Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.

[Aletheia]

shifitng burden of proof

That's the second time you've mentioned burden of proof.

Would you agree that the burden of proving a statement to be true falls upon the person making the statement? (And, indeed, also upon the people agreeing with a statement and claiming it to be true, even if they didn't originate it?)

[erzea]

Let's take a concrete example.

What is your "real authority" that we should trust on the issue of whether eating garlic prohibits people being happy?

And what the evidence that you present that your "real authority" is more trustworthy on this than, for example, medical doctors, or scientists who look at the correlation between diet and happiness?

that i have already evidence i have already explained

You have given an analogy (a mother being the "real authority" when it comes to declaring what your parentage is).

I'm now asking for something different. I'm asking for you to explain how that analogy applies to a specific example (eating garlic).

that is ( rules and regulations ) for freeing from repeated birth after birth, ( and we are forgetting everything just like last nights dream ) and changing bodies ( from 8.4 million forms of life ) like new dresses, and getting kicks from 1 nation to another like an football.

and whenever there is birth, one is born young, and in the process of life there are ( many ) diseases, old age and finally death ( again )

so it is the process of becoming freed from repeated circle of birth after birth.

and one has to follow the real authority just as one follows the real mother. than one can approach Krishna and his father.

otherwise if you go on at your own ( OR *IMPOSED* [ or shifted burdon of proof of any random street dogs authority { on us The Hare Krishnas } without explaining anything at all ]) than you will be misled and not find the real father.

it is something like you are approaching another women instead of your own mother.

so it is the process of getting out of this material world.

[erzea]

shifitng burden of proof

That's the second time you've mentioned burden of proof.

Would you agree that the burden of proving a statement to be true falls upon the person making the statement? (And, indeed, also upon the people agreeing with a statement and claiming it to be true, even if they didn't originate it?)

`1st of all as you stated //And what the evidence that you present that your "real authority" is more trustworthy //

so for that i have explained this Practical explanation. that i have done and it is sound explanation it itself, so i have carried by burdon myself without shifting on anyone else at all. but now if you want to bring someone else than it is your turn to give us another explanation. so that we can see your position ( also )

but people usually trust in scientists, doctors or this or that as you said again //is more trustworthy on this than, for example, medical doctors, or scientists //

but now ( its your turn ) if you want to bring someone else who is more than authority than why shall i follow him/her? he may be so called scientist, doctor, politician, so called intelligent person within world or this or that. but what explanation he has ? why shall i or anyone else should follow him/her ?

why ? OR do you just want to *impose* ( or shift burdon of proof ) there authority on us ( The Hare Krishnas ) without explaining anything at all ?

and we remained nothing of the sort in spite of giving this Practical explanation ? and you become right in the first place by shifting burdon of proof.

so again if you want to bring someone else who is more than authority ( aka mother or Srila Prabhupada ) than give us another explanation.

so that i also can be saved ( like yourself ) would you not try to save me ? ( like yourself ? ) by giving us another explanation ? which supports your so called scientists, politicians, or any so called intelligent person or this or that ? etc ?

would you will save yourself alone ? ( huh ? ) OR SAVE ME ALSO by giving your another explanation ?

and if you just shifted burdon of proof than i will not listen to you at all.

[Aletheia]

that i have already evidence i have already explained

You have given an analogy (a mother being the "real authority" when it comes to declaring what your parentage is).

I'm now asking for something different. I'm asking for you to explain how that analogy applies to a specific example (eating garlic).

that is ( rules and regulations ) for freeing from repeated birth after birth, ( and we are forgetting everything just like last nights dream ) and changing bodies ( from 8.4 million forms of life ) like new dresses, and getting kicks from 1 nation to another like an football.

and whenever there is birth, one is born young, and in the process of life there are ( many ) diseases, old age and finally death ( again )

so it is the process of becoming freed from repeated circle of birth after birth.

and one has to follow the real authority just as one follows the real mother. than one can approach Krishna and his father.

otherwise if you go on at your own ( OR *IMPOSED* [ or shifted burdon of proof of any random street dogs authority { on us The Hare Krishnas } without explaining anything at all ]) than you will be misled and not find the real father.

it is something like you are approaching another women instead of your own mother.

so it is the process of getting out of this material world.

Your reply didn't mention the word "garlic" once.

I was expecting a reply of the form:

Just as your mother is the real authority when it comes to issue of saying who your father is, because she had first hand experience no other woman has of that issue

Srila Prabhupada is the real authority when it comes to the issue of saying whether garlic is good to eat, because he has first hand experience no other man has of that issue

And the evidence that Srila Prabhupada has greater first hand experience than anyone else, of whether garlic is good to eat is <evidence>

Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to re-word your response in such a way that it is clear to me what your <evidence> is?

