On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:45:38PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Let me give an example of this by answering a question that Erik asked > Debby. What's the difference between believing in astrology and > believing in inner experiences. When I posed the question, and my > answer to a non-theist colleague, he agreed that the following answer > was obvious. One is a statement that makes testable predictions: > one's nature and behavior is correlated with birth date and time. > The other makes a statement that is neither confirmed nor denied by > observation.
In as much as you are addressing my question to Debbi, you are wrong. Debbi claims that there may be some as yet unmeasurable by science connection between her numinous experiences and the rest of the universe. Very similar to some claims of astrology. I would not have made the comparison if there were no "testable predictions" as you state. > With this understanding, one can see how one can use analytical > technique to criticize statements that are testable by experiments > while still holding positions that are not testable, oneself. The > criterion is very simple, IMHO. One requires that beliefs are > consistant with observation of phenomenon, but need not require that > they be reducible to observation. Why not go all the way and live completely in your own fantasy world of not testable beliefs? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
