Quote:
Originally Posted by skidoo  "Empirical occurrences reported by witnesses?" As I've already told you: Witnesses doing "field research" does not constitute empirical evidence. Clearly you don't understand the differences between empirical science, observational science, and anecdotal evidence. |
Skidoo, what a pompous twister you are.
In science there is empirical method and experimental method both aspects of the scientific method. The empirical method has no preconceived ideas, often with no hypotheses as to how it works or should work.. The empirical method is the
correct method to adopt in any unexplored or little understood phenomenon and what any good, thorough scientist naturally does before soon moving onto test hypotheses ('the experimental method') and knows what is a success or failure before trials are done.
Quote:
|
Once again: empirical science is based on reproducible tests in controlled conditions of a falsifiable hypothesis.
|
Mr arrogant read this ....
'.....Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method. .....
The empirical method is not sharply defined and is often contrasted with the precision of the experimental method, where data are derived from the systematic manipulation of variables in an experiment
......... The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) further states that an empiric is "one who, either in medicine or in other branches of science, relies solely upon observation and experiment" [emphasis added]. In this case, an empiricist can be someone who conducts an experiment but without using a hypothesis to guide the process, i.e., strictly by the trial-and-error method.
Empirical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
|
It's funny how all of this time you've been willing to carry on this debate while you've been able to get away with being coy and disingenuous. Yet, as soon as you're finally pressed to give some actual supporting evidence, and you're faced with logical arguments against it, you hit the exit door faster than a spooked gazelle.
|
Why should I communicate with such an confident idiot? I have communicated enough with you to know that whatever I say you will distort, twist, wind up, lie (as in claiming you didn't say 'slam dunk') ....I would be willing to go through the Near Death Experience and why your faith in silly experiments like viewing one's body from a distant camera is completely meaningless and not evidence that has any proven link with NDEs...... but what is the point? Your mind is made up, as hard as a rock. You are annoyed and want to try and score points over semantics
Quote:
|
I countered your rebuttals to my evidence. The evidence suggests that you're unable to counter my rebuttals to yours.
|
No, I just don't think your attitude is worth communicating with.