| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2004 07:39:40 AM |
| Object: |
on evidence (was: If you met God) |
Evidence is an important concept in reason, and is a concept used both
by theists and atheists. So it must be possible for reasonable theists
and atheists to agree at least on the meaning of evidence. I have had a
discussion about this matter in another thread, but I think this matter
is important enough to merit a new one.
Fred Stone wrote:
dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos Georgoudis) wrote in
news:5ac380ce.0412051452.193de03@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95B694C065479fstone69@205.188.138.161>...
dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos Georgoudis) wrote in
news:5ac380ce.0412050931.7a6b63d2@posting.google.com:
[snip]
dg: In fact all we know comes ultimately through our senses
(otherwise we would have extrasensory perception something I am
sure atheists deny). And all we infer from our senses (for
example
that the moon exists) is a subjective opinion and may in
principle
be wrong (one of the oldest tenets of philosophy).
Ultimately all evidence is subjective. Anne sees her tree (a
vision
that is a model in her brain and therefore according to your
definition not objective evidence) and decides the tree exists.
It's normal. A scientist sees a needle moving or hears a click
and
decides that electrons exist. Ultimately it's always an opinion,
but is a reasonable opinion. When so much of our subjective
experience points to an orderly physical universe it is quite
reasonable to opine that the physical universe exists. There is
no
absolute certainty. So? I don't have a problem with all this,
it's
the way things are.
[snip]
fs: You are confusing perception of the evidence with evidence
itself. This is the fallacy of equivocation. The observation is
not
the evidence. The observation is how we know that the evidence
exists.
dg: Well, if I don't observe the evidence then I don't know it is
there,
and if I don't know it is there then it is not really evidence, is
it?
fs: No, it's still evidence. You aren't the only observer in the
universe.
Indeed, I am not. But ultimately somebody makes the observing which
means that all evidence is in somebody experiencing it. Ultimately
evidence is always subjective - there is no objective evidence in the
strict sense of the word. But of course, if many people experience the
same thing then one's confidence in the total of evidence grows. Let's
see an example:
You are alone on island. You see, touch and eat from a tree. This is
sufficient evidence for you to claim with high confidence that the tree
exists. A second person comes to the island, sees the tree, and tells
you so. This also is evidence for you, so your confidence level for the
existence of the tree grows. I haven't seen the tree myself, but if the
two of you come to me and tell me about the tree this will also count
as evidence, albeit second hand evidence. If I know you well and trust
you then I will conclude with a fair level of confidence that that tree
exists. Suppose a surveillance camera on a satellite shoots some
pictures in which the tree is visible; while nobody knows anything
about these pictures there is no new evidence there. But if somebody
sees these pictures (experiences them subjectively) then it will count
as new evidence for the existence of the tree, and increase the overall
confidence level in its existence.
That's the way it is. We all experience a web of cross-referenced
evidence about the physical universe, which gives us an extremely high
level of confidence about some basic facts (such as "the moon exists").
But evidence ultimately is within peoples' brains. This should be quite
clear. After all, all we all (six billion of us) know about the
physical universe consists really of similar models in our 6 billion
brains. It's all subjective and therefore in principle subject to error
too. I don't see any problem with that, for even though there is no
such thing as objective evidence in the strict sense of "objective",
the subjective evidence we do have is sufficient to give us all an
extremely high level of confidence for the existence of the physical
universe and its basic tenets.
As evidence is always experiental, atheists should accept the
possibility that theists have personal evidence for God.
www.infidels.org comes very close to recognizing that. I quote: "Note
that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation,
some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be
incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification -- but it
would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be."
Maybe the one who wrote this text defines evidence in a more strict way
than I: that evidence must be subject to scientific verification to
really count as evidence, i.e. that it must be communicable (it must be
possible to describe the experience and how one arrives there) and
subject to scientific verification (many people must independently
confirm the experience) for the grand total of this observation to be
called "evidence". It is still all subjective of course, but as many
people observe the same the confidence level is much higher.
Nevertheless the number of people observing is not the only criterion
for confidence; maybe I am the only person who has seen a particular
tree, but my confidence level in its existence is higher than, say, my
confidence level in the existence of neutrinos, even though they are
the subject matter of scientific study for years. Anyway, as the author
of the text of infidels.org says, personal experience can be as
compelling as any evidence (whatever the exact definition) can be, and
"compelling" in reasonable thought is the defining characteristic of
evidence. So I think it is fair to use the word "evidence" for anything
that has the same effect as "scientific evidence".
Now imagine a world where theists would not only claim to experience
God (a non-physical being) but also would all describe their
experiences in the same detailed manner. For example, imagine that they
would all independently explain that today they heard God saying some
specific stuff. If that happened then everybody would recognize in this
strong evidence for the existence of God; if not how could all these
people coordinate what they claim (unless one would be prepared to
believe in telepathy that is). Now the world we do inhabit theists are
rather cacophonous: they describe their experience of God in a vague,
contradictory and even self-contradictory manner. (As a theist I can
explain why this happens, but this is another matter - here I am
discussing the meaning of evidence only.) So, a reasonable atheist
should concede that the fact that a) some definition of god does not
contradict her personal experience, and b) many otherwise rational
people claim to experience this god even though they describe their
experience not convincingly, does constitute evidence for the existence
of God, albeit very weak evidence which is by far insufficient to
justify belief in God, particularly for that atheist who does not share
in these experiences. The hypothesis that theists are imagining things
looks much more convincing. Still it is a matter of degree.
fs: And before you go there, neither "Evidence" nor "Observation" are
single
entities so it is entirely possible to confirm one bit of one with
the
another bit of the other without circularity.
dg: So evidence requires my observing it - the two concepts cannot
be
separated.
fs: For you to make use of evidence requires that you observe it, or
have
it's existence communicated to you; that's not quite the same.
Indeed. In many cases, but not always, first hand experience of
evidence gives much more confidence than second-hand (hearsay)
experience. A counterexample: I have less confidence that a comet I
only glimpsed in the sky really existed than for the existence of a
comet I haven't seen at all, but many other people say they have
clearly seen.
fs: The two
concepts are logically linked but they are still separate concepts.
Maybe we use words a little differently. I stand by the claim that all
evidence must at some point be observed to be evidence, and that
therefore strictly speaking evidence is our observing something. So if
all evidence must be observed and all observation counts as evidence
then the two concepts cannot be separated. Why then do we find it so
natural to use two different words: evidence and observation? Because
we often observe not in the context of reasoning existence, and also
because for practical reasons we call evidence a thing that many people
have already observed. So one says things like: "The fact that ice
floats is evidence that frozen water occupies a bigger volume than
liquid water". It sounds objective and impersonal (supposedly the
evidence *is* the floating of ice), but in fact it is shorthand for
saying "many people have observed ice floating and this, within the
most successful model of physical reality we have, means that frozen
water must occupy a larger volume." In normal discourse one very often
uses shortcuts like that but it is important never to lose sight of the
fact that they are shortcuts and that they should not be taken
literally (the shortcut must not take a life of its own as it where).
In fact any statement about evidence implicitly includes experience,
and is therefore subjective.
It's a subtle but important insight.
Here is the (American Heritage) dictionary definition: Evidence = A
thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken
window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh
the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
This definition is misleading because evidence appears to be a thing,
and not the observation of the thing as I claim. On the other hand the
essential word in this definition is "helpful" and a thing cannot be
helpful by itself, unless experienced by somebody. There is another
reason why the above definition is not very good. In modern physics
evidence is not even only observed *things*, for entire theories rise
and fall by reason of their explicative power (including unifying
power) or even by reason of their mathematical elegance. So one should
not understand the word "thing" in the definition above as "physical
thing", but most people would understand it this way. Maybe a better
definition would be: Evidence = an observed matter that is helpful in
forming a reasonable conclusion or judgment.
Webster has a better definition: Evidence = Your basis for belief or
disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief. I find this definition
much better because it is personal. Evidence is *one's* basis for
something; *one's* knowledge on which to base something. So it is *not*
an external, objective, thing.
dg: When deciding existence the buck stops at my observation. So
deciding
existence is not objective after all for ultimately it depends on
personal experience which is subjective.
fs: Repeatable observation (meaning repeatable by *multiple
observers*) is
the criterion for objective existence. That is how science separates
what is objectively true from what is merely conjecture - by
comparing
observations from many observers.
I think I agree. As long as you don't call this repeatable observation
"objective evidence" - for it is still subjective even if the relevant
observations are repeated independently by many observers gives us a
confidence level high enough to start using the term "objective
existence". And as long as one keeps in mind that what we look for is
confidence, and repeated observation by independent observers is only
one criterion for confidence - another very strong criterion is one's
is personal direct observation. For example, one who has not studied
general relativity in depth should by reason not have much confidence
in the existence of curved space. From her point of view it is
basically hearsay. If she trusts physicists that confidence may be
relatively high, but is she does not trust them her confidence level in
the existence of curved space may be comparable to an atheist's
confidence in the existence of supernatural events.
By the way how would you respond to somebody who claimed that by your
criterion neutrinos or quarks or strings do not objectively exist, and
are only mathematical constructs? And, what about the big bang? I don't
think it objectively exists by your criterion. But if you change your
criterion to allow big bang the status of objective existence, what
happens if scientists in the future find a better theory according to
which the big bang never happened? Would its objective existence
suddenly disappear?
In reality things are not so neatly clear-cut as some atheists may
think: that of the set of all things claimed to exist this subset
clearly exists and the rest clearly does not. The reality of our reason
is that our belief in existence is messy and personal. If my atheist
reader is not a physicist she may wish to ask herself what confidence
she *really* has in the existence of curved space. Now my atheist
reader may complain that she doesn't really understand the concept of
curved space, but then I would like to suggest that maybe she does not
really understand the concept of God either.
Here is another thing about evidence, and it is also one of these
illusory neatly clear-cut views: that one first defines a thing, and
then decides about the existence of that thing by its evidence. Within
formal systems it is possible to do this: one defines a proposition the
meaning of which is clearly understood and then proves or disproves it.
But in the real world it does not work this way. Evidence not only
gives us confidence in the existence of something, it also *defines*
what this something is. If you have never experienced a tree then you
don't really know what a tree is, i.e. not only you have little
evidence for the existence of trees but also little understanding of
what a tree is. If you have never experienced the vision of a red
object, you don't really know what redness is. We learn what things are
by experiencing them. This is one more fact of our condition, and I
think that reasonable people should not lose sight of this principle.
Still, it is only a principle. I have never experienced a unicorn but I
do understand fairly well what a unicorn is supposed to be. How come?
Because those who speak of unicorns describe them in terms that are
common to experiences I did have. They speak of a horse-like creature
with a single long horn. Well, I have experienced horses and I have
seen and touched horns, *therefore* I can visualize a unicorn and claim
I understand the concept even though I have never seen unicorns. So
what about a god? A god described in terms similar to my experience
(booming voice from the sky) is something I can understand even though
I have not experienced. A god described in terms not similar to my
experience (the ground of all being), well, I can't really imagine how
one can experience the ground of all being so I can't really understand
that concept of god. Why do I insist on this point? Because it shows
that unless the definition of god is rather primitive, the atheist
should ask the theist to describe her experience of her god - and not
ask for a definition of her god. The latter is a methodological error
based on the illusion that one can know what something is without
experiencing it. Theists do the same mistake of course and try to
describe their god in terms that sound independent of their experience,
probably because they want to emphasize that the existence of their god
is independent of their experience - but this in fact emphasizes the
very same methodological error we are discussing. In fact, in their
knowledge of God the existence of God cannot be separated from their
personal experience, they should realize this and they should not
pretend that it is otherwise.
dg: I don't think I am saying something new. The fact that all we
infer
from the senses (including, for example, the existence of physical
things) is uncertain and subject to human error, is one of the
oldest
tenets of philosophy.
fs: Yes, I know, and inferring that evidence is only subjective after
all is
as wrong now as it ever was.
I wonder then if you would give me an example of a truly non-subjective
evidence?
.
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 08:52:21 AM |
|
|
<snip a bunch of garb>
evidence is not experience. our perception of experience has always been
based on observation and the explanation of the causal event(s). the only
thing that does change is how we interpret the evidence at hand. the example
you keep wanting to see is rampant in mathematics and physics. we observe,
we analyse, we postulate, we validate. at that point, we either have a state
of truth or falsehood for our thesis...based on evidence and not perception.
consider newton and einstein and the laws of motion in relation to gravity.
for years (many, many), newton was considered absolute in his correctness of
interpretation based on mathematical evidence applied to his observation(s).
