Is there good evidence to support the claim that at least one wine and cheese party has occurred?

[Boojatta]

Let's step back from questions about the existence or non-existence of miracles and consider a less challenging question.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. I'm buying arugula futures. n/t

[Random_Australian]

2. Bah, the ability to conduct wine and cheese parties is in the null hypothesis.

Well, it is now after there was sufficient evidence to put it there.

[Boojatta]

6. We haven't even established that the kind of thing that puts

something in the null hypothesis is "evidence."

[Random_Australian]

11. No, in this discussion we haven't. We also have never established

associativity in addition, either. However, both of these things are freaking obvious and more formally established elsewhere.

Ok, I rewrite for you, if you really want.

Once there is sufficient evidence to recognise a set of abilities as fundamentally available to a human, the claim that they have excercised one of those abilities is a claim I am completely fine with believing.

[trotsky]

3. Unless you are proposing that wine and cheese parties violate physical laws,

then this is yet another lame analogy.

[Boojatta]

5. To show that it's a lame analogy, wouldn't you at some point have

to show that it is an analogy?

What's wrong with proposing what appears to be a relatively non-controversial and easy question in the hope of acquiring some understanding that might later be applicable elsewhere? If you insist on interpreting the poll question as a claim that some particular application is legitimate, then you seem to be committing the fallacy known as the "straw man."

[trotsky]

8. My mistake.

I forgot that I shouldn't ever reply to you.

[Boojatta]

9. No, you did the right thing by replying.

However, you don't win a cookie simply because you posted some kind of reply. The reply itself matters to me. The mistake you might be making is posting a reply that doesn't matter to you and that is simply a knee-jerk reaction based on your own vague but passionately held philosophical position.

[cosmik debris]

10. Yep. n/t

[smoogatz]

4. Depends.

If the wine and cheese were supernaturally transmogrified from Mountain Dew and dirty socks, then I'd have to go with option R: roughly the same evidence that we have for the existence of the Tooth Fairy (i.e., there's a quarter under my pillow and my tooth is gone: must have been the Tooth Fairy!). If by "wine and cheese party" you mean a party at which wine and cheese are served, I can send you photos, if you like.

[Boojatta]

7. It would set a bad precedent if we relied on photos and a post on a message board.

Someone could send a photo from a scene that didn't appear in the final cut of the movie Jurassic Park, but that wouldn't be enough to guarantee the truth of a message posted on DU about extinct dinosaur species having been allegedly brought back to life. If this were a lawsuit, then we would need you to provide the exhibit, describe how it came into your possession, and sit as a witness to answer questions. Of course, if we are going to rely on testimony of witnesses, then we potentially get involved in questions about reliability of the memory of witnesses and trustworthiness of the witnesses.

[smoogatz]

14. If someone shows you a photo of an event/thing you know to be probable:

a man eating toast, let's say, you would likely view it with a different set of assumptions than you would a photo of something you know to be improbable: a dragon ravaging Bayonne, NJ, or whatever. If we had any sense, we'd be skeptical of the dragon photo, but would accept the photo of the toast-eater as nominally "real." In other words, we require a different standard of proof for the existence of miracles than we do for the existence of the quotidian--that which we see every day. That seems obvious to me.

[Zebedeo]

12. Excellent poll question

I know that there have been wine and cheese parties. I have personally attended them. Yet, there is no way for me to prove absolutely to some poster who has not attended one (or who is in denial about having attended one) that they have occurred.

If the poster to whom I am attempting to provide the proof applies a standard of proof that is designed in advance to be impossible to satisfy, it will be impossible to satisfy that standard.

And yet, it is still true that such parties have occurred.

[smoogatz]

15. It's a silly question, as usual.

If you actually knew someone who was sufficiently goofy to doubt the existence of something as demonstrably commonplace as a "wine and cheese party," in order to "prove" the existence of "wine and cheese parties" you would only have to have a wine and cheese party of your own, and make sure that the doubter attended. Now, there's still the basic phenomenological question to deal with: can our senses be trusted? Is anything really "real"? But if you're older than sixteen, say, and don't do acid more than three times a week you've probably already settled those issues for yourself a long time ago. One doesn't have to "prove" the existence of the commonplace in order to justify one's skepticism of supernatural/paranormal claims. The burden of proof for such claims still lies squarely on the shoulders of those who make them.

[Occam Bandage]

21. And you consider that an excellent point?

What, did your Intro to Philosophy course just start reading Descartes?

[Az]

13. A difference between requirements

First it is arguable that there is sufficient evidence to claim that wine and cheese parties have occurred. Written invitations. Diary entries. Video. All serve as evidence that such parties have occurred.

However the requirement to provide evidence of a miracle rises to a much higher level. Namely because it seeks to undermine well established theories about the nature of our world. The evidence required to provide sufficient cause for a miracle not only has to prove the event happened but that the description of the event was properly interpreted by the witnesses.

Someone witnessing other people eating cheese and drinking wine requires a low level of confirmation to accept as true. But someone claiming that someone walked on water requires a great deal more evidence to be accepted as definitively true. Not only does the witnesses story have to be verifiable but their interpretation of the event has to be checked. They may have been fooled by a trick. They may have misunderstood what they observed. They may have not seen some rocks in the water. They may even be lying. All these have to be accounted for in order to verify to a sufficient degree that something counter to our understanding is true.

This is the problem of subjective evidence. Just because you see something does not mean that you actually see what is going on. It does not mean you understand what is going on. Your conclusion may simply be flawed. Thus you claiming to witness a miracle does not provide strong evidence for the miracle. It only provides evidence that you saw something. What you witnessed requires more evidence to verify. It requires corroboration. Lots of it. Thus the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[Zebedeo]

17. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

like the claim by atheists that the universe popped into existence by itself without a cause, defying the law of conservation of matter and basic logical principles of cause and effect? That seems to be a rather extraordinary claim. Where is the extraordinary evidence?

[edhopper]

18. No atheist do not say that

They say there was a cause that cosmologist speculate on, but for which we don't yet have clear evidence of what that cause exactly was.
We say there is absolutely no evidence or necessity of a god being involved in the Universe's formation.

[Occam Bandage]

22. No atheist has ever claimed that. nt

[HamdenRice]

16. There is no wine and cheese

There is only Zuul.

[edhopper]

19. I usually answer Boojatta's threads

with a food related non-sequitor. But how do I write a food related non-sequitor when the thread is about food. The philosophical conundrum is daunting.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Huh. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles. nt

[varkam]

20. Kellogg's may appreciate your rhetoric, but I do not.

[FM Arouet666]

24. .......

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma..... Or as Timothy Leary said, "acid anyone?"


Step back indeed. Another question on evidence. :banghead: You asked me via email what my agenda was, now I must ask you to please tell everyone in this forum what your agenda is.

Worth a shot but I doubt that an answer is forthcoming.
:bluebox: :bluebox: :bluebox: :redbox: :redbox: :redbox: :bluebox: :bluebox: :bluebox: