Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

You've confused "Evidence" with "Conclusions".

He confuses 'reality' with 'outrageous lies'.

Yes. It's pretty clear that the issue isn't so much any
misunderstanding as it is a transparent attempt to
stack the deck.

I mean, this stuff doesn't even qualify as rationalizations!
He's literally attempting to re-order reality to suit his
agenda, and forcing his creation on the rest of us.

Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

You've confused "Evidence" with "Conclusions".

He confuses 'reality' with 'outrageous lies'.

Yes. It's pretty clear that the issue isn't so much any
misunderstanding as it is a transparent attempt to
stack the deck.

I mean, this stuff doesn't even qualify as rationalizations!
He's literally attempting to re-order reality to suit his
agenda, and forcing his creation on the rest of us.

Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

You've confused "Evidence" with "Conclusions".

He confuses 'reality' with 'outrageous lies'.

Yes. It's pretty clear that the issue isn't so much any
misunderstanding as it is a transparent attempt to
stack the deck.

I mean, this stuff doesn't even qualify as rationalizations!
He's literally attempting to re-order reality to suit his
agenda, and forcing his creation on the rest of us.

"BillConner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message

news:1186955938.265062.325260@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 12, 10:07 am, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote:

"BillConner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message

news:1186879514.603247.207910@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

The main issues in most of my posts have always related to the
concept of evidence, something that comes up in every discussion.
People posting here have found all manner of ways to misconstrue
the idea of evidence so that confusion is guaranteed

A recent rendition of this misunderstanding is an insistence on
"objective evidence" which, in addition to being something of an
oxymoron, introduces unnecessary complications. Something that is
objective is something that can be verified by several impartial
observers; it has existence in the "real world".

Or even verified by hostile observers.

Objects exist but we
rarely talk about them. We prefer to talk about ideas, feelings or
other people (in a descending order of importance).

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Evidence is something that can only exist in the human mind; it cannot

Is there no reality?

be objective. Evidence is some proposition

Is a fingerprint a proposition?

that persuades someone that
some conclusion derived from that evidence is -probably- correct. If
enough evidence from enough sources point to some conclusion, we call
the conclusion, proof. At best, proof is only probable regardless of
the rigor of the evidence supporting it. When the probability is high
enough we become certain of our conclusion.

Notice though that a conclusion is the outcome of human intellectual
processing, it doesn't exist in "objective reality". Notice also that
the very definition of objective requires an observer, yet another
human mind. All the terms, objective, evidence, proof, certain and
conclusion refer to intellectual processes that can only exist in the
human mind.

Solipsism.

Any resort to "objective evidence" can only refer to what
the human mind finds persuasive.

Scientific evidence is, by definition, inductive which means that what
the non-scientist calls certain is, to the scientist, highly probable,
but always, at least potentially, falsifiable. To the people posting
here, the demand for "objective evidence" is probably intended to mean
evidence in the scientific sense yet they also argue that they are
absolutely certain of their conclusions. This certainty manifests
itself in the claim that all religions are false because they aren't
supported by "objective evidence".

This is an odd assertion simply because their certainty is just as
subjective as someone claiming certainty for ones religious beliefs.

And belief in gravity is just as subjective by your argument.

Their beliefs are "true" because the evidence they have processed in
their minds supports their conclusion. The mechanics of the mind
operate the same in both cases. A theist uses a different collection
of evidence to arrive at the conclusion that a god (any god) exists.
An atheist refuses to even consider the theist's evidence (claiming it
doesn't even exist) so the body of evidence available to them is
proportionally truncated. In both cases the choice of what will be
considered evidence is part of the mechanism of analysis, a product of
the human mind.

A mind observes and then connects one observation to another until
some conclusion seems warranted. That conclusion then becomes an
observation and the cycle repeats. Throughout the process the only
reality is the one taking shape in someone's mind.

Solipsism.

<snip>

Exactly. It's a trap and we can't escape by resort to a supposed
"objective reality" simply because we can only experience what our

Nonsense.

