there are sick bastards in canada too.

i agree that believers in superstition dont exclude emotion but it is not"evidence".
the reason we do double blind studies is to exclude emotion from evidence.

 

Who defined "evidence", Science? See the problem there?

 

Don't you see the problem in saying I'm a prisoner of my worldview, whilst you make your own wordlview apparent?

When have I ever said science should meet all human needs? How do you possibly know what I think about the value in emotional evidence. Don't you think you might be a prisoner in your own broad- brush-putting -words-in-peoples-mouths- wordview?

However, human needs are not best met, as must be abundantly clear by now surely, from reaching hysterical conclusions driven by emotional fantasy.Especially religious fantasy.
It doesn't even sound like a plan anymore.

 

I guess one could say another is a prisoner of existentialism, though from that point of view all directives are recognized as merely arbitrary, so it's hard to imagine any compulsion...

 

The scientific method is merely a formal methodology concerning how to apply reason. The scientific method works something like this:

1. Collect data by observation and/or experimentation.
2. Form a hypothesis about that.
3. Test it.
4. Predict.
5. See if your prediction pans out and can be repeated under peer review.

if it pans out it is evidence.

 

Who says the scientific method is the one true way of experiencing reality?

 

if you want to define reality without evidence you are left with faith. if faith is your only guide you run into the same problem religion has:



If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions(versions of reality) are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown

 

Really? If someone says they feel something to be true, but that they can't prove (like a toothache), are they 1) necessarily lying, 2) merely having faith that they have the feeling or 3) are they actually having that feeling?

That's why you can't make the other side go away, they keep having the feeling.

 

Before I forget, I just wanted to mention that Canada may have sick bastards, but they only have one-tenth the sick bastards that the US does.

 

Be nice, I have a few friends who fit that description.