oil salesman telling you that a potion will cure your boils and a company saying the same thing after FDA approval.
You also quoted, seemingly with approval, the nonsense about a scientific conspiracy.
Yes, I did. So what? The OP asked Dio:
The OP wasn’t claiming he believed there was a scientific conspiracy (go back and read his quote in full); he was asking how Dio knows what he knows. If one is going to engage the OP for several pages he owes him as much as directly responding to his posts.
This is true, with the clarification that it was always Case 3 from day one, regardless of the public’s perception.
It’s analogous to how Ptolmey’s geocentric model of the Solar System was replaced with a heliocentric model, as soon as precise observation methods became available. It’s always been that way – the Earth & the Sun didn’t swap places overnight.
The only one who should apologize is the OP for asking a question so asinine, “But how do you know that the entire scientific world hasn’t been lying to us about those experiments?”, that the only logical response would be to laugh out loud and ignore whatever came after that.
Sure, if one has no interest in educating the OP or responding to posts even after being asked to several times, I guess that’s the only logical response. :rolleyes:
You want an answer? Fine.
Because science doesn’t work that way, there is no “organized scientific world”, scientists delight in proving others wrong and themselves right, the evidence is out there to be examined at any time by anyone and, to point out the blindingly obvious a freakin’ conspiracy of that size, even if you managed to herd that scientists together and somehow managed to get them to agree and such a stupid idea, the “conspiracy” would last as long as it would take for them to get to their mobile phones.
Edited to add: Feeling educated now?
Start from the beginning, read my posts again and if you still don’t know what I wanted, I can’t help you.
Alternate answer:
A logical and comprehensive answer cannot be given to a nonsense question. Either rephrase the question so that it makes sense, accept an answer that is given after one tries to make the question make sense, or be happy with a nonsense answer.
You choose.