einstein was witness to the same observation(s)...a.k.a experience...as
newton, however he redefined gravity as the warping of spacetime. einstein's
calculation's would not have been accepted had he not been ever so more
accurate in quantifying his results in the affirmative. we now have a more
accurate perception of time and gravity thanks to einstein's work which has
had a rippling effect on all cultures.
the only postulate i can accept of philosophy, being a scientist, is that it
may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be trusted. however,
this is a superfluous notion. i cannot exists without my senses inclusive of
thought. without a perceptual framework for thought, then thought itself is
meaningless. i can however evaluate *evidence* given through observation and
determine its significance in defining the event(s) that generated them.
that is my job. *evidence is NOT experience* lest one accept the tooth-fairy
as reality for lack of research!
what you've described is eastern cultural perceptions where the idealic
blends with reality. this is known as metaphysics and is a problematic state
of reason. even so, with your brand of evidence we only see many perceptions
of god which cannot be evidenciarily resolved. the result is many religions
claiming exclusivity on their taught perceptions of god...all other
religions be damned. for me, whatever you call evidence does not point to
any god expressly concerned about relaying her intent for humanity and is
apparently blind to the results of her non-evidenciary involvement with her
creation.
if a thing cannot be perceived, then it is to the observer non-extant and
inconsequencial. this is the non-metaphysical reality of non-scientific
evidence supporting claims that god exists. if she does, then what does it
matter anyway. she obviously does not interact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 11:18:23 AM |
|
|
steve wrote:
<snip a bunch of garb>
the only postulate i can accept of philosophy, being a scientist, is that it
may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be trusted.
There is a big problem with accepting that, with joining the solipsists
in taking it for granted that solipsism is true when it is not evident
that it is. That's known as 'begging the question.'
It is not reasonable for solipsists to argue for the main tenet of
solopsism, "it may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be
trusted," based on taking it for granted at the outset (begging the
question) then arguing _ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false.
That is what is known as logical fallacy, not valid inference.
That personal subjective conviction is known to be a little error prone
at times, although generally reliable enough to allow us to find food,
mates, shelter, etc. and survive with a fairly good living on this
planet, does not reduce us to accepting solipsism and abandoning
scientific investigation, for that very thing, scientific investigation,
is the method of working around human error mankind have developed over
the years.
Since no man is an island, it would be foolish for one to rely
exclusively on his own untested personal subjective convictions in every
case, particularly on questions of considerable interest to all mankind,
when there is a method of systematic, logical, scientific discovery to
be had by working with the whole scientific community.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 01:15:52 PM |
|
|
<eggs@nospam.com> wrote in message news:zHGtd.208652$HA.28460@attbi_s01...
steve wrote:
<snip a bunch of garb>
the only postulate i can accept of philosophy, being a scientist, is that
it may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be trusted.
There is a big problem with accepting that, with joining the solipsists in
taking it for granted that solipsism is true when it is not evident that
it is. That's known as 'begging the question.'
Do they take it as true, or do they take it as an undeniable possibility?
It is not reasonable for solipsists to argue for the main tenet of
solopsism, "it may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be
trusted," based on taking it for granted at the outset (begging the
question) then arguing _ad ignorantiam_ there is no proof it is false.
That is what is known as logical fallacy, not valid inference.
The tenants of solipsism seem to be an undeniable possibility in the same
sense that science understands that new evidence can overturn existing
theories. Of course, if solipsism were true, it would make no practical
difference.
That personal subjective conviction is known to be a little error prone at
times, although generally reliable enough to allow us to find food, mates,
shelter, etc. and survive with a fairly good living on this planet, does
not reduce us to accepting solipsism and abandoning scientific
investigation, for that very thing, scientific investigation, is the
method of working around human error mankind have developed over the
years.
I don't see why solipsism should cause any such thing. Even if all I
experience is false, it makes no difference to my perceived needs, nor to my
desire to understand the consistencies of the false universe that can
satisfy those needs. Solipsism simply inserts a layer of abstraction that
makes little difference. I still need to be able to predict events in the
false universe to get my next false meal that will satisfy my feeling of
hunger. Reason and the scientific method work just fine inside ANY
self-consistent environment.
Since no man is an island,
Now THAT'S an a priori assumption if I ever heard one. ;-)
it would be foolish for one to rely exclusively on his own untested
personal subjective convictions in every case,
Granted. The operative phrase is "untested".
particularly on questions of considerable interest to all mankind, when
there is a method of systematic, logical, scientific discovery to be had
by working with the whole scientific community.
