3 ms·
My impression has been that such people are precisely assuming that their sober perception is not reliable, and that's how they discount all reports and even pe
by NateEag 4y ago
My impression has been that such people are precisely assuming that their sober perception is not reliable, and that's how they discount all reports and even personal experiences of the supernatural.
As one who's had a few encounters with what I'd historically call God and is currently unsure what exactly happened in those situations, I can empathize with their perspective, even if it's not the explanation I'm leaning towards.
- bowsamic 4y agoIf they think their sober perception is not reliable then why do they trust science or that they even exist?
- NateEag 4y agoI think that they have no other option than to assume that human observations are at least reliable enough to work with, even if sometimes they go a little crazy. I think that's actually why they focus on reproducibility - that's their tool for reaching something approximating a consensus reality in the face of experiential subjectivity, human unreliability, and the strong limits on individual human knowledge. Me, I think that reproducibility is really useful, but I'm not so willing to say that if it's not reliably reproducible it must be coincidence or delusion.