Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 One strange thing I notice, is the stronger the evidence the more people reject it. The weaker the evidence the more they embrace it. I never really figured out how that one works. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cleansox Posted January 16, 2022 8 hours ago, freeform said: the thing with science is that you need to repeat it hundreds or thousands of times to reach a certain level of statistical significance to show any kind of ‘proof’ that would be of relevance in the scientific community. Not only does that cost a lot - but try finding thousands of genuine healers who all agree to do this - One doesn't need thousands to reach statistical significance. 8 hours ago, freeform said: I can emit qi in a very palpable way for instance. It affects animals… it affected a man in a coma (leg started spasming for the first time). I can make some electric meters move… I can make patterns in magnetic field paper etc. All the senior students of my teacher can do this. There’s lots of schools in Asia that can do it. It seems reasonably ‘objective’ - but for a scientist this would be an anomaly and would not count as scientific ‘proof’. One time wouldn't do the trick though, and that seems to be the problem. How many controlled studies on the subject is there, where the result is repeated in at least two independent studies, and the result is statistically significant? There are a few key studies published. I haven't followed the area, but all of those I have read are made in different ways, measuring different things, so that isn't really helpful. The same with studies on treatment. Most of them (that I have read) are too small and fail to control for placebo, making the result inconclusive. (Making the medical community interested in the result is another can of worms...) That is btw a problem not only for energy healing, but for other methods as well, where there is not enough funding or motivation by researchers to create study protocols that are useful. Personally, for the later, I blame the system. At present, four small studies =PhD, while one larger study generally isn't enough for that. And universities often get state funding based on finished examinations, at least that is how it works in my neck of the woods. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earl Grey Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said: One strange thing I notice, is the stronger the evidence the more people reject it. The weaker the evidence the more they embrace it. I never really figured out how that one works. People ignore numbers in favor of feelings. Presentation and packaging wins hearts and minds, numbers scare people off because numbers are associated with thinking. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 16, 2022 16 hours ago, freeform said: Yeah there’s lots of stuff like this… the thing with science is that you need to repeat it hundreds or thousands of times to reach a certain level of statistical significance to show any kind of ‘proof’ that would be of relevance in the scientific community. Not only does that cost a lot - but try finding thousands of genuine healers who all agree to do this - and are capable of doing it at the time and place selected. But things can certainly be quite objective in a personal sort of way. I can emit qi in a very palpable way for instance. It affects animals… it affected a man in a coma (leg started spasming for the first time). I can make some electric meters move… I can make patterns in magnetic field paper etc. All the senior students of my teacher can do this. There’s lots of schools in Asia that can do it. It seems reasonably ‘objective’ - but for a scientist this would be an anomaly and would not count as scientific ‘proof’. I’m sure someone would be able to (whether credibly or not) introduce enough doubt as to ‘debunk’ it or make it appear inconclusive. Though proving anything to anyone is of no interest to me - it’s just useful form of personal feedback to see if my channels are open or if qi has reached a certain level of density. I’m really against attempting to prove this sort of stuff. I’ll leave that to someone else +1 for not proving it scientifically... In my opinion, not only is proving it scientifically a total and utter waste of time and resources...It is dangerous...Science is inexplicitly tied to politics and business in a manner that anything with potential is hoarded, patented, and exploited by profit making entities...there's a reasons beings with a far greater degree of insight than others keep this hidden. We need more attitudes like yours being honest....any individual can discern fact from fiction if they think about it logically and set up something very basic...it is not hard really... That's coming from a guy in science...its a pointless endeavour...and better kept in the shadows...for various reasons 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Seeking Posted January 16, 2022 Everything is natural. It only appears super to those who are of the world (as opposed to those in it) because they expect it to conform to their expectations/programming with the common delusions of the age. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Shadow_self said: +1 for not proving it scientifically... In my opinion, not only is proving it scientifically a total and utter waste of time and resources...It is dangerous...Science is inexplicitly tied to politics and business in a manner that anything with potential is hoarded, patented, and exploited by profit making entities...there's a reasons beings with a far greater degree of insight than others keep this hidden. We need more attitudes like yours being honest....any individual can discern fact from fiction if they think about it logically and set up something very basic...it is not hard really... That's coming from a guy in science...its a pointless endeavour...and better kept in the shadows...for various reasons I believe that you can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. However, proof requires the other party to accept it before anything get's proven, by definition. It's not possible to prove the earth is round even with live feeds from the ISS, at least not to people who refuse to accept the evidence. That doesn't mean it isn't important to try your best anyway. It's important to keep fighting the good fight IMHO. Edited January 16, 2022 by Iliketurtles Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earl Grey Posted January 16, 2022 2 hours ago, Shadow_self said: +1 for not proving it scientifically... In my opinion, not only is proving it scientifically a total and utter waste of time and resources...It is dangerous...Science is inexplicitly tied to politics and business in a manner that anything with potential is hoarded, patented, and exploited by profit making entities...there's a reasons beings with a far greater degree of insight than others keep this hidden. We need more attitudes like yours being honest....any individual can discern fact from fiction if they think about it logically and set up something very basic...it is not hard really... That's coming from a guy in science...its a pointless endeavour...and better kept in the shadows...for various reasons The scientific consensus is not decided solely by science alone... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: I believe that you can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. However, proof requires the other party to accept it before anything get's proven, by definition. It's not possible to prove the earth is round even with live feeds from the ISS, at least not to people who refuse to accept the evidence. That doesn't mean it isn't important to try your best anyway. It's important to keep fighting the good fight IMHO. Scientifically speaking, not really...the presence of any "expert" as a means of a "control" is a logical fallacy...as it rests on an appeal to authority....which as I hope people have noted nowadays in our current situation is dangerous.... You have a vast majority of scientists, at present hypnotised by lies and political propaganda from public health institutions ( and a polarized group on the other side misrepresenting data and making equally outlandish claims)..evidence of this is plentiful...so you have people succumbing to faith here......when in reality by looking at the data we see the truth is not at either end of the black white spectrum,...it is various shades of grey.. But as far as the opinions go..in reality it is no different than a religious person puts their faith in a priest ( we all know how wrong that can end up) Video is only considered evidence in the case of the legal system etc....but the legal system is not objective at all..if we are being truthful Before you reach the topic of proof...You reach the notion of accurate representation....because of the ease to which video can be manipulated...it doesn't sit anywhere on the accepted consensus of scientific evidence....strictly speaking.....an "expert opinion" would hold more weight...which is equally silly to be honest.... The best we could do here would be an open access database where evidence collected is uploaded in real time as it is collected before it is subject to anything....this is the closest we could get to accurate representation, shy of doing it ourselves.. Shy of actually going and checking these things for yourself with some form of test....you are left with faith....and in the case of videos, opinions etc....these are faith based unfortunately There is no real power of proof in journal articles, videos, and such....it is in the data... data, gathered through the sense faculties that is the best case of "proof" provided one can account for their own biases...and investigate said situation accordingly But by all means, please do make the case for video and "experts". Id be interested to see how one could reconcile the above Edited January 16, 2022 by Shadow_self 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
natural Posted January 16, 2022 Wait, Wait please weight! I am and remain both Natural and somewhat super. At least to the toddlers in my life! How long that will last? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cleansox Posted January 16, 2022 One could always say that there is no such thing as a proof. Even raw data can be manipulated, who can say that the machine that is recording and measuring the data is properly calibrated and not tampered with? So, there is always a tad of faith involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cleansox Posted January 16, 2022 54 minutes ago, natural said: Wait, Wait please weight! I am and remain both Natural and somewhat super. At least to the toddlers in my life! How long that will last? My eight year old sees through that.... Enjoy while it lasts 💓 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Cleansox said: One could always say that there is no such thing as a proof. Even raw data can be manipulated, who can say that the machine that is recording and measuring the data is properly calibrated and not tampered with? So, there is always a tad of faith involved. That is why I said it is the best we can do....and not perfect...every step back from that is a move towards faith and away from objectivity in scientific terms at least When you get to the point of a video...you have to have invoke faith above and beyond what could be considered reasonable within the scientific context....it might slide in jurisprudence....but science holds used to hold itself to a higher standard...The bar is constantly being lowered and so, now we reach a point where the science is what people say it is... Edited January 16, 2022 by Shadow_self 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted January 16, 2022 5 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: I believe that you can make a solid case for something on video (which is superior to oral or written testimony), in a controlled environment, with professionals present to make a best case effort to ensure no funny business is going on. [/QUOTE] " Professionals " ? 5 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: However, proof requires the other party to accept it before anything get's proven, by definition. " By definition " ? Proof , definition ; ' evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.' ' Something which shows that something else is true or correct · an act or process of showing that something is true.' ' evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ' ' Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence which shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists. ' ' countable/uncountable information or evidence that shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists ' - nothing in the definition depends on some random person accepting it , or not . Thats a rather crazy premise .... I can stand steadfast in my ignorance and declaring I do not believe in this or that ... and presto ! It has not been proved . methinks you are pushing, or setting up some agenda here .... or just so used to this false premise being bandied around that you have given it some validity . 5 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: It's not possible to prove the earth is round even with live feeds from the ISS, at least not to people who refuse to accept the evidence. You seem to have mixed up 'proof' and 'prove' with 'proved to ' ( a particular person ) . Besides I can prove the earth is NOT flat , if it was , cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now . And , if it IS flat ...... that's only because yo Momma been sittin' on it ! 5 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: That doesn't mean it isn't important to try your best anyway. It's important to keep fighting the good fight IMHO. Yes it is , thank you, me and my handy dictionaries and BS detector shall fight on ! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted January 16, 2022 2 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Scientifically speaking, not really...the presence of any "expert" as a means of a "control" is a logical fallacy...as it rests on an appeal to authority....which as I hope people have noted nowadays in our current situation is dangerous.... You have a vast majority of scientists, at present hypnotised by lies and political propaganda from public health institutions ( and a polarized group on the other side misrepresenting data and making equally outlandish claims)..evidence of this is plentiful...so you have people succumbing to faith here......when in reality by looking at the data we see the truth is not at either end of the black white spectrum,...it is various shades of grey.. But as far as the opinions go..in reality it is no different than a religious person puts their faith in a priest ( we all know how wrong that can end up) Video is only considered evidence in the case of the legal system etc....but the legal system is not objective at all..if we are being truthful Before you reach the topic of proof...You reach the notion of accurate representation....because of the ease to which video can be manipulated...it doesn't sit anywhere on the accepted consensus of scientific evidence....strictly speaking.....an "expert opinion" would hold more weight...which is equally silly to be honest.... The best we could do here would be an open access database where evidence collected is uploaded in real time as it is collected before it is subject to anything....this is the closest we could get to accurate representation, shy of doing it ourselves.. Shy of actually going and checking these things for yourself with some form of test....you are left with faith....and in the case of videos, opinions etc....these are faith based unfortunately There is no real power of proof in journal articles, videos, and such....it is in the data... data, gathered through the sense faculties that is the best case of "proof" provided one can account for their own biases...and investigate said situation accordingly But by all means, please do make the case for video and "experts". Id be interested to see how one could reconcile the above I wonder how many have done this ? about 2 % probably * , if that . * of people that have an opinion on it . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, natural said: Wait, Wait please weight! I am and remain both Natural and somewhat super. At least to the toddlers in my life! How long that will last? Until you decide to mess with Vladi here ; ( You can just tell he is going to grow up to be head of Russian Mafia . ) 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Nungali said: I wonder how many have done this ? about 2 % probably * , if that . * of people that have an opinion on it . In all likelihood...it is probably less In my early postgrad days I remember being rigorous with my controls and design, being super critical of myself and the research I was reading....and my supervisor telling me...oh but this isn't required and that isn't required...make it less complex for yourself My response would always be, You can get it done quickly or you can get it done right....the former seems to be their modus operandi....and then you get this level of acceptance of standards below what should be deemed acceptable....In fact, its slipped to the point that the replication crisis is one that really exemplifies just how ridiculous things have gotten. Science is supposed to be repeatable..and yet..the vast majority of it isn't I smelt the BS then and the deeper I went the more I seen Now I am at the point where I equate someone appealing to science as the exact same as someone appealing to religion...both are equally ridiculous because they have both been distorted above and beyond what was intended Edited January 16, 2022 by Shadow_self 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 18 minutes ago, Nungali said: " Professionals " ? " By definition " ? Proof , definition ; ' evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.' ' Something which shows that something else is true or correct · an act or process of showing that something is true.' ' evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true ' ' Proof is a fact, argument, or piece of evidence which shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists. ' ' countable/uncountable information or evidence that shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists ' - nothing in the definition depends on some random person accepting it , or not . Thats a rather crazy premise .... I can stand steadfast in my ignorance and declaring I do not believe in this or that ... and presto ! It has not been proved . methinks you are pushing, or setting up some agenda here .... or just so used to this false premise being bandied around that you have given it some validity . You seem to have mixed up 'proof' and 'prove' with 'proved to ' ( a particular person ) . Besides I can prove the earth is NOT flat , if it was , cats would have knocked everything off the edge by now . And , if it IS flat ...... that's only because yo Momma been sittin' on it ! Yes it is , thank you, me and my handy dictionaries and BS detector shall fight on ! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact By definition to prove something as true to someone else, they must accept the evidence as true. If they do not accept the evidence as proof, then it is not proof, at least not to them. A flat earth supporter can deny the reality of a live feed from the international space station and reject the evidence as a hoax, and nothing is proven, at least not to them. The unfortunate reality is that you cannot prove something to someone who is unwilling to accept the evidence as true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Cleansox said: One could always say that there is no such thing as a proof. Even raw data can be manipulated, who can say that the machine that is recording and measuring the data is properly calibrated and not tampered with? So, there is always a tad of faith involved. I think you nailed it on the head here. There is no such thing as a universal proof which is so powerful it can compel any and all minds to accept it as true. It can always be argued that something was missed, or some evidence was fabricated, or that the testimony is false. Ultimately we can only do the best we can do, make the best case we can and people will either accept or reject it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 2 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Scientifically speaking, not really...the presence of any "expert" as a means of a "control" is a logical fallacy...as it rests on an appeal to authority....which as I hope people have noted nowadays in our current situation is dangerous.... You have a vast majority of scientists, at present hypnotised by lies and political propaganda from public health institutions ( and a polarized group on the other side misrepresenting data and making equally outlandish claims)..evidence of this is plentiful...so you have people succumbing to faith here......when in reality by looking at the data we see the truth is not at either end of the black white spectrum,...it is various shades of grey.. But as far as the opinions go..in reality it is no different than a religious person puts their faith in a priest ( we all know how wrong that can end up) Video is only considered evidence in the case of the legal system etc....but the legal system is not objective at all..if we are being truthful Before you reach the topic of proof...You reach the notion of accurate representation....because of the ease to which video can be manipulated...it doesn't sit anywhere on the accepted consensus of scientific evidence....strictly speaking.....an "expert opinion" would hold more weight...which is equally silly to be honest.... The best we could do here would be an open access database where evidence collected is uploaded in real time as it is collected before it is subject to anything....this is the closest we could get to accurate representation, shy of doing it ourselves.. Shy of actually going and checking these things for yourself with some form of test....you are left with faith....and in the case of videos, opinions etc....these are faith based unfortunately There is no real power of proof in journal articles, videos, and such....it is in the data... data, gathered through the sense faculties that is the best case of "proof" provided one can account for their own biases...and investigate said situation accordingly But by all means, please do make the case for video and "experts". Id be interested to see how one could reconcile the above Video is superior to personal testimony. Human memory is fallible, and recollections get parsed through their unique biases. Video allows for us to see more of an event without the fallibility of human memory, and without these cognitive biases which are present in personal testimony. Certainly it is not foolproof, I am only arguing it is better than personal testimony, both oral and written. Video can be manipulated, but people can and do distort the truth, and misremember occurrences, and even lie. Ultimately there is no form of evidence which cannot be altered or doctored, and we are forced to do the best we can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 16, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said: Video is superior to personal testimony. Human memory is fallible, and recollections get parsed through their unique biases. Video allows for us to see more of an event without the fallibility of human memory, and without these cognitive biases which are present in personal testimony. Certainly it is not foolproof, I am only arguing it is better than personal testimony, both oral and written. Video can be manipulated, but people can and do distort the truth, and misremember occurrences, and even lie. Ultimately there is no form of evidence which cannot be altered or doctored, and we are forced to do the best we can. Your black and white view of the matter is incredibly limited....you have the blinkers on...and should probably take them off I said the RAW data was superior...and was the least suspect of all forms of evidence....why don't you try addressing that point? Video is subject to biases too...to the point that in order to prove something...you would need to establish that the video was not shot in a way which manipulates the fallibility of the vision faculty For example....you have things like forced perspective (this is just one of many) In order to have any chance of video standing up above and beyond subjective acceptance (which is literally everything you and your cohort describe : IE I accept this as real) you would need to establish that nothing was done to 1) Capture it in a way that takes advantage of the sense faculties weaknesses 2) Manipulated in any shape or form post capture to influence an outcome 3) Presented in a manner that appeals to the inherent cognitive biases of the viewer...which are multiple You would also need to do this in line with logic and reasoning according to scientific principles....so appeals to authority or other logical fallacies are off the table here Even then, if you managed that... it still wouldn't stand up to what is considered scientific evidence...I'm sorry to say. Honestly...I have zero interest in jurisprudence...so unless you are bringing something to suggest that video recordings are considered a good standard of scientific evidence...then im afraid that matter has reached its conclusion But I'm certainly open to your providing evidence to suggest otherwise Now on the point of the cogency of evidence 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning So you glossed over that b point...which is strange, although given your argument is not in line with the principles of reasoning..I wonder was it deliberate? What @Nungali was pointing to was the notion that you are describing the process of subjective acceptance of information as "proof"...please remember that cogency will differ person to person, hence the why I use the term subjective....You stating that video is superior to testimony has no actual bearing on reality...it is just something you are stating based on your own subjective understanding of things....the reality is...it is much more nuanced that this (even in the legal setting) But in order to understand this fully...we need to consider how we can best mitigate this idea of subjective acceptance...and the way in which we do so is by having a universal standard...and the universal standard in the Western world is science..this standard is, or rather should be...a means by which we can accept something as true because it has been through an investigative process that is underpinned by rigour and logic...perfect?? far from it...but stronger than arguments that are based on faulty logic and reason most definitely So while you might think video is superior to testimony...the reality is not really...they both fall flat in terms of science that is...This is why datasets are usually made available to the scientific community...in order to "double check" and "repeat" or conduct new analyses.. Edited January 16, 2022 by Shadow_self 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iliketurtles Posted January 16, 2022 1 hour ago, Shadow_self said: Your black and white view of the matter is incredibly limited....you have the blinkers on...and should probably take them off I said the RAW data was superior...and was the least suspect of all forms of evidence....why don't you try addressing that point? Video is subject to biases too...to the point that in order to prove something...you would need to establish that the video was not shot in a way which manipulates the fallibility of the vision faculty For example....you have things like forced perspective (this is just one of many) In order to have any chance of video standing up above and beyond subjective acceptance (which is literally everything you and your cohort describe : IE I accept this as real) you would need to establish that nothing was done to 1) Capture it in a way that takes advantage of the sense faculties weaknesses 2) Manipulated in any shape or form post capture to influence an outcome 3) Presented in a manner that appeals to the inherent cognitive biases of the viewer...which are multiple You would also need to do this in line with logic and reasoning according to scientific principles....so appeals to authority or other logical fallacies are off the table here Even then, if you managed that... it still wouldn't stand up to what is considered scientific evidence...I'm sorry to say. Honestly...I have zero interest in jurisprudence...so unless you are bringing something to suggest that video recordings are considered a good standard of scientific evidence...then im afraid that matter has reached its conclusion But I'm certainly open to your providing evidence to suggest otherwise Now on the point of the cogency of evidence 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning So you glossed over that b point...which is strange, although given your argument is not in line with the principles of reasoning..I wonder was it deliberate? What @Nungali was pointing to was the notion that you are describing the process of subjective acceptance of information as "proof"...please remember that cogency will differ person to person, hence the why I use the term subjective....You stating that video is superior to testimony has no actual bearing on reality...it is just something you are stating based on your own subjective understanding of things....the reality is...it is much more nuanced that this (even in the legal setting) But in order to understand this fully...we need to consider how we can best mitigate this idea of subjective acceptance...and the way in which we do so is by having a universal standard...and the universal standard in the Western world is science..this standard is, or rather should be...a means by which we can accept something as true because it has been through an investigative process that is underpinned by rigour and logic...perfect?? far from it...but stronger than arguments that are based on faulty logic and reason most definitely So while you might think video is superior to testimony...the reality is not really...they both fall flat in terms of science that is...This is why datasets are usually made available to the scientific community...in order to "double check" and "repeat" or conduct new analyses.. As you point out it is not possible to force someone to accept evidence of something as proof, we can only do the best we can. I personally would prefer video of an event occurring than personal testimony from witnesses. Human memory is certainly fallible, personal testimony is parsed through filters of cognitive biases and agendas, people can and do lie. Video too can be manipulated, as can the raw data as you put it, any form of evidence can. If you feel personal testimony, both oral and written are superior forms of evidence then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted January 17, 2022 4 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact By definition to prove something as true to someone else, they must accept the evidence as true. 4 hours ago, Nungali said: You seem to have mixed up 'proof' and 'prove' with 'proved to ' ( a particular person ) . Originally ; 10 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: However, proof requires the other party to accept it before anything get's proven, by definition. You probably meant ; " To prove something to another party so they accept it ..... thy would have to accept it . Spoiler 4 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: If they do not accept the evidence as proof, then it is not proof, at least not to them. Yep , thats what I said above . But their lack of acceptance does not negate any proof . Proof must stand on its own and not suffer rejection just becasue some stubborn retard refuses to accept the facts . 4 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: A flat earth supporter can deny the reality of a live feed from the international space station and reject the evidence as a hoax, and nothing is proven, at least not to them. sigh .... 4 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: The unfortunate reality is that you cannot prove something to someone who is unwilling to accept the evidence as true. But that in no way impacts on the proofs themselves . And video certainly is NOT proof ! And who are these 'professionals' whose attendance during filming make the video proof ? Plumbers ? DOPs ? Solar panel salesmen? Helicopter pilots ? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted January 17, 2022 3 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Your black and white view of the matter is incredibly limited....you have the blinkers on...and should probably take them off I said the RAW data was superior...and was the least suspect of all forms of evidence....why don't you try addressing that point? Video is subject to biases too...to the point that in order to prove something...you would need to establish that the video was not shot in a way which manipulates the fallibility of the vision faculty For example....you have things like forced perspective (this is just one of many) In order to have any chance of video standing up above and beyond subjective acceptance (which is literally everything you and your cohort describe : IE I accept this as real) you would need to establish that nothing was done to 1) Capture it in a way that takes advantage of the sense faculties weaknesses 2) Manipulated in any shape or form post capture to influence an outcome 3) Presented in a manner that appeals to the inherent cognitive biases of the viewer...which are multiple You would also need to do this in line with logic and reasoning according to scientific principles....so appeals to authority or other logical fallacies are off the table here Even then, if you managed that... it still wouldn't stand up to what is considered scientific evidence...I'm sorry to say. Honestly...I have zero interest in jurisprudence...so unless you are bringing something to suggest that video recordings are considered a good standard of scientific evidence...then im afraid that matter has reached its conclusion But I'm certainly open to your providing evidence to suggest otherwise Now on the point of the cogency of evidence 1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning So you glossed over that b point...which is strange, although given your argument is not in line with the principles of reasoning..I wonder was it deliberate? What @Nungali was pointing to was the notion that you are describing the process of subjective acceptance of information as "proof"...please remember that cogency will differ person to person, hence the why I use the term subjective....You stating that video is superior to testimony has no actual bearing on reality...it is just something you are stating based on your own subjective understanding of things....the reality is...it is much more nuanced that this (even in the legal setting) But in order to understand this fully...we need to consider how we can best mitigate this idea of subjective acceptance...and the way in which we do so is by having a universal standard...and the universal standard in the Western world is science..this standard is, or rather should be...a means by which we can accept something as true because it has been through an investigative process that is underpinned by rigour and logic...perfect?? far from it...but stronger than arguments that are based on faulty logic and reason most definitely So while you might think video is superior to testimony...the reality is not really...they both fall flat in terms of science that is...This is why datasets are usually made available to the scientific community...in order to "double check" and "repeat" or conduct new analyses.. You do realise WHY Mr Turtle is pushing video evidence ( with 'professionals' in attendance ) as something very significant ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 17, 2022 2 hours ago, Iliketurtles said: As you point out it is not possible to force someone to accept evidence of something as proof, we can only do the best we can. I personally would prefer video of an event occurring than personal testimony from witnesses. Human memory is certainly fallible, personal testimony is parsed through filters of cognitive biases and agendas, people can and do lie. Video too can be manipulated, as can the raw data as you put it, any form of evidence can. If you feel personal testimony, both oral and written are superior forms of evidence then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You really do have a problem with making unfounded leaps in logic...perhaps ill shorten my responses so its easier to read 1. What I actually pointed out was what Nungali mentioned...that irrespective of whether someone subjectively accepts your attempt to prove an event occured to them, does not take away from the fact that objective evidence does exist...does this make sense? 2. You saying " I personally prefer" is fine...I take no issue here. However when you say "x is better than y" well there needs to be something concrete to back that up. I dont see the argument for it...the fact that memory is fallible does not really nullify testimony...it is just a strike against it...similarly we can make strikes against the use of a video too..If you like, I could make a list of both...you would soon see that niether has any inherent advantage if we are scoring point for point.... 3. I never said anything of the sort...actually I told you they are both terrible. What I did say was that the accepted standard of evidence in the scientific domain is peer reviewed papers.....and what that is is an account of what someone did, the instructions of how they did it, what they found and what to do next, Nowadays (thankfully) a dataset is usually available to run analyses oneself and check for errors ( we do have ways of looking at data to assess the rigour of collection and potential deviance of authors)..the fact that we can access the data and do this...will always make it trump a video or personal testimony...because you cant jump inside a persons words...and you cant jump inside a tv screen to investigate for errors 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Nungali said: You do realise WHY Mr Turtle is pushing video evidence ( with 'professionals' in attendance ) as something very significant ? Indeed I do....However it isn't and wont ever be in the eyes of science....Feeling like ones beliefs are underpinned by an authority gives a sense of security...the reality however is different We do have people who like to do it right...plenty of interesting work in contemplative neuroscience and the likes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.dec3ed0d837a7d44c365eb5d82a9756c.jpg)