Empirical evidence for moon shrimp

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 18, 2011, 11:36:18 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 17, 2011, 11:48:55 PM

I am viewing even more evidence of the moon shrimp as we speak!

And what is the nature of that evidence, pray tell?

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2011, 12:40:35 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 18, 2011, 11:36:18 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 17, 2011, 11:48:55 PM

I am viewing even more evidence of the moon shrimp as we speak!

And what is the nature of that evidence, pray tell?

Beautiful.

Subjective evidence isn't terribly reliable or useful in a scientific context.

Quote from: hoppy on March 19, 2011, 02:07:42 PM

   Have you been retarded you whole life?

Personal attacks are a bannable offense in the upper boards. 

Subjective evidence isn't terribly reliable or useful in a scientific context.

Subjective evidence isn't terribly reliable or useful in a scientific context.

Where is the science in art or poetry?

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2011, 04:47:28 PM

Subjective evidence isn't terribly reliable or useful in a scientific context.

Once facts have been established science becomes useless. Where is the science in art or poetry?

Quote from: Crustinator on March 20, 2011, 04:50:55 PM

Quote from: markjo on March 19, 2011, 04:47:28 PM

Subjective evidence isn't terribly reliable or useful in a scientific context.

Once facts have been established science becomes useless. Where is the science in art or poetry?

Depends on the art and the poetry...although you probably would not appreciate the linguistic, grammatical, and syllabic analysis of a work of poetry, nor its analysis of  imagery, simile, and metaphor.  Nor might you appreciate the science behind making the tools of the artist, paints and their chemical composites, brushes, sculptors chisels, etc.  Nor the analysis of light and shadow and use of colors and balanced perspective or intentional abstract on the converse.

Science is in much more things than you might care to admit.

*sigh*  I think that I have finally (and painfully) reached an inescapable conclusion.  Never argue science with a philosopher.

Dreams have never been proven to bear correlation with real life events that have not been witnessed by the person dreaming so that isnt evidence by any sensible definition of the word. Dreams are, almost by definition, fiction.

Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences)

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

originating in or based on observation or experience

Science isn't in everything. Science is everything.

Quote from: markjo on March 18, 2011, 08:08:41 AM

*sigh*  I think that I have finally (and painfully) reached an inescapable conclusion.  Never argue science with a philosopher.

That approach cuts both ways.

Quote from: Skeleton on March 18, 2011, 07:05:34 AM

Dreams have never been proven to bear correlation with real life events that have not been witnessed by the person dreaming so that isnt evidence by any sensible definition of the word. Dreams are, almost by definition, fiction.

Sorry, I think it's your concept of what constitutes empirical evidence which is lacking. For example, some basic Googling brings up the following defintions/descriptions for the term 'empirical':

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical

Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences)

Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

originating in or based on observation or experience

As dreams are based on observation and experience, and as they often indicate or point to the existence of something, they constitute empirical evidence of the existence of those things. Now, are they the best or most concrete form of evidence? No, as they are so open to interpretation. However, they are nevertheless evidence of a kind, and certainly empirical evidence of a kind.

I think we are not arguing whether or not dreams are in face empirical experiences, but rather, do they qualify as evidence. I, for one, do not consider a dream as any sort of evidence, although I will concede that they sometimes can lead one toward evidence.  So submitting them as your evidence is flawed from the start, especially since your dreams are not empirical to anyone other than you yourself and cannot be directly shared with others, so they fail to be empirical to anyone else besides you.

Right...apparently the idea is to personally experience something and thereafter everybody simply has to take your word for it. It worked for Mormonism?

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 09:51:50 AM

I think we are not arguing whether or not dreams are in face empirical experiences, but rather, do they qualify as evidence. I, for one, do not consider a dream as any sort of evidence, although I will concede that they sometimes can lead one toward evidence.  So submitting them as your evidence is flawed from the start, especially since your dreams are not empirical to anyone other than you yourself and cannot be directly shared with others, so they fail to be empirical to anyone else besides you.

What about descriptions of dreams? Neurological studies which map brain activity in accordance with the subject's description of the dream? Why are they considered empirical evidence, but not the dream experiences I have related to you?

You don't have to take my word for it at all. A court case does not end just because the defendent says "not guilty". My testimony is in no way conclusive, as I myself have stated. However, it is empirical evidence.

