Well, ok then it becomes a never-ending quest. Either that or one draws a line somewhere and says “I am satisfied with this.” And really, that’s the bottom line in the search for evidence. At some point one must eventually stop – or admit that no evidence is “sufficient”.

Well, one uses whatever tools are available to achieve one’s ends.

Yes, I am “bringing all methodology into question”. That is a very astute observation.

Consider this statement: “Subjectivity is known to be prone to error.”

But what is the methodology for determining “error”? Unless I miss my guess, the implication is that objectivity is the methodology for determining subjective error. But how can that be??? Measuring subjectivity by objective standards is like measuring weight with a yardstick. The units are completely different and don’t apply to the same phenomena. The most that can be said about subjectivity is that it doesn’t always align with objectivity. But “error”? No – at least not by subjective measure.

How about this: Wouldn’t it be just as valid to judge objectivity by subjective standards? Wouldn’t be just a valid to say that objectivity is “in error” when it doesn’t align with subjectivity?

Well I think placing subjectivity on equal grounds with objectivity is a start. But in fact, I think subjectivity should be placed ahead of objectivity. Not “because we, as humans, are necessarily subjective in perception.” But because subjectivity is the source of importance and value and relevance and all those other subjective terms you used to define and describe how evidence should be evaluated.

The subjective is, in fact, the target of evidence. It is why evidence is even considered in the first place.

I’m not sure that is necessarily the case. Witness now the Young Earther’s use the evidence of carbon dating. In that case the evidence is most definitely not evaluated for it’s truth value. (Although, admittedly I may not understand what you mean by “truth value”.)

The simplest reply to this is “Why should people not let their emotions affect their ability to assess evidence?"

Subjectivity is what determines the purpose behind the evaluation of evidence. And if emotions are a part of the process that results in a purpose, then in such a case abandoning all emotion would necessitate abandoning the purpose. Thus there would be no reason to evaluate the evidence at all.

I’m not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that the purpose behind the development of the objective means has as its foundation the desire for a means of attaining agreement. Really, the only measure of “error” is the framework of objectivity itself, which in truth, is a creation of the subjective.
(Oh the irony! )

Too unfortunately true. The discoveries of science are almost entirely controlled (both by control of funding of research and by control of dissemination of findings) by "the powers that be". Consider the amount spent on such things as LHC and LIGO versus the amount spent on RV and PK.

I appreciate your viewpoint. I really do. And in many circumstances I agree completely.

However, there are several key words you’ve used that are what I consider to be indicative of the subjectivity involved:

proper
sufficiency
aequate
reason enough
sufficient enough
relevance
warrant

These are all relative terms. That is, in order to determine any of them, they must be measurable. And therein lies the problem. Who determines what “ruler” to use for measurement? I see no reason to assume that everyone does, or must, use the same ruler. The only real reason for agreeing on a ruler is to provide for an agreement on the measurement. But if one does not desire to agree on a measurement, then there is no real reason to agree on the ruler.

Just as evidence is meaningless without being compared to something, “sufficiency”, “adequacy” “reason enough”, etc. are meaningless without a standard by which to measure them. And possibly more importantly, there must be a purpose for performing the measurement. If there is no such purpose, then “evidence” and “sufficiency” are irrelevant from the outset.

In other words, consideration and evaluation of evidence has a prerequisite, which is most easily expressed by the question “Why is the evidence being considered/evaluated?”

And that is why I think different people come to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence. Their purpose behind evaluating it is different. And I also think that may be the source of much conflict – too often people assume that others have (or should have) the same purpose in evaluating evidence. But they simply don’t.

Ok, my bad. I didn't specify the viewpoint from which the evidence is examined, other than the statement "personal experience".

I intended to mean that OBE is evidence to the person who experienced it. I agree that it cannot be claimed as objective evidence in any way because it is, by nature, an entirely subjective experience.

Now on the other hand, there is some confusion/disagreement as to the difference between Remote Viewing and OBE. Most scientists that I have read up on use the term RV instead of OBE, since it lends itself better to a more subjective evaluation.

Now in the sense of RV, there actually is some objective scientific evidence. (ref: Puthoff&Targe at Standfodr Reseach Insititue and Jahn&Dunne at Princeton Enginerring Anomalies Research.)

But in any case, whatever evidence is put forth, "proof" is entirely dependent on an interpretation of the evidence. And that interpretation is necessarily dependent on the purpose of interpreting it.

I think I'd go into the future, get a bunch of facts about sporting events and stocks and such, come back, and then just start betting on sure things.

I'd like to focus on the following statement from the OP...

"Obviously, in order to have evidence there must be a reason for it to be in consideration. "

In other words, if evidence is to be applied to anything at all, there must first be an end to which is it applied. Any judgement about evidence is dependent on why one is applying the evidence. And thus, the import/value of any such evidence can only be judged against an individual’s purpose behind, and desired goal of, considering the evidence.

And this, I believe, is the fundamental reason why arguments arise about “evidence”. It is simply because different people have different purposes in considering evidence.

So the question arises about what to do when there are two pieces of evidence that appear to be contradictory.

Well what can one do? One can throw out the evidence (e.g. deny it), or one can devise a (or revise an existing) world view such that the evidence is no longer contradictory, or one can simply label it as an anomaly and accept that it cannot be integrated into the existing world view.

But the bottom line is, and must always be, that the reason behind considering evidence, is to determine its import/value relative to personal purposes and/or goals.

Thus, “…to discuss the importance and/or value of evidence” is really to discuss personal viewpoints about how the consideration of evidence aligns (or not) with individual world views.

