Souls and afterlife seem to be real

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8213
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Poodle » Thu Jun 22, 2017 6:27 pm

I mention no names, but certain people do not know the differing applications of the definitions of the word 'evidence' (I prefer the OED as a reference). However, it should be generally known that the legal definition of the word is as useful as a bubble gum handkerchief when entering into any other kind of situation.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:03 pm

Poodle wrote:I mention no names, but certain people do not know the differing applications of the definitions of the word 'evidence' (I prefer the OED as a reference). However, it should be generally known that the legal definition of the word is as useful as a bubble gum handkerchief when entering into any other kind of situation.

Some parts of the legal definition should be abandoned, human perception being subjective. What really grinds my gears is the extrapolation from cherry-picked anecdotal narratives—as if they're data—to an unrelated, overly broad, ridiculously biased conclusion. Logic should be a required course in all high schools.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10507
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:09 pm

LunaNik wrote:
Poodle wrote:I mention no names, but certain people do not know the differing applications of the definitions of the word 'evidence' (I prefer the OED as a reference). However, it should be generally known that the legal definition of the word is as useful as a bubble gum handkerchief when entering into any other kind of situation.

Some parts of the legal definition should be abandoned, human perception being subjective.


The legal definition only pertains to admissibility, not to weight. While eyewitness testimony is problematic, it is often all that is available. Muggings and rapings don't always leave forensic evidence. Also, the bar is low compared to the hard sciences - reasonable doubt.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7615
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:33 pm

salomed wrote:... The best collected evidence I know of. ...


I see little evidence that you exist as an honestly thoughtful person. :?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:55 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Poodle wrote:I mention no names, but certain people do not know the differing applications of the definitions of the word 'evidence' (I prefer the OED as a reference). However, it should be generally known that the legal definition of the word is as useful as a bubble gum handkerchief when entering into any other kind of situation.

Some parts of the legal definition should be abandoned, human perception being subjective.


The legal definition only pertains to admissibility, not to weight. While eyewitness testimony is problematic, it is often all that is available. Muggings and rapings don't always leave forensic evidence. Also, the bar is low compared to the hard sciences - reasonable doubt.

True, but I don't have the faith in juries that most people do, having served on one. My colleagues were far more interested in getting the hell outta Dodge than they were in examining the evidence...but I refused to vote until they sat and listened to me, which did not endear me to them but at least ensured the defendant got a verdict based on the evidence instead of on the biases of the jury members.

It was an alleged A&B that hinged on the testimony of two witnesses, neither of whom could have seen the events to which they testified, according to the evidence.

• Witness #1 was a client of the plaintiff, who was a hairdresser/salon owner. The witness was nearsighted and wore rather thick glasses. The evidence showed her chair was more than 20 meters from where the alleged A&B took place. She testified she had been in the process of getting a permanent wave when the alleged A&B occurred, and that the hairdresser had just finished applying the permanent chemicals, but claimed to have been wearing her glasses, which had metal frames. I've had enough perms and color jobs in my life to know that you remove all metal items, including glasses and jewelry, prior to the chemicals being applied. No hairdresser is going to take the chance she might ruin expensive jewelry or eyewear, especially not the salon owner.

• Witness #2 was the plaintiff's daughter. Her testimony was hesitant, and she kept glancing over to her mother the entire time she was on the stand. She testified that she had been outside the salon and witnessed the alleged A&B through the plate glass window. On closer questioning, she specified that she did not have her face to the glass, but was about a meter away from it. On deliberation, I asked for the location of the salon. Turns out, it was on my small city's main street, and on the east side of a north-south street, facing west...and the alleged A&B occurred in the early afternoon. There's no way someone a meter from the glass could have seen what was happening inside the salon, not with the sun reflecting from the glass.

The jury had been split, with most of the women siding with the plaintiff and most of the men siding with the defendant. After I forced them to look at the evidence, we voted unanimously to acquit. But the experience really made me doubt the US judicial system. I think if I ever required a jury of my peers, I'd demand to interview them myself.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8213
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Poodle » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:49 pm

I couldn't agree more. The jury system is frightening in its inbuilt acceptance of prejudice and ignorance. However, other than a jury made up of Professional SkepticsTM, I can't see an obvious improvement.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:54 pm

Poodle wrote:I couldn't agree more. The jury system is frightening in its inbuilt acceptance of prejudice and ignorance. However, other than a jury made up of Professional SkepticsTM, I can't see an obvious improvement.

Right? Is it better to throw yourself on the tender mercies of twelve biased ignorant people off the street? Or one biased ignorant judge who happens to know the law? So then my choice is "or death?"
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8213
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Poodle » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:03 pm

Professional jurists with appropriate qualifications (yet to be devised) and old enough to have lost youthful silliness but young enough not to have developed too many grudges and prejudices?
I know - fairyland.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby salomed » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:24 pm

TJrandom wrote:
salomed wrote:... The best collected evidence I know of. ...