Neurological studies that map brain activity and the documentation to see what, if any, correlation to the description of the dream itself is the evidence to the personal empirical experience of the dream.  The dream is still not evidence, but only a personal experience.  The evidence is still external and observable by others (the mapping and logging process).

... and before you say it... logging your dreams do not in and of themselves suggest that what you did dream was in fact truth, and does not automatically correlate to real world evidence of the subject of that dream.

Neurological studies are charting patterns in the brain during 'brain related' activities (unless you are going to challenge the idea that dreams are perceived/experienced in the brain).  The data gathered will either support or not support the existence of predictable patterns based on dream content.  but nothing ventured, nothing gained, they won't know if there are patterns related to dream content unless they at least take a look and gather some data to compare.

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Neurological studies that map brain activity and the documentation to see what, if any, correlation to the description of the dream itself is the evidence to the personal empirical experience of the dream.  The dream is still not evidence, but only a personal experience.  The evidence is still external and observable by others (the mapping and logging process).

Personal experience is evidence. It is presented as such in courts all the time.

Yes your Honor, I witnessed him killing Mr. X. I was asleep and from the clouds I clearly saw him shoot the guy.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 22, 2011, 07:36:06 AM

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Neurological studies that map brain activity and the documentation to see what, if any, correlation to the description of the dream itself is the evidence to the personal empirical experience of the dream.  The dream is still not evidence, but only a personal experience.  The evidence is still external and observable by others (the mapping and logging process).

Personal experience is evidence. It is presented as such in courts all the time.

Quote

Yes your Honor, I witnessed him killing Mr. X. I was asleep and from the clouds I clearly saw him shoot the guy.

Quote from: Beorn on March 22, 2011, 10:35:17 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 22, 2011, 07:36:06 AM

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Neurological studies that map brain activity and the documentation to see what, if any, correlation to the description of the dream itself is the evidence to the personal empirical experience of the dream.  The dream is still not evidence, but only a personal experience.  The evidence is still external and observable by others (the mapping and logging process).

Personal experience is evidence. It is presented as such in courts all the time.

Quote

Yes your Honor, I witnessed him killing Mr. X. I was asleep and from the clouds I clearly saw him shoot the guy.

I feel this is a valid point. A court would most likely not accept a person's dreams an evidence that an event occurred.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on March 22, 2011, 07:36:06 AM

Personal experience is evidence. It is presented as such in courts all the time.

I feel this is a valid point. A court would most likely not accept a person's dreams an evidence that an event occurred.

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

I think he's saying that a person's testimony that he/she had such and such a dream is admissible.  "My invention of the automatic nail file came to me in a dream."  It's up to the jury or the judge whether or not to give it credence.  After all, testimony likely constitutes most of the evidence in courts, the only other being exhibits.

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Neurological studies that map brain activity and the documentation to see what, if any, correlation to the description of the dream itself is the evidence to the personal empirical experience of the dream.  The dream is still not evidence, but only a personal experience.  The evidence is still external and observable by others (the mapping and logging process).

Personal experience is evidence. It is presented as such in courts all the time.

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

... and before you say it... logging your dreams do not in and of themselves suggest that what you did dream was in fact truth, and does not automatically correlate to real world evidence of the subject of that dream.

Truth != evidence. You don't understand what evidence is.

Quote from: Oracle on March 21, 2011, 03:41:51 PM

Neurological studies are charting patterns in the brain during 'brain related' activities (unless you are going to challenge the idea that dreams are perceived/experienced in the brain).  The data gathered will either support or not support the existence of predictable patterns based on dream content.  but nothing ventured, nothing gained, they won't know if there are patterns related to dream content unless they at least take a look and gather some data to compare.

Yes, but they still accept the descriptions offered by those dreaming as evidence. They don't go, "We can't match the data to the description, because the description isn't evidence", do they?

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on March 22, 2011, 11:23:27 AM

I think he's saying that a person's testimony that he/she had such and such a dream is admissible.  "My invention of the automatic nail file came to me in a dream."  It's up to the jury or the judge whether or not to give it credence.  After all, testimony likely constitutes most of the evidence in courts, the only other being exhibits.

There is a difference between stating where an idea originated from, and making a statement on how things work in the real world.

Surely you see the difference between someone saying, "I first thought about my invention in a dream." and "John Smith is a murderer, I saw him do it in a dream. This is conclusive evidence and he should be tried in a criminal court."

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 11:34:17 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

So we can toss out all dreams presented here as evidence for the existence of these alleged moon shrimp then.