AndyFromMonday said:
Aqua Trenoble said:
'm calling it potential evidence because it's apparently completely fine to dismiss valid evidence by nullifying the credibility of the source.
The source is important in the sense that you don't have to go through testing the evidence if the source has no idea what it's talking about. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the evidence can't be valid. The thing is up until now there has been no valid evidence.
Aqua Trenoble said:
We derailed because my evidence is only potential. Until the sources of the testimonials are proven infallible, said testimonials mean nothing. You began digging at that and then everything went to hell.
Testimonials are not evidence especially when dealing with placebos.
Of course the source is important if the evidence is questionable, but if it is truly valid evidence, as I presupposed, then who supplied it doesn't matter in the slightest.
So testimonials aren't evidence, even if the source is completely credible? Huh. That's a strange assertion, care to tell me where it came from?
I like how you completely ignored my little story. I think that in return I'll ignore your little hate-speech.