Helping mankind will help me whether or not the mankind I perceive is real
or not.
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or regularities,
as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our observations be tested
Note that this works within a solipsistic context as well.
- in principle - by anyone. We do not take even our own observations quite
seriously, or accept them as scientific observations, until we have
repeated and tested them. Only by such repetitions can we convince
ourselves that we are not dealing with a mere isolated 'coincidence', but
with events which, on account of their regularity and reproducibility, are
in principle inter-subjectively testable." --Popper
By this method we can better understand the universe, be it real or not.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 02:53:52 PM |
|
|
In article <zHGtd.208652$HA.28460@attbi_s01>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
steve wrote:
<snip a bunch of garb>
the only postulate i can accept of philosophy, being a scientist, is that
it
may be true that all is a farce and our senses cannot be trusted.
There is a big problem with accepting that, with joining the solipsists
in taking it for granted that solipsism is true when it is not evident
that it is. That's known as 'begging the question.'
Actually what steve says is not that Solipsism is right, but that he
does not know that it is wrong.
But then, Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, has always flunked reading.
So Septic X. Troll, of the rotten eggs, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 03:04:05 PM |
|
|
| Actually what steve says is not that Solipsism is right, but that he
| does not know that it is wrong.
well...yes, you are correct...however, please note the distiction that i
believe it could be true based on credible evidence supporting the ism...and
not that i agree with it because it is a thesis without evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 12:03:46 PM |
|
|
| > the only postulate i can accept of philosophy, being a scientist, is
that it
| > may be true that all is a farse and our senses cannot be trusted.
| There is a big problem with accepting that, with joining the solipsists
| in taking it for granted that solipsism is true when it is not evident
| that it is. That's known as 'begging the question.'
really...because i don't see it. all *is* theory as knowing would make one
god...no? this ism is no different. i can muster plenty of support for what
i have asserted without much effort at all. so it would seem there is
sufficient evidence for the solipsistic tennent(s). perception reality
makes...doe it not? that is why i can appreciate how others expressed
objective and subjective reality agreements. i simply say that all may be a
farse based on the fallibility of sensual information. but that whole line
of thought has been carried to the logical conclusions by far smarter than
i.
and, the only thing i 'beg' is your pardon...philosophite!
| That personal subjective conviction is known to be a little error prone
| at times, although generally reliable enough to allow us to find food,
| mates, shelter, etc. and survive with a fairly good living on this
| planet, does not reduce us to accepting solipsism and abandoning
| scientific investigation, for that very thing, scientific investigation,
| is the method of working around human error mankind have developed over
| the years.
as i believe in what i asserted and remain a devoted physicist, i don't see
that your conclusion holds merit. apparently, no such thing happening is in
evidence. abatement not required.
| Since no man is an island, it would be foolish for one to rely
| exclusively on his own untested personal subjective convictions in every
| case, particularly on questions of considerable interest to all mankind,
| when there is a method of systematic, logical, scientific discovery to
| be had by working with the whole scientific community.
which may only end up being a self-encapsulating set of proofs within a
greater farsistic sensation when all is said and done.
| See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
you really do like popper! i've payed my dues earning my phd...please don't
condescend any further that i have overlooked basic methodologies in
scientific and philosophic endeavors by posting this reference once more.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 06:49:32 PM |
|
|
steve wrote:
[snip]
consider newton and einstein and the laws of motion in relation to
gravity.
for years (many, many), newton was considered absolute in his
correctness of
interpretation based on mathematical evidence applied to his
observation(s).
einstein was witness to the same observation(s)...a.k.a
experience...as
newton, however he redefined gravity as the warping of spacetime.
If you are a scientist you must be aware that Einstein did have a lot
more evidence than Newton to think about. In particular he was informed
of observations that showed that the speed of light is independent of
the reference frame (i.e. independent of the relative speed of the one
doing the measuring - the apparently paradoxical result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment). Thinking about the additional observed
evidence he had, Einstein developed his theories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zap" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 08:26:51 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1102513179.981579.23670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Evidence is an important concept in reason, and is a concept used both
by theists and atheists. So it must be possible for reasonable theists
and atheists to agree at least on the meaning of evidence. I have had a
discussion about this matter in another thread, but I think this matter
is important enough to merit a new one.
