XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: malte_runz@forgitit.dk   
      
   "grabber"  skrev i meddelelsen news:CAVXv.618785$ZX5.240504@fx32.am4...   
   >   
   > On 01/10/2014 23:28, Malte Runz wrote:   
      
      
   (snip)   
      
   > > If we broaden the definition enough to let Dog-Heads, sea monsters and   
   > > gods slip into the realm of reality, on a semantic technicality, we   
   > > might as well move back into the caves and start drawing on the walls.   
   >   
   > Broadening the definition does not alter the reality-status of any of   
   > those things. It is only a definition. ...   
      
   Of course, but what I can see happening is that the new age psychics, the   
   woo doo crowd and the creationist will claim that their 'theories are backed   
   by evidence, too, just like the Theory of Evolution!!!' A lot of well   
   meaning, but ignorant, folks will get suckered back into the bullshit,   
   humanity left in the afore mentioned caves thousands of years ago.   
      
      
   > ... I think felix wants to understand "evidence" as having a very broad   
   > meaning, something like "any form of testimony or anything that could be   
   > construed as an indication". In that sense, he's right that there is   
   > evidence of all of those things.   
      
   We gain nothing by rendering definitions meaningless, and that's what he is   
   doing. He ends up having to defend the possible existence of Dog-Heads for   
   Christ's sake (literally).   
      
   >   
   > IMHO the way to respond to that is to say "very well, but if *that* is   
   > what you mean by evidence, then so what? Have you actually got anything   
   > that presents good grounds for belief in any of those things". At which   
   > point he stops being interested.   
      
   And interesting.   
      
   >   
   > >>   
   > >> But I don't think you are interested in doing that. I think that you   
   > >> are solely interesting in arguing about a definition. You started an   
   > >> entire thread not so long ago expressly to do that and nothing else.   
   > >> You explicitly said "I am not interested in the validity of the   
   > >> evidence."   
   > >   
   > > Nicely caught.   
   > >   
   > > Going a bit OT. In Danish we call this 'fly-fucking' (flue-knepperi),   
   > > being a stickler. It's about your use of quotation marks when you write:   
   > >   
   > >> I think when Malte says   
   > >>   
   > >> "there is no evidence [...]".   
   > >   
   > > Since I didn't say it verbatim, and because I know the locals, I'd   
   > > prefer it if you would use 'single' quotation marks when you paraphrase.   
   > > I don't know if it's a recognised way of doing it, though.   
   >   
   > Apologies, I should have made it clear that it wasn't a direct quote,   
   > you're right.   
      
   No big deal.   
      
      
   --   
   Malte Runz   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)