Yes, I do agree that generally "...the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility" of that claim.
— Sam26
The point I was considering is that the implausibility of a claim tends to undermine the credibility of the witness who makes that claim. If the expert can't provide enough support to make the claim seem plausible, but persists in asserting the claim, this tends to count against the expert's credibility. The witness must be able to provide some reasonable account of the justification or basis for the claim, and that account must stand up to scrutiny. If it stands up to scrutiny, it's plausible. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, then on what grounds would the expert affirm it? — Cabbage Farmer
However, I don't think that because something seems implausible, that it follows that it is.
— Sam26
Do you mean something like this:
The fact that a claim seems plausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is true. Likewise, the fact that a claim seems implausible to me or to anyone does not entail the claim is false.
Plausibility is always plausibility relative to some epistemic context. Our evaluation of the plausibility of a claim is in principle open to revision. — Cabbage Farmer
Many discoveries have been overturned in science because people considered what most find implausible. So, there has to be the right kind of balance, we tend to get to invested in certain worldviews, which can impede new discoveries.
— Sam26
What's the right sort of balance?
There's always the problem of allocation of resources. There's always the problem of prioritization. It would be as disastrous for our global society as a whole, as it would be for any single person, to continually commit a significant share of resources to every conceivable investigation.
When I lose my eyeglasses or my house keys, I don't book a flight to every city on Earth to track them down. I look in a few places nearby, beginning with the most likely. Sometimes they don't turn up and I broaden the search. Occasionally I've found my keys still in the lock on the door. Once I found my eyeglasses in the refrigerator. — Cabbage Farmer
Death, defined as the end of consciousness can't be distinguished from consciousness that isn't conscious of anything. As far as I'm concerned, a person who exists but is not doing anything can't be told apart from a person who doesn't exist. — TheMadFool
What's "...consciousness that isn't conscious of anything[?]" If your conscious, then being aware (in some way) is a necessary feature of consciousness. Maybe you're thinking of someone who is in a coma (or something similar), so their unconscious, or their not aware of anything. Sometimes people who we think aren't aware, are indeed aware, as has happened in some cases. Even if a person is in a coma and not "doing anything" that's much different from a person who doesn't exist, whatever "doesn't exist" means in this context (I assume you mean dead.). — Sam26
do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed
do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed
monkeys, dogs, all the way down to insects. — Sam26
Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and when death is come, we are not. — Letter to Menoeceus, 3rd century BC
... the greater the damage to the brain, the greater the corresponding damage to the mind. The natural extrapolation from this pattern is all too clear – obliterate brain functioning altogether, and mental functioning too will cease. — The Myth of an Afterlife, 2015
The argument is logical (inductive argument), don't give your opinions, give reasons why the argument fails. — Sam26
However, rocks likely have a different value system than I have, and certainly more long term perspective. So I am not sure why they would want to talk to me anyway. — Book273
While the patient is "down" and there is a complete cessation of brain activity, this is proof that the patient's brain is not forming any new memory traces of the so-called "NDE" the patient believes she had while her brain activity was zero. So whence the "NDE"? It likely happens during the patient's revival after brain activity has resumed. — 180 Proof
:smirk: This ad hominem must mean my criticism has struck a raw nerve in you wishful (magical) thinkers. So what kind of "fundie" am I / are we supposed to be, ND?... out-of-hand dismissals of fundamentalists like 180 Proof — Noble Dust
The notion that we always have to appeal to some scientific investigation to tell us what's true or false is just false on its face. — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.