nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 716:
Line 716: + + + +
→Atheist Science: Eyewitnesses vs. science
It seems like you want use the strict eyewitness standard on others, but use a more reasonable standard for yourself. You want it both ways. But under your strict eyewitness standard, you weren't even able to show that the gospels were legit, while the non-canonical gospels weren't. You aren't, for example, able to distinguish between the gospel of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. All you could produce was secondary evidence, but no eyewitness accounts of them receiving or not receiving the divine word. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
It seems like you want use the strict eyewitness standard on others, but use a more reasonable standard for yourself. You want it both ways. But under your strict eyewitness standard, you weren't even able to show that the gospels were legit, while the non-canonical gospels weren't. You aren't, for example, able to distinguish between the gospel of Luke, Thomas, and Joseph Smith. All you could produce was secondary evidence, but no eyewitness accounts of them receiving or not receiving the divine word. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:56, 18 December 2007 (EST)
: I wasn't referring to the ''technology'' of TV so much as the rapid dissemination of views that it enables. Sure, people talked to other people, but as far as the rapid dissemination of views is concerned, there's a whole order of magnitude of difference. I disagree that physical evidence is generally more useful than corroborated eyewitnesses, although I don't doubt that there are plenty of examples both ways. Short of a comprehensive study on this that we can quote to each other, though, I'd suggest that this is one issue on which the best we can do is anecdotal evidence, non-representative examples, and opinion. Although I can offer an ''expert'' opinion. The former Chief Magistrate of [[New South Wales]] referred to eyewitness testimony as "the best testimony of all", and said that "Lawyers all know the value of witnesses who corroborate each other." (See link below.)
: I have made up my mind on whether the past is falsifiable, and explained that in my previous post. Scientific falsifiability does not use eyewitnesses. It uses repeatable tests. If scientist A proposes that reaction B produces product C, and person D says "I saw that happen once", that is not science. To be science, someone must cause reaction B and see if it produces product C, and other scientists do the same (repeatability) to check the results. You seem to be calling ''all'' research and information gathering 'science'. Science is a specific field of endeavour, not a word that covers everything. Tests require logic, but logic doesn't require tests, so they are not the same thing.
: I've already answered about eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses, but I'll add that you don't need eyewitnesses to the eyewitnesses. Nobody expects that. You need (a) eyewitnesses, (b) corroboration (i.e. more than one eyewitness), and (c) credibility, which can be determined in a number of ways. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4994 here] for a discussion on this, not exactly to do with your questions about the gospels, but close.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
===Legitimate views===