I thought the point of the post was that there isn’t any scientific evidence, and the author was scouring for anecdotes, generally involving monks. I was asking what makes one monk-anecdote better than another—in general, what counts as evidence.
Irony is surprisingly hard to detect over the internet. I too have interpreted your original comment wrong.
I’m confused. Did you think that my comment was ironic before, or do you think so now?
I was asking a straightforward question, I thought.
I was thinking that this
There are certainly anecdotes of Taoist monks with insanely long lifespans. And Moses lived to 120. What even counts as evidence here?
is ironic. Especially because “Moses lived to 120” is most probably false if taken literally.
I thought the point of the post was that there isn’t any scientific evidence, and the author was scouring for anecdotes, generally involving monks. I was asking what makes one monk-anecdote better than another—in general, what counts as evidence.
Irony is surprisingly hard to detect over the internet. I too have interpreted your original comment wrong.
I’m confused. Did you think that my comment was ironic before, or do you think so now?
I was asking a straightforward question, I thought.
I was thinking that this
is ironic. Especially because “Moses lived to 120” is most probably false if taken literally.