This assumes that the person you are talking to didn’t perform any tests that provide them evidence for their belief.
It doesn’t assume this, it infers it about a particular person from the evidence provided by shminux above. The interlocutor shminux is describing rejects the idea that experimental results can be definitive on this question, which is different from the position you describe here. (Anyone who starts out asserting the former, then switches to the latter in mid-stream, is no longer asserting a coherent position at all and requires altogether different techniques for engaging with them.)
The debate is more more about which experiements are systematically flawed
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “the debate”. Is there only one? That surprises me; it certainly seems to me that some people adopt the stance shminux described, to which I responded.
All that aside, I certainly agree with you that my response to someone taking the stance you describe here (embracing experimentalism as it applies to psychic phenomena in theory, but implementing experiments in a problematic way) should differ from my response to someone taking the stance shminux describes above (rejecting experimentalism as it applies to psychic phenomena).
The interlocutor shminux is describing rejects the idea that experimental results can be definitive on this question, which is different from the position you describe here.
That depends on what you mean by “experiment”. If you mean doing a proper replicable controlled experiment than there is no experimental evidence. If you mean any evidence based on observation than there is experimental evidence.
In other words, there is evidence for the intruder, just not scientific evidence in the sense of this post.
I don’t in fact mean, by “experiment”, any evidence based on observation. I agree that there is evidence for (and against) the intruder, and did not say otherwise, although in general I don’t endorse using “evidence” in this sense without tagging it in some way (e.g., “Bayesian evidence”), since the alternative is reliably confusing.
It doesn’t assume this, it infers it about a particular person from the evidence provided by shminux above. The interlocutor shminux is describing rejects the idea that experimental results can be definitive on this question, which is different from the position you describe here. (Anyone who starts out asserting the former, then switches to the latter in mid-stream, is no longer asserting a coherent position at all and requires altogether different techniques for engaging with them.)
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “the debate”.
Is there only one?
That surprises me; it certainly seems to me that some people adopt the stance shminux described, to which I responded.
All that aside, I certainly agree with you that my response to someone taking the stance you describe here (embracing experimentalism as it applies to psychic phenomena in theory, but implementing experiments in a problematic way) should differ from my response to someone taking the stance shminux describes above (rejecting experimentalism as it applies to psychic phenomena).
That depends on what you mean by “experiment”. If you mean doing a proper replicable controlled experiment than there is no experimental evidence. If you mean any evidence based on observation than there is experimental evidence.
In other words, there is evidence for the intruder, just not scientific evidence in the sense of this post.
I don’t in fact mean, by “experiment”, any evidence based on observation. I agree that there is evidence for (and against) the intruder, and did not say otherwise, although in general I don’t endorse using “evidence” in this sense without tagging it in some way (e.g., “Bayesian evidence”), since the alternative is reliably confusing.