tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post6773153980810681978..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: How does John Loftus (or anyone) know anything? Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-51923771194424615062016-01-03T09:37:11.813-08:002016-01-03T09:37:11.813-08:00David,
The reasons for my anonymity are my own, a...David,<br /><br />The reasons for my anonymity are my own, and they are likely not due to the reasons that you are thinking of, but regardless, I appreciated your post.<br /><br />I might also add, as an aside, that is it not interesting how John and other atheists routinely decry the horrors of religion while playing up the great benefits of science, but they rarely seem to notice the benefits that religion has brought nor point out the fact that Science(TM) has also given us nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, biological warfare, deadly chemicals, and so on. You should do a post on that.<br /><br />Take care,<br /><br />22056<br />www.investigativeapologetics.wordpress.com Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44517822821081172962016-01-01T20:19:13.123-08:002016-01-01T20:19:13.123-08:00Exactly. But people who talk sense, or even try t...Exactly. But people who talk sense, or even try to, don't need to remain anonymous here. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-60792221086586362112015-12-31T14:43:53.639-08:002015-12-31T14:43:53.639-08:00David,
As I noted on my little blog:
As is the c...David,<br /><br />As I noted on my little blog:<br /><br />As is the case with some atheists, the man who broadly and/or strongly rejects the trustworthiness and reliability of eye-witness testimony on the basis of studies and/or scientific findings which allegedly show its unreliability is a self-undermining fool, for in order to rationally believe and accept and trust a study or scientific finding, a person must not only trust the eye-witness testimony of the people who did the study, and those who reviewed and edited the study, and those who reported the study, etc., but a person must also trust his own sort of eye-witness testimony to himself concerning seeing the study, remembering the study, and so on; thus, to reject eye-witness testimony in a broad and/or strong way is to simultaneously reject knowledge, rationality, and science altogether....it is, in other words, utter folly.<br /><br />Take care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61807245931072211932015-12-29T14:37:03.391-08:002015-12-29T14:37:03.391-08:00Thanks, Brad.
All of John's arguments here ...Thanks, Brad. <br /><br />All of John's arguments here are really just dusts in the air, I should have pointed out. <br /><br />Originally, on another thread, one of his minions called me "uninformed." I responded, actually on topic at hand, I am pretty well-informed. John then started a thread saying something like "Dr. Marshall is well-informed? Really?" I said, "Yes, really," and John replied by jumping to another topic, and acting as if I had been bragging. <br /><br />Then in that thread, I challenged the blanket claim that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable," by pointing out that if that is the case, science is history, so to speak. <br /><br />This last critique of my argument represents John hopping to another series of lily pads, always trying to keep one mountain range out of reach of The Law. It's getting hard for me to figure out what it is that I said, that he's even really disputing. <br /><br />The data you're citing certainly helps put that old canard to rest. One thing Loftus is certainly trying to do, is to get people to think holy, sacred science is on his side, and I am somehow blaspheming it by making rational intellectual distinctions -- as you show must be done. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-67760636836055433362015-12-29T08:44:30.157-08:002015-12-29T08:44:30.157-08:00I was aware of the Massachusetts case, and was abl...I was aware of the Massachusetts case, and was able to pull up these others rather quickly with Google while looking for it.....I am sure there is more out there, but this is plenty to make the case. Two of the articles have about a half dozen blatant examples in them......Again, the point is NOT that science is worthless. The point is that science is reliant on human testimony as much as any other area of human knowledge and that it must be weighed and tested the same, also. AND that, if we can do that with science, we can do it with other areas of knowledge, also. And in all areas of knowledge, this leads to various shades of certainty: from not very certain to absolutely certain. It all depends on the kind of evidence that you have--not the means by which the evidence was procured.Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61420212085610796032015-12-29T08:39:33.881-08:002015-12-29T08:39:33.881-08:00https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-ove...https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.htmlBrad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-60122025722724781232015-12-29T08:38:44.555-08:002015-12-29T08:38:44.555-08:00http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/0...http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-15909023603287743892015-12-29T08:37:03.003-08:002015-12-29T08:37:03.003-08:00http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/crime_l...http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/crime_labs_under_the_microscope_after_a_string_of_shoddy_suspect_and_fraudu/Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73580206517443384842015-12-29T08:35:57.651-08:002015-12-29T08:35:57.651-08:00Nice job, David. Wit the DNA example, you could ha...Nice job, David. Wit the DNA example, you could have gone even farther. There have been a string of examples come to light in recent years of faked and faulty lab results because of deception or error--highlighting even further how science relies on human testimony.<br /><br />http://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-lab-tech-arrested-for-alleged-improper-handling-of-drug-tests/Brad Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12815725289958403154noreply@blogger.com