I see little evidence that you exist as an honestly thoughtful person. :?


I get that. And equally, as a sceptic, I assume you could be nust another monitored bot.

Please assume me a fool. I don't really see any of you as real, like people in the real world. I see them as real. I don't expect or want you to see me as real.

Assume the worst,
Hope for the best.


This seems so wise to me:)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby Nikki Nyx » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:45 pm

salomed wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
salomed wrote:... The best collected evidence I know of. ...


I see little evidence that you exist as an honestly thoughtful person. :?


I get that. And equally, as a sceptic, I assume you could be nust another monitored bot.

Please assume me a fool. I don't really see any of you as real, like people in the real world. I see them as real. I don't expect or want you to see me as real.

Assume the worst,
Hope for the best.


This seems so wise to me:)

I am a person in the real world. Also, you haven't answered my question.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:54 pm

salomed wrote: I've watched it numerous times and was reading Popper when you were still sucking popsicles.
No. We already know you are lying again. It is Karl Popper who specifically discussed the falsification of a hypothesis and you are the "wooist" who can't even form a hypothesis for the afterlife, to falsify, in the first place. :lol:

salomed wrote:The Scoles information is much better quality evidence. The best collected evidence I know of.
....evidence for what hypothesis Salomed? Be a good little boy and set out your hypothesis for the afterlife, as required by Popper.

Karl Popper's explanation for why there needs to first be a hypothesis to falsify. (1.5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:06 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:The legal definition only pertains to admissibility, not to weight. While eyewitness testimony is problematic, it is often all that is available. Muggings and rapings don't always leave forensic evidence. Also, the bar is low compared to the hard sciences - reasonable doubt.
Oleg's right. Legal definitions of evidence are totally different to the nature of evidence in the scientific method.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7615
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby TJrandom » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:11 am

Poodle wrote:Professional jurists with appropriate qualifications (yet to be devised) and old enough to have lost youthful silliness but young enough not to have developed too many grudges and prejudices?
I know - fairyland.


I don`t recommend professional jurists - that being what we have. Generally rather obtuse, much like military justice. Mostly guilty if charged, very little in evidence that can be cross-examined simply because the prosecution only needs to present whatever supports their case, and is free to disregard or even hide the rest. For capital cases we have just recently gone to a mixed jury, with the pros still having over-ride power.

Of course there could be other solutions which involve professional jurists.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7615
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby TJrandom » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:13 am

salomed wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
salomed wrote:... The best collected evidence I know of. ...


I see little evidence that you exist as an honestly thoughtful person. :?


I get that. And equally, as a sceptic, I assume you could be nust another monitored bot.

Please assume me a fool. I don't really see any of you as real, like people in the real world. I see them as real. I don't expect or want you to see me as real.

Assume the worst,
Hope for the best.


This seems so wise to me:)


P r e t t y sure, we have lost any hope for you. Pretty sure indeed.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby salomed » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:23 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote: I've watched it numerous times and was reading Popper when you were still sucking popsicles.
No. We already know you are lying again. It is Karl Popper who specifically discussed the falsification of a hypothesis and you are the "wooist" who can't even form a hypothesis for the afterlife, to falsify, in the first place. :lol:

salomed wrote:The Scoles information is much better quality evidence. The best collected evidence I know of.
....evidence for what hypothesis Salomed? Be a good little boy and set out your hypothesis for the afterlife, as required by Popper.

Karl Popper's explanation for why there needs to first be a hypothesis to falsify. (1.5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-sGqBsWv4



Is there a fallacy where you just accuse someone of lying?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8213
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby Poodle » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:18 pm

It isn't a fallacy if someone IS lying.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:28 pm

An appeal to an unqualified authority nicely involves lying. Fallacy: not valid. Not true. Lying only going to the motivation. Can be a close call.

I've always thought that mere "word against word" legal cases cannot by definition establish "anything" beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal cases without corroborating circumstantial or direct evidence should not be brought in the first place......dismissed BY THE COURT when they are. Not the system in the USA.......... lip service all around.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10507
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Souls and afterlife seem to be real

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:49 pm

Lying isn't a fallacy - fallacies are arguments, not facts.

Lies create false premises.

Lies do not necessarily lead to false conclusions:

All crows are green
All green birds eat corn
Crows eat corn.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26750
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How woosters fake evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:52 am

salomed wrote: Is there a fallacy where you just accuse someone of lying?
Not if that person is lying. That would be you salomed.

Hey Salomed? : According to Popper, do you need a hypothesis for a claim, before you look for evidence for that claim? Yes or No?
:D

Soooooo.......when you said the Scole video was was the best evidence you have ever seen for the afterlife, what was the hypothesis you applied that evidence to? :lol:

Watch Salomed squirm and squirm but never actually set out his hypothesis for the afterlife,


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest