Effective Altruism

[Meh Gerbil]

Personal testimony is accepted unless it can be proven to be unreliable. It is defacto accepted as true unless shown otherwise. That is how the courts work. Now it is up to each member of the Jury to believe the testimony or not. But as far as the court is concerned the eye witness testimony is accepted as true evidence in the case unless proven otherwise by contrary evidence or cross examination.

I think for many skeptics, within the context of apologetics, 'subjective' is a dirty word when in reality it is just a category of evidence.
In practice we operate on subjective evidence, even in life and death situations, on a daily basis.

This also means that for people like Tassman evidence for Evolution is subjective.
He doesn't perform the experiments himself (I presume) but relies on the testimony of others.

What is interesting is that if you're an eye witness the evidence for you is not subjective but objective.
If you experience God that is an objective evidence for you; when you share it with a friend it is subjective for that friend.

Whether people agree with that assessment or not the fact remains that 'subjective' isn't a dirty word.

[Tassman]

I think for many skeptics, within the context of apologetics, 'subjective' is a dirty word when in reality it is just a category of evidence.
In practice we operate on subjective evidence, even in life and death situations, on a daily basis.

This also means that for people like Tassman evidence for Evolution is subjective.
He doesn't perform the experiments himself (I presume) but relies on the testimony of others.

Evidence for Evolution may be subjective for me but it not for those who are sufficiently qualified to examine the evidence and for whom I have no reason to disbelieve. This includes the vast majority of scientists for whom Evolution is fact supported by a massive accumulation of verifiable evidence. It also applies to experts in many other fields such as Medicine. I may not have the expertise myself, but I trust those I have good reason to believe DO have the necessary expertise.

What is interesting is that if you're an eye witness the evidence for you is not subjective but objective.
If you experience God that is an objective evidence for you; when you share it with a friend it is subjective for that friend.

Whether people agree with that assessment or not the fact remains that 'subjective' isn't a dirty word.

Certainly, if you're an eye witness the evidence for you is not merely subjective, but unless it’s supported by verifiable evidence it may well be dismissed by others as delusional.

[Tassman]

You really don't get it do you?

Personal testimony is accepted unless it can be proven to be unreliable. It is defacto accepted as true unless shown otherwise. That is how the courts work. Now it is up to each member of the Jury to believe the testimony or not. But as far as the court is concerned the eye witness testimony is accepted as true evidence in the case unless proven otherwise by contrary evidence or cross examination.

Bizarre, unsubstantiated personal testimony is NOT generally accepted.

[seer]

Bizarre, unsubstantiated personal testimony is NOT generally accepted.

So we shouldn't listen to you?

[Sparko]

Evidence for Evolution may be subjective for me but it not for those who are sufficiently qualified to examine the evidence and for whom I have no reason to disbelieve. This includes the vast majority of scientists for whom Evolution is fact supported by a massive accumulation of verifiable evidence. It also applies to experts in many other fields such as Medicine. I may not have the expertise myself, but I trust those I have good reason to believe DO have the necessary expertise.

Christianity might be subjective for me, but not for those who were there and experienced Christ first hand and experienced the evidence and reported it to us for whom I have no reason to disbelieve. I may not have witnessed Christ myself but I trust those who have.

Certainly, if you're an eye witness the evidence for you is not merely subjective, but unless it’s supported by verifiable evidence it may well be dismissed by others as delusional.

Again, in court, unless they have evidence against the eye witnesses testimony, their testimony is accepted by the court as valid and true. The ultimate choice to believe or not, is left up to the jury. Just like all of the physical evidence.

[Sparko]

Bizarre, unsubstantiated personal testimony is NOT generally accepted.

Yes, it is. Unless there is evidence against them, it is accepted as evidence in a court. Even if someone says they were abducted by Australians. It is up to the jury to weigh all of the evidence and decide. Unless the eye witness can be shown to be perjuring themselves, their testimony is considered truthful.

[Tassman]

Yes, it is. Unless there is evidence against them, it is accepted as evidence in a court. Even if someone says they were abducted by Australians. It is up to the jury to weigh all of the evidence and decide. Unless the eye witness can be shown to be perjuring themselves, their testimony is considered truthful.

Australians exist and therefore the claim is at least plausible and has the possibility of being substantiated. OTOH personal testimony of a purely subjective experience, e.g. alien abduction or a mystical divine experience, does not have this possibility.

[Sparko]

Australians exist and therefore the claim is at least plausible and has the possibility of being substantiated. OTOH personal testimony of a purely subjective experience, e.g. alien abduction or a mystical divine experience, does not have this possibility.

Why should I take your word that Australia exists? And aren't you arguing in another thread with me that alien life exists?

[Darth Executor]

"It has served us well, this myth of Australia." ~ Crocodile Dundee

[Tassman]

Why should I take your word that Australia exists?

You don’t have to take my word; the existence of Australia is easily verified.

And aren't you arguing in another thread with me that alien life exists?

No, only that there exists conditions favourable to life on other planets and that therefore may be alien life.

[Sparko]

You don’t have to take my word; the existence of Australia is easily verified.

well then get to it: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...anism&p=427120

No, only that there exists conditions favourable to life on other planets and that therefore may be alien life.

So then why would you automatically dismiss testimony about alien abductions? If there is life in the universe, there could be intelligent life, and if there is intelligent life, it could be far more advanced than us, and have visited our planet, right?

[Meh Gerbil]

Australians exist and therefore the claim is at least plausible and has the possibility of being substantiated. OTOH personal testimony of a purely subjective experience, e.g. alien abduction or a mystical divine experience, does not have this possibility.

It appears there are more people on the planet who've experienced the divine than people who've experienced Australia.

[Tassman]

It appears there are more people on the planet who've experienced the divine than people who've experienced Australia.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!

More to the point, those who have experienced Australia can provide objective evidence of its existence whereas those who claim to have experienced the divine cannot provide objective evidence of their alleged experience.

[shunyadragon]

It appears there are more people on the planet who've experienced the divine than people who've experienced Australia.

Therefore, the Christian view of the universal is highly selective and arbitrary as to who receives God's Revelation for salvation.

[Adrift]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!

Eh, he wasn't making a formal argument. You've been really jumpy on the logical fallacies where they don't exist lately. Knock it off. It makes you look silly.