The Problem with Anecdotes by QualiaSoup

No description available.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• The
• Problem
• with
• Anecdotes
• by
• QualiaSoup

[Muradj2002]

If something is real, it exists in the realm of the natural. Everything we can observe is in the realm of the natural... only something like "god" would exist beyond the realm of the natural.

[AClssicRkr]

Well that and the Purple cosmic bunny rabbits.

[Breckmin]

What is natural? How do you differentiate what is "natural" from what is "supernatural?" How do you know that

"natural" even exists apart from a supernatural sustaining order and power? What is the "evidence" that natural is independent of the supernatural or supernatural interaction to maintain "order?" How do you know

"natural" actually exists independent of

the supernatural?

[AClssicRkr]

Thank you for asking the same question four times. Natural means caused by nature, nature is "normal" phenomena of reality. Natural = gravity. Supernatural = defiance of gravity.

You seem to be asking the wrong question though as you assume a supernatural power/force/energy exists in the first place and/or is needed. Although I really can't argue much against it as you have yet to define it.

So could you please define it as well as show your evidence that it exists. Thank you.

[ManuelGarridoPena]

As human beings, we are hardwired to believe. Those of us who dont believe are different. Because we are wrongly made, or because we are newer evolved life forms.

Honestly, I wish I could believe in something. Its just that I cant, given the input I receive from my reality.

[atheist6in6a6foxhole]

janet is fucking RIPPED

[EdiEllerymissing]

@AnduinX Sorry :-P... but my point is, history is not "anecdotal" evidence, is corroborated evidence.

[AnduinX]

@EdiEllerymissing: You're missing my point. I was never making the case that we should believe nothing, in fact I agree with you. I was making a case against the insane stance that anecdotal evidence is worthless. There's a wave of hardcore materialist skepticism that simply dismisses all anecdotal evidence, no matter how compelling when it conflicts with their materialist world views. Anecdotes should be examined individually and be subjected to 'common sense', not just dismissed.

[AnduinX]

@EdiEllerymissing: Correct, of course people have collected evidence that the civil war happened, but unless you examine that evidence yourself, your evidence that the civil war happened consists of anecdotal evidence from others who have examined the evidence in your place. Very strong anecdotal evidence, obviously, but anecdotal nonetheless.

[EdiEllerymissing]

@AnduinX Typical sophism. Then, if you never see a naked woman you would consider your knowledge of our anatomic basic genital difference to be anecdotal? You said it yourself: that's besides the point. It's about common sense... Or dare you, if you have ever seen a woman naked, to corroborate you knowledge about our genital differences by asking her to show you... then you will have non-anecdotal evidence ¬¬... stupid sophists.

[EdiEllerymissing]

@AnduinX Of course most of the people doesn't spend their time checking by themselves the actual probes of the civil war, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't already did it and documented it. That's how history works: someone investigates about it and we read their investigation. Is up to you if you believe him or corroborate his investigation and find if what the people who did the investigation is true. And history is like science, they correct when they have new evidence.

[TheIDCLeader]

Does anyone else find that the cube reversed direction whenever you blink?