tongues of fire and epistemology

Hey, A.I. Here's some info on the subject of tongues of fire. For more info, this Google results page should keep you busy. What sort of evidence would you accept as verification of Splash's report? You seem to accept the reality of his experience (i.e. you haven't called him a liar). As I see it, the burden of proof rests on you, not him. He has an explanation which accounts for all known facts of the experience. While there are many possible explanations of the phenomenon, it simply isn't good procedure to rule anything out a priori. Each theory must be considered on its own merit. Back to the topic I raised elsewhere. I'd be interested to hear your definition of "truth". Earlier on you didn't define it, you just gave examples of statements which you labelled either "true" or "not true". This can be useful, but it can also lead to unnecessary confusion. You seem to be using "truth" as an equivalent term to several related, but distinct, concepts. In your understanding, what is the difference between the following: an axiom a truth a belief truth From what you've written so far, you seem to hold to a form of naive realism in your epistemology. This isn't surprising if you haven't been exposed to much philosophy, but it does tend to minimize the impact of your assertions, particularly when they're accompanied by ad hominem attacks, straw men, and arguments from silence. Dirk