This is exactly what this thread is about. To those (not necessarily CC) who scream empirical evidence, empirical evidence every time someone testifies to the paranormal or spiritual. And to ridicule those who find resolution in meaning derived from such an experience. At the end of the day, which perception is more beneficial? I mean, I had a spiritual experience that was so intense and impactful that it almost drove me nuts trying to comprehend it and react to it. But as hard as it was, to think what would have been lost if I didn't seek meaning in it is unfathomable.
Lori_7,
Why do you think there is a need for empirical evidence to support extraordinary or unusual claiims or testimony?
Normally in an organised society that society has acheived order by utilising empirical evidence for it's decision and future direction policy making.
So it is not surprising that there is a call for empirical evidence when someone makes claims that have in the past proved unable to be supported by "happen stance" or circumstancial results.
Of course this lack of evidence does not invalidate the claim but merely lowers it's immediate credibility to most "so called rational " people.
Skepticism, or holding an opinion that is
incredulous of that testimony is one thing and the realm of an honest skeptic, but invalidation is another and the realm of dishonest arrogance.
However some people Poster "CC" included will attempt to INVALIDATE your claim based on the lack of empirical evidence and a call to an authority, and that attempt to INVALIDATE, is such a
unwise position to take.
see below as to why...
The ironic thing is that the call for empirical evidence can work the other way.
example:
1.
When producing a new Gas [Freons, CFC's] for the purposes of refrigeration there was NO empirical evidence that would suggest that the gas would ultimately cause Ozone depletion leading to significant cultural trauma and shift in attitudes towards our environment.
The gas [considered harmless to the environment] was manufactured in huge quantities in the
absence of evidence to suggest that it was in fact dangerous to do so. [ the evidence came much later in the form of skin cancers, higher incidence eye problems etc etc.and a booming sun screen industry..]
so empirical evidence AFTER the fact and not before.
2.
BP/ Gulf of Mexico and the USA Government and the plantet in general are now experiencing the worst oils spill in history due to... yep! a lacking in empirical evidence that would have prevented the drilling of an oil well >1km below the water surface in the gulf.
Cost so far: $940 million USD, and the expected cost to the environment is reported to be far worse than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaskan waters.
why?
because there was no empirical evidence at the time to suggest such an event was possible or likely and global greed made any evidence of risk worthless anyhow.
3.
Thalidomide (pronounced /θəˈlɪdəmaɪd/) was introduced as a sedative drug in the late 1950s. In 1961, it was withdrawn due to teratogenicity and neuropathy. There is now a growing clinical interest in thalidomide, and it is introduced as an immunomodulatory agent used primarily,combined with dexamethasone, to treat multiple myeloma. The drug is a potent teratogen in zebrafish, chickens,[2] rabbits and primates including humans: severe birth defects may result if the drug is taken during pregnancy.[3]
Thalidomide was sold in a number of countries across the world from 1957 until 1961 when it was withdrawn from the market after being found to be a cause of birth defects in what has been called "one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times".[4] It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.[5] Since then thalidomide has been found to be a valuable treatment for a number of medical conditions and it is being prescribed again in a number of countries, although its use remains controversial.[
straight from wiki...
the trauma experienced by the parents and victims of the Thalidomide incident was/is enormous all due to the lack of empirical evidence to prevent it's manufacture and widespread recomendation.
4. Chenobyl Reactor disaster 1986 - apparently still cookin' in 2010
and there are countless more to choose from if wanted.
so the need for evidence is not always applied in the way that we think it is.