"BillConner" <bil@billconner.com> wrote in message
news:1186955938.265062.325260@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 12, 10:07 am, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote:

"BillConner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message

news:1186879514.603247.207910@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

The main issues in most of my posts have always related to the
concept of evidence, something that comes up in every discussion.
People posting here have found all manner of ways to misconstrue
the idea of evidence so that confusion is guaranteed

A recent rendition of this misunderstanding is an insistence on
"objective evidence" which, in addition to being something of an
oxymoron, introduces unnecessary complications. Something that is
objective is something that can be verified by several impartial
observers; it has existence in the "real world".

Or even verified by hostile observers.

Objects exist but we
rarely talk about them. We prefer to talk about ideas, feelings or
other people (in a descending order of importance).

Got a mouse in your pocket?

Evidence is something that can only exist in the human mind; it cannot

Is there no reality?

be objective. Evidence is some proposition

Is a fingerprint a proposition?

that persuades someone that
some conclusion derived from that evidence is -probably- correct. If
enough evidence from enough sources point to some conclusion, we call
the conclusion, proof. At best, proof is only probable regardless of
the rigor of the evidence supporting it. When the probability is high
enough we become certain of our conclusion.

Notice though that a conclusion is the outcome of human intellectual
processing, it doesn't exist in "objective reality". Notice also that
the very definition of objective requires an observer, yet another
human mind. All the terms, objective, evidence, proof, certain and
conclusion refer to intellectual processes that can only exist in the
human mind.

Solipsism.

Any resort to "objective evidence" can only refer to what
the human mind finds persuasive.

Scientific evidence is, by definition, inductive which means that what
the non-scientist calls certain is, to the scientist, highly probable,
but always, at least potentially, falsifiable. To the people posting
here, the demand for "objective evidence" is probably intended to mean
evidence in the scientific sense yet they also argue that they are
absolutely certain of their conclusions. This certainty manifests
itself in the claim that all religions are false because they aren't
supported by "objective evidence".

This is an odd assertion simply because their certainty is just as
subjective as someone claiming certainty for ones religious beliefs.

And belief in gravity is just as subjective by your argument.

Their beliefs are "true" because the evidence they have processed in
their minds supports their conclusion. The mechanics of the mind
operate the same in both cases. A theist uses a different collection
of evidence to arrive at the conclusion that a god (any god) exists.
An atheist refuses to even consider the theist's evidence (claiming it
doesn't even exist) so the body of evidence available to them is
proportionally truncated. In both cases the choice of what will be
considered evidence is part of the mechanism of analysis, a product of
the human mind.

A mind observes and then connects one observation to another until
some conclusion seems warranted. That conclusion then becomes an
observation and the cycle repeats. Throughout the process the only
reality is the one taking shape in someone's mind.

Solipsism.

<snip>

Exactly. It's a trap and we can't escape by resort to a supposed
"objective reality" simply because we can only experience what our

Nonsense.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:58:58 -0000, BillConner <bil@billconner.com>
wrote:

On Aug 12, 10:07 am, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote:

"BillConner" <b...@billconner.com> wrote in message

The main issues in most of my posts have always related to the
concept of evidence, something that comes up in every discussion.
People posting here have found all manner of ways to misconstrue
the idea of evidence so that confusion is guaranteed

A recent rendition of this misunderstanding is an insistence on
"objective evidence"

It's really very simple, which is a good thing, because a lot of
simple people need to understand the difference between "subjective"
and "objective".

"Subjective evidence", better referred to as "opinion", is "evidence"
that ONLY exists in the mind of some (or more than one) individual.

Objective evidence, OTOH, is something that exists, whether there is
even an individual with a mind in existence.

The universe was evidence that the universe existed, long before there
was anyone to care. "The universe is evidence of God" is subjective
evidence - it's the opinion of someone.

See? It's really very simple. And I won't even charge you the
customary fee.