Quote:
Originally Posted by Someday
I take it quite differently. Personal experiences are a perfect example of incomplete info. I agree that on the surface, a person can make their experience mutually exclusive with another's. This is based on only seeing their own experience as valid, and not piecing more of the info together.
|
While not having had any such experiences, I would imagine they would often be incomplete. But even with their incompleteness they can be contradicting. Seeing more might make it still harder to reconcile all parts, as the extra info would have to be incorporated too without trodding on the already present bits.
Of the vast spectrum of experiences people have claimed, how do you know additional insight must always exist to reconcile them all? Earlier in the thread it came up that the burden of evidence is on the party making the claim. Am I correct in thinking that you are saying that there must always be additional insight to reconcile seemingly contradicting experiences? If so, what is your basis for saying that?
On a separate note, I like how this thread is going.
greets,
Peter