And I suppose according to the 'fallacy' you named, till some scientist guy takes the final decision and waves a green flag...the observation cannot be considered as correct! Nice!
8 comments
A rainbow doesn't physically exist.
Now produce your 'God'.
If it cannot be observed, it cannot exist.
Smoke introduced into the airstream in wind tunnel tests of vehicles/aircraft. Individual atoms in electron microscopes.
Your call.
Fine. You've got a soul. I don't. It's obvious to you. It isn't to me. Big whoop-ti-doo. The living are alive, the dead are dead, and souls are fairy tales. I'll believe it when you take a picture of one.
@Kanna
So the subject of debate was the existence of a soul?
Things that are "obvious" to many people are most often just things they really want to believe in instead of things that actually exist. I have to agree that whether any particular scientist concurs with the existence or nonexistence of the soul is of no consequence (at least not in a vacuum). The soul as a supernatural occurence can't be studied using scientific methods. That doesn't mean though that it exists, since the existence of a soul can't have evidence either. As such "observations" of people regarding soul can only have subjective meaning to them and can't be considered evidence. I would suggest reading Kant on the subject of studying metaphysics using science. Hint: It doesn't work.
Seven-hundred years ago it was obvious to most people that the Black Death (and othere diseases) was either a punishment from god for man's wickedness or the result of poisoning/cursing by foreigners. Some doctors, having actually studied the fields of medicine and primitive epidemiology, disagreed. Guess who was right. Go on. Guess. I'll give you a hint: it's the people who, in every disagreement between superstition and scientific inquiry, have been either right or the closer of the two to the truth LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TIME .
Sounds like he's talking about peer review. Which is a basic way to test your own theory, because if other colleagues can pick your theory apart and show errors, or mistakes in your methodology, then it's not a good theory. I don't see why they always think that's a very bad thing, except that it means that any crackpot idea someone comes up with can't be treated as real science.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
