Egotistical Google Experts

[Obelix]

What overwhelming evidence can you present which proves beyond all doubt that the earth is over 6000 years old?

 

Written history goes back further than that.

 

Geological record

 

Stellar record

 

Time required for various observed processes to have proceeded as far as they have.

[MintPlumbing]

Religion doesn't get a free pass

 

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html

 

How do you know that they are facts and not the invention of a group of people with an anti religious agenda, or that God didn't just give earth the appearance of age when it was created?

[SnailyBoy]

How do you know that they are facts and not the invention of a group of people with an anti religious agenda, or that God didn't just give earth the appearance of age when it was created?

 

Because the evidence doesn't support that position

[MintPlumbing]

Written history goes back further than that.

 

Geological record

 

Stellar record

 

Time required for various observed processes to have proceeded as far as they have.

 

 

 

And you don't think it is at all possible for God to have created it to give that impression, or that the people making these claims are wrong?

[Guest]

So your mind is closed to the possibility that a daffodils in your arse cure a cold, ouija board really works, demon's and God exist, until someone presents a solid body of valid, reliable, peer-reviewed supporting evidence and as it published in reputable journals.

My mind is open to new evidence, but I'll asses that evidence for quality appropriate to the context before accepting it. If you try to convince me of the efficacy of a new medical treatment or intervention (like the daffodil cure for the common cold) then I'll demand evidence appropriate to that academic medical context: the peer-reviewed papers and so on I mentioned above.

 

My other examples are there to illustrate the unreliability of personal experience and perception, but yes, I'd demand evidence of the appropriate quality if you were, for example, trying to convince me that a ghost moved the ouija board planchette rather than putting the movement down to the ideomotor effect.

 

Some psychologists are still interested in the study of precognition and related phenomena and even publish a paper on the subject from time to time. Other psychologists usually manage to dispute the data based on methodological or statistical issues, but for some it's still an engaging field of research. The standard of evidence required in that academic field applies as it does elsewhere in psychology.

[MintPlumbing]

Because the evidence doesn't support that position

 

What evidence?

 

Evidence can also be fabricated.

[SnailyBoy]

What evidence?

 

Evidence can also be fabricated.

 

Whatever, you win the Internet

[Guest]

The person that had the allergic reaction.

How does having an unexplained allergic reaction tell you about its cause, especially if I wanted to know what exactly was going on in my skin to result in those red bumps?

[MintPlumbing]

My mind is open to new evidence, but I'll asses that evidence for quality appropriate to the context before accepting it. If you try to convince me of the efficacy of a new medical treatment or intervention (like the daffodil cure for the common cold) then I'll demand evidence appropriate to that academic medical context: the peer-reviewed papers and so on I mentioned above.

 

My other examples are there to illustrate the unreliability of personal experience and perception, but yes, I'd demand evidence of the appropriate quality if you were, for example, trying to convince me that a ghost moved the ouija board planchette rather than putting the movement down to the ideomotor effect.

 

Some psychologists are still interested in the study of precognition and related phenomena and even publish a paper on the subject from time to time. Other psychologists usually manage to dispute the data based on methodological or statistical issues, but for some it's still an engaging field of research. The standard of evidence required in that academic field applies as it does elsewhere in psychology.

 

Which still leaves you having to take someones word for it. The only evidence that some people would accept for the existence of ghosts, would be seeing one, you could believe that they didn't see one but you couldn't prove that they didn't see one, the best you could hope for is to prove they saw something else.

[Guest]

Which still leaves you having to take someones word for it.

Scientific method isn't 'taking someone's word for it'.

The only evidence that some people would accept for the existence of ghosts, would be seeing one, ...

You're right. The closed mindedness of those who think ghosts are real is truly astonishing. I think we've established by now the unreliability of perception and personal experience. You can add to that tricks of memory, and the power of confirmation bias motivated by a dearly held and Mulder-like desire to believe.

you could believe that they didn't see one but you couldn't prove that they didn't see one, the best you could hope for is to prove they saw something else.

It's not up to me to disprove a claim that a ghost has been spotted; it's up to the spotter to provide the evidence to support the claim. I couldn't 'prove' that what they've seen wasn't a ghost; I could only suggest the most likely explanation based on what's been established over decades of research and discussion.