Consciousness restored in man after 15 years in vegetative state

Just wondering: when does evidence become fact? Does it ever?

If a witness of a murder says: "a slender tall white man walked up and shot the guy in the chest".

That's testimonial evidence right?

After a second witness corroborates the story, is it still evidence? or fact?

After a third?

What happens when a police officer says, yes I saw that too?

Do these confirming stories EVER become considered "fact"?

How can  experience be corroborated?

You can't be serious ?

Sadly I think he is. I don't know what would constitute a fact simply being stated. It's a fact that I think that... can't prove it as a fact for you. 
I wouldn't waste too much energy.

I am serious. I know you two believe you have the only correct answer but your beliefs are no more swaying than someone who knows Jesus arose after three days. Collectively agreeable discussions seem like affirmations rather seeking the truth.

I am serious. I know you two believe you have the only correct answer but your beliefs are no more swaying than someone who knows Jesus arose after three days. Collectively agreeable discussions seem like affirmations rather seeking the truth.

I don’t see much evidence of seeking from you really. As an aside it like looks same old stuff you posted on SF as far as I can see. It goes nowhere. 
As for your misguided opinion of what I think: it’s not even worth the effort of a reply.

It depends on what interests you, Obiwan. I liked it, it's in the attic now but from memory there are some interesting stories in there. I don't want to "sell" you (persuade you) the book and then you buy it and be disappointed. If you can get it for a few pounds I'd say go for it but not if you have to pay 20 pounds or so.

I promised not to blame you if it’s crap

I promised not to blame you if it’s crap

You're going for it then, Obiwan. I didn't think you were really into NDE's and OBE's and that kind of stuff. I do hope you like it.

How can  experience be corroborated?

Have you personally corroborated every scientific assertion you accept as fact?

I get the struggle with testimony.  I really do.  However, I don't think anyone, even an avowed scientific materialists, can take some highground on this point.  We all accept testimony and experiences of others as facts; we just tend to selectively accept those that fit our worldview.

I don’t see much evidence of seeking from you really. As an aside it like looks same old stuff you posted on SF as far as I can see. It goes nowhere. 
As for your misguided opinion of what I think: it’s not even worth the effort of a reply.

I tend towards there being prosaic explanations rather than spiritual or supernatural ones. Since you view the world less like I do than the only conclusion is you view the world more like they do at SF. Am I that far off the mark?

I am serious. I know you two believe you have the only correct answer but your beliefs are no more swaying than someone who knows Jesus arose after three days. Collectively agreeable discussions seem like affirmations rather seeking the truth.

Steve said> Collectively agreeable discussions seem like affirmations rather seeking the truth.

You're not seeking the truth, though. You're just rooted deep into a denial of everything, all anomalous phenomena, without being open minded and fair about the evidence for it.

Just to keep hand waving everything away (all the case reports, studies and observations) isn't being sceptical, it's just being closed minded and dogmatic. If you were a true sceptic, you wouldn't draw any conclusions until enough data was gathered and the experiments were finished.

You're going for it then, Obiwan. I didn't think you were really into NDE's and OBE's and that kind of stuff. I do hope you like it.

I’m definitely interested in the subject tim. I just find it takes me so long to become sufficiently familiar with the body of evidence in these subjects, that I have to restrict myself, otherwise I find I just end up with a very superficial view of  everything.

Have you personally corroborated every scientific assertion you accept as fact?

I get the struggle with testimony.  I really do.  However, I don't think anyone, even an avowed scientific materialists, can take some highground on this point.  We all accept testimony and experiences of others as facts; we just tend to selectively accept those that fit our worldview.

Of course not. But those scientific facts have enough corroboration. It's not a high ground position I'm taking. I'm objecting to using testimony as metric for fact. When I except testimony of a friend I trust as fact it never involves an existential proclamation. If they made such a claim I'd react the same way as I do here and I have actually.