[Aletheia]

but people usually trust in scientists, doctors or this or that as you said again //is more trustworthy on this than, for example, medical doctors, or scientists //

but now ( its your turn ) if you want to bring someone else who is more than authority than why shall i follow him/her? he may be so called scientist, doctor, politician, so called intelligent person within world or this or that. but what explanation he has ? why shall i or anyone else should follow him/her ?

I think it is reasonable to trust, based upon ones own knowledge of human nature, that at least some scientists, out of a large group of scientists, would be greedy enough to post papers contradicting their fellow scientists, when they spot flaws in the works of those fellow scientists. There is a lot of evidence that scientists are willing to do this, and the benefits scientists gain from publishing papers successfully contradicting previous works, in terms of reputation, advancement to career or even funding, explain this.

Why should that lead one on to the conclusion that it is reasonable to place at least some trust in the findings such as:

Antioxidant health effects of aged garlic extract
C Borek - The Journal of nutrition, 2001 - academic.oup.com
Oxidative modification of DNA, proteins and lipids by reactive oxygen species (ROS) plays a
role in aging and disease, including cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and inflammatory
diseases and cancer. Extracts of fresh garlic that are aged over a prolonged period to …
Cited by 795

Intake of garlic and its bioactive components
H Amagase, BL Petesch, H Matsuura… - The Journal of …, 2001 - academic.oup.com
Abstract. The health benefits of garlic likely arise from a wide variety of components, possibly
working synergistically … Abstract. Health benefits of garlic and current confusion. Chemistry of
garlic. Garlic supplements and intake of garlic. Essential oil. Dehydrated powder …
Cited by 991

[PDF] Health effects of garlic
E Tattelman - Am Fam Physician, 2005 - Citeseer
104 American Family Physician www. aafp. org/afp Volume 72, Number 1◆ July 1, 2005
cluded that garlic is superior to placebo in reducing total cholesterol levels, but that the
extent of the effect is modest (4 to 6 percent). A more recent meta-analysis10 of …
Cited by 248

And the many other papers you find if you do the search:
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl ... alth&btnG=


I will explain.

It isn't because I personally know anything about Dr Borek, Dr Petesch or Dr Tattelman.

It isn't because they have lived wonderful lives.

My trust isn't in them. My trust is in the 795 scientists citing Dr Borek, the 991 citing Dr Petesch and the 248 citing Dr Tattelman.

I trust that, if there were flaws in the research then, out of self-interest, at least one of the more than 1000 scientists who scrutinised their work would have been greedy enough to publish contradicting them.

You can, for yourself, go look at the citations, check the publication date, the reputation of the journals (and whether they are peer reviewed). This is how one evaluates science. This is how fellow scientists evaluate science. The trust isn't in the individuals - it is in the process.

[erzea]

Your reply didn't mention the word "garlic" once.

I was expecting a reply of the form:

Just as your mother is the real authority when it comes to issue of saying who your father is, because she had first hand experience no other woman has of that issue

Srila Prabhupada is the real authority when it comes to the issue of saying whether garlic is good to eat, because he has first hand experience no other man has of that issue

And the evidence that Srila Prabhupada has greater first hand experience than anyone else, of whether garlic is good to eat is <evidence>

Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to re-word your response in such a way that it is clear to me what your <evidence> is?

it is not question of first hand experience for things are coming directly through the chain of disciples succesion from Lord Krishna himself and Srila Prabhupada is current recognized agent of Lord Krishna. and these are the rules and regulations if you want to get out of repeated birth after birth, old age, disease and death.


and why are you pressing so much on cheap garlics ? ( huh? ) just directly push on S*x life, for that is the real point. not the bogus garlics.

and no illicit S*x means no S*x outside marriage or no S*x with another mans wife. and that is the real point for in the western countries people mingle like anything that there is no mother, no sister, no daughter or no wife.

so directly come to point instead of these bogus garlics. and than next question would be if everything is pleasure than why take contraceptive methods ? plesaure ? than why take contraceptive methods ?

and your western civilization is suicidal or soul killing civilization.

and who believes on mother ? ( huh? ) dont dont you say or bring DNA test here ? ( huh ? ) bring that here and that is also contradicted by entire hand or legs transplant.

for that is also not perfect. for if it is perfect and only matching with mother and father than how the damn doctors are transplanting entire hand or leg from someone else who is neither our parent nor relative ?

and they are not only matching entire hand or legs size, gender, skin color, skin tone but also bone marrow, DNA , blood group etc.

and than entire hand or leg used to get transplanted. so here goes your DNA test also.
______________
and if you dont accept this Practical explanation nor rules and regulation than dont accept and go to hell.

but i have explained solid, verifialbe and tangible explanation. but now it is you who is shifting burdon of proof on me.

for its your turn if you want to bring someone else who is better than Srila Prabhupada than you have to give us another explanation.

and as far as question of my turn ( so i have carried by burdon ) so its your turn if you want to bring someone else.

than you have to carry burdon of your part. ( which you cannot do at all ) and i have presented my evidence already. but its you who wants to bring someone else ( who is nothing but street dog ) but still its your hearts desire to support that street dog.

but i will not give piss nor any intelligent person will give until you give us another explanation without shifting burdon of proof.