Now personally, I would say that, in general, any consideration of any evidence has the purpose of determining if it aligns with other evidence (i.e. the previous evidence that resulted in the current world view.)

So let’s take, for example, an out-of-body experience (OBE).

An OBE is evidence, there can be no doubt of that. Any personal experience of any sort must be considered as evidence.

Now there are those who consider OBE as evidence of “spirit” in the sense of spirit and body being separate.

And there are those who consider OBE as evidence of the unreliability of personal observation/perception.

Notice here that those who consider OBE as evidence of spirit, take the evidence at face value and thus support for their world view, but those who consider OBE as evidence of the unreliability of personal observation, deny the reliability of the evidence and use that evaluation to support their world view.

In other words, both sides make judgements as to the import/value of the OBE evidence. And it is that personal judgement that forms the world view.

Bottom line here is that the import/value of evidence is necessarily subjective and thus the import/value of a world view based on the evidence is also necessarily subjective.

So all we really end up with is the conclusion that no world view can be any more important/valuable that any other world view because all world views are necessarily subjective.

BTW - I think I agree with Abra on his assesment of the "spiritual putdown" nature of the thread.

The title looks to me like a patronizong cliche' when combined with the content of the OP.

But that's just my own opinion.

First off, where's the "indisputable evidence to the contrary"? I have yet to see any. All you've said is "not been proven to exist" and "no evidence which would necessarily prove it". But that's not "indisputable evidence to the contrary". By your own admission, it is not possible to produce any evidence whatsoever either way. So the label of "delusion" cannot be applied.

Secondly, your definition states "false psychotic belief regarding the self". Now unless you can show both "psychosis" and "false belief", then the term "delusion" does not apply at all, by your definition.

Third, "spirit has not been proven to exist" is, quite simply, false. It has been proven to many people. It just has not been proven to you and others of the logical positivist persuasion.

And finally, the definition states "...belief regarding the self...". Now as far as I'm concerned, the spirit is self, so believing one is not spirit would be the more delusional belief. But that's just my own opinion.

That final sentence is the only thing I really disagree with.

Although "...has not been proven to exist anywhere other than one's mind.." is a little slippery, I can let that one go.

But I will say that it is in fact, possible to know the existence of spirit.

I know it. And I know many other's who also know it.

So my only real objection is the the statement that it "cannot be known".

The fact of the matter is that it is known.

And with all due respect for everyone's views on the matter, I think that the biggest problem is that many people disagree on exactly what it is. And that gives rise to the fuzziness of definition/concept that the logical positivists can't accept.

Yeah, thinking that our couple centuries of "scientific investiagation" is sufficient to say what can and/or cannot be done by a civilization with, say, ten or a hundread times that much, seems a little presumptuous to me.

Well shet mah mouf.

For the discriminating "user"... ()

The two definitions in dictionary.com that have the closest meaning are:

Use - to make use of
Utilize - to put to use

A very fine distinction, but I would say you nailed it pretty well.

Epiphanies are wonderful and wondrous things. I have had several in my life, and I'm sure this is true of many people.

How they come about though is truly a mystery. Personally, I think this is the major force behind the furtherance of various mataphysical views. It does seem that epiphany's are more likely to occur through metaphysical pursuits than through the regimentsd, deductive pursuits.

Just my thoughts.

Very informative Bushi, thanks.

And why is there no "irregard" or "disregardless"

I'm not sure that logic should even be a consideration when discussin language and semantics. About the only word/meaning pairs that could truly be considered "logical" are onomatopoeic words.

Just a thought.

That reminds me of something I just recently ran across, which literally stoppped me in my tracks for several seconds trying to wrap my wits around it - "fat free cream".

I think the marketing lads have finally gone off the deep end.

I’m not even sure that “defining spirit” is a sensible endeavor. To me, spirit is not defined by things, it is what defines things. I guess the simplest definition I can come up, for myself, is – spirit is “I”.

I think Abra’s comments on Dragoness’ post express the problem pretty well. Like the “quantum field”, it can only be defined in terms of it’s effects. There is no possible way to define it in terms of its “composition” because there are no components. The best that can be done is to say that “it’s where stuff comes from” or “it’s what makes thing come into being” or even (and maybe most accurately) “it is what ‘becomes’”.

One can say “I am a Doctor” or “I am Joe” or “I am a human being” or “I am an emergent property”. But those expressions all say that there are two things – “I” and the thing that “I” becomes. “I” is not the things that it “becomes”, “I” is the thing that becomes those things. Or one could say it this way: “I” assumes the identity of those things.

JMHO.

Yes, I don’t like those terms either - or the whole analogy for that matter. But like you I was just working with what was already there.

I completely understand and agree why words have very specific meanings. And I have no objection whatsoever to them being used with their agreed upon meanings. But I also have no objection to them being used with made-up meanings either. I see no point in blasting someone for using a word improperly. To me, that is impolite. And I see no point in arguing semantics. Discussing semantics may be necessary to achieve understanding. But the whole point of communicating at all, is to gain understanding. And arguing semantics does nothing to accomplish that.

If improper word usage is a barrier to understanding, then by all means use proper wording (if such exists). But don’t put the cart before the horse and make proper word usage the purpose. The purpose is understanding.

It was mostly in reference to Jane's statement of "a computer has no concept of body".

Whether or not a computer would be considered to "have a concept" at all is, of course, debatable. But if it were capable of "conceiving" in that sense, it seems to me that the various "extensionals" (legs or wheels for mobility, camera and microphone for input, speaker for output, etc.) would constitute that computer's "sense of body".