If you wake up one morning and hear rustling in the cupboard and find your
cereal box has been chewed and there are mouse droppings in the packet, this
would be evidence that you have mice.
If you switch the kettle on and find it is not working, this would be
evidence that there is a problem.
In this instance you would have to use your intelligence.
Has the plug blown a fuse?
Has the kettle given up the ghost?
Is there a power failure?
Are you dreaming?
Has the kettle become a living sentient being and has gone on strike?
Is there perhaps some ulterior reason that the kettle is not working - maybe
the laws of physics have been reversed overnight?
Has your ex-girlfriend died and possessed the kettle?
Is your ex-girlfriend so ***** with you that she has learnt astral
travelling and out of body experiences and has possessed the kettle?
Is the kettle trying to tell you something?
In this instance you would prioritise. The obvious one to go for is the
power failure. Are the lights working?
Sometimes many, many questions are required to obtain evidence.
And this is just why is the kettle not working?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zap" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 08:38:13 AM |
|
|
"Zap" <ray.gun@removethisntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LaEtd.507$WE2.347@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
And even if the kettle had blown a fuse, are you going to leave it at that?
Maybe there is a banana in the fruit dish that the kettle fell in love with
that CAUSED it to blow a fuse.
In which case, do you leave it at that?
Or is your next question whether bananas have intelligence?
If the banana has spirited away the spirit of the kettle in the kind of true
love that can only happen between bananas and kettles and you do change the
fuse and the kettle works, then
Is it the same kettle..................?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 06:01:55 PM |
|
|
Zap wrote:
If you wake up one morning and hear rustling in the cupboard and find
your
cereal box has been chewed and there are mouse droppings in the
packet, this
would be evidence that you have mice.
That's how it is - exactly my view. The evidence is that you *hear* the
rustling and *see* the droppings. If you didn't hear the rustling and
did not see the droppings then you wouldn't have evidence, right? This
is a case where if you have X then you have Y, and if you don't have X
then you don't have Y - so wouldn't you say that X=Y (where
X=observation and Y=evidence)?
Now, of course, evidence is not enough. One reasons on the evidence and
infers more knowledge. Anyway, all knowledge is at bottom always based
on experience. I don't quite understand why some people find this so
difficult to agree with. Isn't it obvious? If knowledge were not based
on experience, then what would knowledge be based on? All we know
starts with our experience - and what we experience and reason about
is called evidence.
To be more specific:
1. "I see droppings": this is statement of evidence. The truth of the
statement is absolute because it expresses an experience of mine. ("I
see droppings" is not identical to "there exist droppings there"; the
latter is an inference of high confidence but may be wrong)
2. I think about this (and other) evidence. Effective thinking
methodology is called reason. (Effective in the sense that using it I
often arrive at conclusions that turn out to be right).
3. I arrive at the conclusion that "There exist mice in my home". This
is an inferred statement and therefore it is not absolute, i.e. there
is always a possibility of error. So I have to judge my confidence
level based on the evidence I have and my confidence on the kind of
reasoning I used. Actually the complete statement would be something
like: "With 0.99 confidence there exist mice in my home".
.
|
|
|
| User: "danti" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
09 Dec 2004 07:06:49 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1102550515.176373.251730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Zap wrote:
If you wake up one morning and hear rustling in the cupboard and
find
your
cereal box has been chewed and there are mouse droppings in the
packet, this
would be evidence that you have mice.
That's how it is - exactly my view. The evidence is that you *hear*
the
rustling and *see* the droppings. If you didn't hear the rustling
and
did not see the droppings then you wouldn't have evidence, right?
This
is a case where if you have X then you have Y, and if you don't have
X
then you don't have Y - so wouldn't you say that X=Y (where
X=observation and Y=evidence)?
Now, of course, evidence is not enough. One reasons on the evidence
and
infers more knowledge. Anyway, all knowledge is at bottom always
based
on experience. I don't quite understand why some people find this so
difficult to agree with. Isn't it obvious? If knowledge were not
based
on experience, then what would knowledge be based on? All we know
starts with our experience - and what we experience and reason about
is called evidence.
To be more specific:
1. "I see droppings": this is statement of evidence. The truth of
the
statement is absolute because it expresses an experience of mine.
("I
see droppings" is not identical to "there exist droppings there";
the
latter is an inference of high confidence but may be wrong)
2. I think about this (and other) evidence. Effective thinking
methodology is called reason. (Effective in the sense that using it
I
often arrive at conclusions that turn out to be right).
