Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (83663)	7/12/2000 3:18:55 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't care about the context of that topic (no disrespect intended). I do care about what we call evidence and knew a little about your perspective on it. I can see the need to have observable and/or replicable evidence to establish a scientific basis or a legal basis. I also see a place for other kinds of evidence. For example: I have evidence on my intentions, yet I can't prove my intentions in a scientific or legal sense. I have a self knowing or self evident knowledge of my intentions. This is evidence I need to monitor my own actions as just or unjust. Any chance you would consider self evidence in this context?

To: epicure who wrote (83663)	7/12/2000 3:45:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Evidence means testable and/or reproduceable to ME. Or it means legally admissable types of evidence. For me there is not other kind of evidence. Hmmm. In this case, is there any evidence in support of the theory of the evolution of man from one-celled creatures? Certainly the theory is not testable or reproduceable. And much, perhaps all, of the "evidence" would not be legally admissible under current standards of American law, which is what I assume you're talking about.