using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria.
This is the entire point of studying epistemology. It’s not about my standards vs your standards, it’s about which standards get us the most consistently reliable results. What we’ve found is that those standards which follow the most basic principals of logic do just that. And when it comes to implementing those standards into practice to determine the best model for explaining reality we’ve come up with a name for it… science.
we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here cause it sounds like you’re misusing the word validity. Validity is a logical term meaning that the conclusion follows from the premise, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the premises.
So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this.
if i go to south america and see penguins, that's evidence that there are penguins in south america. if someone dies and says they experienced the afterlife, that's evdience for the afterlife.
You can call anything evidence. We’ve been through that already, but this is where ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ comes in.
If I told you I went shopping yesterday, you wouldn’t need anything other than my word to be rationally justified in accepting that.
If I told you I ran into Beyoncé at the grocery store, you’d probably not believe me unless I showed you a photo.
If I told you I bought a time machine and traveled back to visit the dinosaurs, I could take you with me and you’d probably still not believe it.
As the claim becomes more extraordinary, you need more before you accept it. That’s basic logic. So telling me you saw penguins in South America is quite extraordinary, but we know there are such thing as penguins and there are ways to explain them being in South America without invoking the super natural. Leaving your body and visiting the next life? That’s a whole different category of extraordinary. The two claims are not comparable.
So at the end of the day if you want to go with your tautological definition of evidence then sure, I prefer a more useful definition.
you also confuse probable with possible.
-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability.
The way we determine probability is by dividing the number of known instances by the total number of opportunities for that result. We don’t have the latter, so this argument has nothing to do with probability.
The way we determine what something should be is through observation, so claiming these hallucinations shouldn’t happen so frequently is completely baseless. Again, we typically use the word hallucination to describe it but we have no practical way of studying what is actually happening to the brain in these instances, so we have no way of concluding anything about what we should expect from them, other than what we have already observed. This whole point you’re making is again, one big argument from incredulity.
i could say the exact same thing to you
You could say anything you want, but your claim would have no merit to anyone who understands epistemology.
