Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
No, I don't believe in reincarnation or anything to do with the afterlife. I think we're worm food when we die (five-nines).
I think all of the paranormal is pretty much bunk. My opinion. But I do recognize that there is some pretty strange stuff out there that can't be explained and I don't have the expertise or will to fully understand. It especially can't be explained by someone who reads a single research paper from the Internet, makes an interpretation on their limited understanding of the subject and methodology, and makes an absolute determination of error in the research. I leave that to those who have dedicated years of their lives in research and effort to understand the phenomena. I leave that to the peer review process and the other experts in this field to determine how much quackery exists. The same extends to all sciences because we don't know what we don't know. The JWST is breaking so many rules we thought were certain about that it should be a moment of humility for everyone in all fields, that we aren't nearly as smart as we like to think we are. The universe is still a very mysterious place.
What do I use to assess likelihood of truth? I assume you're speaking of a universal truth. There is no such thing as truth. Truth is bull#### because everyone's truth is personal. I try and rely on empirical facts to determine the validity of arguments, but "truth" never enters into the equation. Truth is way too maleable for my liking.
|
My question around truth is really you believe that alien visitation has occurred, you don’t believe in reincarnation as described by Stevenson. What is your process for believing in the evidence of one and deciding the evidence of the other is insufficient.