On another post somewhere here i used an example of snow which I will retype now so you can see how I make judgements on what to believe. If i wake up one morning and my yard is covered in snow, my neighbors yard is covered in snow, the streets are covered in snow and the weatherman on the news channel says its snowing outside I'm gonna believe it freakin snowed. Now is it possible my neighbors are playing a cruel hoax on me with a snow machine, well i suppose there is a slight possibility. Is it possible that an alien in a UFO dumped the snow in my neighborhood, I guess there is a slight possibility (how can i really prove it wasn't so). Now I like to think of myself as a reasonable prudent person (RPP) so I come to the logical conclusion that it snowed given the facts and information I can gather. You will say but yes it might have snowed but the alien might have dumped the snow too. Prove it wasn't an alien. Scecop would say a friend of my cousins great aunt said it was dumped by an alien and threfore it was a fact because she was on my mailing list plus has 6 degrees of separation from me.
I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but your snow example is empirically testable. If it's indeed snowing, you can walk outside your home and see and feel the snow directly. This is "objective reality." There's no escaping it. If it were a hoax, you'd most likely
know it, as you'd probably see some type of snow-blowing machine(s) placed at some considerable height above the ground. Additionally, you have the empirical data obtained via weather satellites and news weather reports. You can furthermore obtain witness testimony from others who have actually observed the snow falling from the sky. You have a bunch
of data to assess and with which to conclude with a very great degree of accuracy that it actually
snowed. Could it have been aliens that caused the snow to form in the first place? Well, this is highly improbable
given the empirical data just discussed which counters such a claim. Unless you have empirical evidence to show aliens are the cause, you shouldn't believe it. I don't understand why, given I've shown in detail how I think (i.e., logically), you would believe I think illogically.
So, that's not a good comparison to, or analogy of, what I'm talking about when I refer to the MDC's validity.
soldiergirl wrote:You will say but yes it might have snowed but the alien might have dumped the snow too.
I will? How do you know this? On what evidence do you base this presumption? If there were no empirical evidence to demonstrate aliens caused the snow, I would not
believe such a thing to be true, a fact, or reality. You are presuming too much. I'm much more logical than this. Have you even read the many posted I've written?
soldiergirl wrote:Prove it wasn't an alien.
That's not a logical argument because you can't prove such a negative. That's like asking to prove God doesn't exist or that psi doesn't exist. There's empirical evidence psi most likely does exist, however. There's no empirical evidence God exists. I've read on these boards some pseudo-skeptics saying, "Psi doesn't exist." How can they prove this? They can't!
soldiergirl wrote:This is where we so called skeptics will always differ from believers such as you (ones who look at other possibilities) and especially from zealous believers such as professor and scecop who have no logical and deductive reasoning at all.
I was once a die-hard skeptic like Randi. This is no lie
. It took many years of researching and reading the outstanding various literature consisting of empirically obtained data to come to my conclusions and beliefs. Once again, I don't base my beliefs on bias or prejudice, or even emotions, I base them on the critical analysis of empirical data with the objective aid of logic.
Unless there is no or insufficient empirical data to demonstrate claim A, for example, is true, and there is empirical data to demonstrate claim B might be possible
, then I would consider claim B to be a possibility
, yes. That's how I think! Isn't that logical? I wouldn't use absolute terms, such as claim B is a "fact" or "reality," but a "possibility?" Yes.
soldiergirl wrote:Anyways this is why I believe th MDC is real is just based off of the information that I have gathered and analyzed.
Now this is where the debate actually initiated. I was asking how you could know, empirically, that the MDC is valid. Do you have physical evidence that shows he has the money in a bank account? Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying the money is there or that the MDC is valid. I have no bias or prejudice that will incline me to dismiss outright the possibility of this evidence existing or not existing, but I'd like to see it so that I can prove it to myself either way, which is why I asked. Maybe you know something I don't. You see, I haven't really investigated the whole MDC-not-valid claim because I simply haven't cared to know either way. It's not empirical research. I'm into actual research
, not claims that the MDC is not valid. So, I simply want to know how it is you came to the conclusion that the MDC is legit. Simple.
soldiergirl wrote:1 more point to make is who would pay for this polygraph? I assume it would be the professor or whoever wants him to take it cause why in the hell should he pay. Any idea how expensive it is for a good professional polygraph examiner? There are preliminary questions before you even get hooked up and then all the control questions after you start. Not cheapo.