[erzea]

I think it is reasonable to trust, based upon ones own knowledge of human nature, that at least some scientists, out of a large group of scientists, would be greedy enough to post papers contradicting their fellow scientists, when they spot flaws in the works of those fellow scientists. There is a lot of evidence that scientists are willing to do this, and the benefits scientists gain from publishing papers successfully contradicting previous works, in terms of reputation, advancement to career or even funding, explain this.

nah nah trust you always have to, but it is question of to whom to trust ? that is the point, weather any random child ? or actual mother ( or recognized agent of Lord Krishna ) who has seen our father before our birth and knows it that who has tilled her.

that is the point. and real science is not the damn joke that someone has present it as now something and few later someone else will come and present something better. it is not the childs play like this.

for actual science is and will remain as it is. and you believe it or not but the fact is fact. and it does not depend on your believing or not believing for natures course will take its place.

and at present moment people believes the rascal scientists whatever they bluff, instead of listening to actual mother ( or recognized agent of Lord Krishna ) they will listen to any random child. so they are cheated. that is it.

I will explain.

It isn'**skip**. The trust isn't in the individuals - it is in the process.

and what is that process ? what explanation you have for your scientists ? which supports there authority ? huh? what explanation you have ? explain it and finish the business.

explain that process. so that i also can recognzied there self proclaimed authority is not actually self proclaimed nonsense.

and good luck to you that you will listen to the scientists ( say random childrens ) good luck with that.

and i have got solid, verifialbe and tangible Practical explanation and i will go on with authority ( or recognized agent of Lord Krishna aka Srila Prabhupada )

and he was not the self proclaimed nonsense who is funded by some rascal politiicans so that there foolish leadership may go on.

to make some false propagandas like evolution, big bang, moon landing, etc. for everything whatever western scientists present everything hoax from top to bottom.

and you are free to get carried away by such mass brainwashing propangandas and there is no loss on my part at all.

and if you have any process by which we can know in whom to put our trust than explain it.

and as far as question of us ( The Hare Krishnas ) so that i have already explained and i will go on with real mother instead of any self proclaimed right`1 ( who is nothing but the damn rascal child )

so good luck to you.

[Aletheia]

to make some false propagandas like evolution, big bang, moon landing, etc. for everything whatever western scientists present everything hoax from top to bottom.

The Hare Krishnas don't believe that humankind has ever traveled to the moon?

Interesting.

[Aletheia]

that is the point. and real science is not the damn joke that someone has present it as now something and few later someone else will come and present something better. it is not the childs play like this.

for actual science is and will remain as it is. and you believe it or not but the fact is fact. and it does not depend on your believing or not believing for natures course will take its place.

We appear to disagree over what the worse "science" refers to.

Which is fine, we don't need to get tied up with linguistics. We can just make sure we use two terms "erzea-science" to refer to what you want to use the term to mean, and "aletheia-science" to refer to what I mean by the term.

That ok?

[Aletheia]

Your reply didn't mention the word "garlic" once.

I was expecting a reply of the form:

Just as your mother is the real authority when it comes to issue of saying who your father is, because she had first hand experience no other woman has of that issue

Srila Prabhupada is the real authority when it comes to the issue of saying whether garlic is good to eat, because he has first hand experience no other man has of that issue

And the evidence that Srila Prabhupada has greater first hand experience than anyone else, of whether garlic is good to eat is <evidence>

Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to re-word your response in such a way that it is clear to me what your <evidence> is?

it is not question of first hand experience for things are coming directly through the chain of disciples succession from Lord Krishna himself and Srila Prabhupada is current recognized agent of Lord Krishna. and these are the rules and regulations if you want to get out of repeated birth after birth, old age, disease and death.


and why are you pressing so much on cheap garlics ?

I picked the claim you made about garlic as the concrete example, because it seems to me to be something that is clear-cut enough to be amenable to experiment.

Anyway, thank you for your clarification. So, re-writing the above taking the clarification into account, it would be:

Just as your mother is the real authority when it comes to issue of saying who your father is, because she had first hand experience no other woman has of that issue

Lord Krishna is the real authority when it comes to the issue of saying whether garlic is good to eat, because he has first hand experience no other being has of that issue

Similarly, Lord Krishna's first disciple has first hand experience of what Lord Krishna said.

Lord Krishna's second disciple has first hand experience of what Lord Krishna's first disciple said.

And so on, in an unbroken chain, ending with Srila Prabhupada who has first hand experience of what the disciple previous to him said.

Which raising three questions:

(A) Was there really an unbroken chain?
(B) Is it possible that, at some point along the chain, someone lied?
(C) Even if there were no deliberate liars in the chain, is it possible that, like in the game of "Chinese Whispers" information got distorted along the way?