Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
Whether the criteria is relevant or not is beside my point. I wasn't meaning to comment on the quality or relevance of the criteria, but to argue the thought process was potentially useful (as opposed to being categorically misleading, as it seemed VnutZ was claiming).
By definition, you lack objectivity in determining the trustworthiness of the relevant observations.
One lacks pure objectivity, yes, but that's far from being enough to completely invalidate the worth of the experience - especially given the lack of direct comment from a "purely objective" source. Rather, accepting it as not publicly verifiable and then interpreting/studying it within that context seems the best means of dealing with such experiences of which I can think.
This comment has 15 replies.
RSS
RE: How Quaint and a revisit of the Atheist Wager
The notion I rejected was "X must be true if Y many people believe it" - which is much different than, "X may be worth considering if believed by person A, who is deemed trustworthy based on criteria XYZ."
And I emended it to say "X may be worth considering if believed by person A, who is deemed trustworthy based on relevant criteria XYZ."
I'm reminded again of the importance of personal revelation.
Which is just as fraught with problems, if not more so. By definition, you lack objectivity in determining the trustworthiness of the relevant observations.
View Full Discussion