3. I arrive at the conclusion that "There exist mice in my home".
This
is an inferred statement and therefore it is not absolute, i.e.
there
is always a possibility of error. So I have to judge my confidence
level based on the evidence I have and my confidence on the kind of
reasoning I used. Actually the complete statement would be something
like: "With 0.99 confidence there exist mice in my home".
works wonderfully with mice........man is very capable in the world of
perception.....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar Svendsen" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 01:14:41 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1102513179.981579.23670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Evidence is an important concept in reason, and is a concept used both
by theists and atheists. So it must be possible for reasonable theists
and atheists to agree at least on the meaning of evidence. I have had a
discussion about this matter in another thread, but I think this matter
is important enough to merit a new one.
Evidence is that which would tend to convince a rational person that
something is true. Note that evidence is always evidence 'of' some thesis.
Evidence is graded, that is, evidence is very convincing, moderately
convincing, not very convincing etc. In court, where the whole issue of what
is evidence and what is not is a matter of great interest, evidence is used
to convince a judge or jury of certain conclusions.
What is convincing varies depending on the audience. Very convincing
evidence would be evidence that, if presented to a very diverse audience,
would be convincing to all of them. Preconceptions play a big role, an
audience watching a David Copperfield magic show see quite remarkable things
on stage, they have the evidence of their eyes directly observing these
things. Most of them are not, in fact, convinced that what they saw,
actually occurred, of if it did occur, that it was caused by magic gestures
from Mr. Copperfield. Because the audience is predisosed to disbelieve in
magic.
Observations are not evidence, evidence is presenting observations as going
to prove or establish some thesis. A particular observation may be accepted
by all but there may be disagreement as to whether that 'true' observation
does in fact constitute evidence of a particular thesis. If I hear voices,
that's a real oservation; whether or not that is evidence of angels speaking
to me may depend on may other cicumstances, do I have a history of
delusions, is there a radio hidden under my bed and so on. Strictly speaking
any discussion of evidence should address both issues, the validity of the
observation and the logic chain that says that it is evidence of the thesis
that someone is attempting to establish. These are not "on - off" things,
an observation is somewhat reliable and the chain of reasoning is more
convincing or less convincing depending on circumstances.
Ed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
09 Dec 2004 04:26:17 PM |
|
|
"Edgar Svendsen" <solon013@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:BoItd.8996$Va5.2547@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Evidence is that which would tend to convince a rational person that
something is true. Note that evidence is always evidence 'of' some
thesis.
That is correct, though you might want to clarify by saying "evidence of
some *specific* thesis (say, P)."
A raw datum, by itself, is not evidence of anything. And a datum e can be
evidence for a proposition P only if P is well enough understood that we
know that there is a some kind of entailment relation between P and e, that
is, we know that "if P then e" is true, or that the reciprocal, "if e then
P," is true.
In the latter case e is conclusive evidence of P. In the former, it is only
inconclusive evidence (because "if Q then e" may also be true).
Thus a Martian, knowing nothing about Earth or its lifeforms, who crashed
his saucer in the Canadian woods and encountered caribou tracks in the snow,
could not say, "Aha, there are caribou in the area." For the Martian, the
tracks would not be evidence of caribou, although they may be for an Inuit
hunter. The hunter knows that caribou are 4-footed creatures whose hooves
leave tracks of the size, shape, and pattern before him. He also knows there
are no other animals in the neighborhood who leave tracks with those
characteristics. The Martian knows none of this.
It is for that reason that claims such as, "I know there is a Supreme Power
because that Power spoke to me in a vision," cannot be regarded as
evidentiary. For the vision to be evidence of a Supreme Power, we must
already know something about that Power, namely that it communicates with
humans via visions. For it to be conclusive evidence we must also know that
there are no other possible causes of visions of the same type.
In most empirical investigations all the evidence we gather is inconclusive,
because not only does P entail e, so does, Q, R, S, etc. But if we also
gather datum f, we'll be able to rule out some of those, because though they
entail e, not all of them entail f. The more data we gather, the more
possibilities we can rule out, until we the probability of not-P is reduced
to near-nil ("beyond a reasonble doubt").
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
10 Dec 2004 03:55:21 AM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
P> It is for that reason that claims such as, "I know there is a
Supreme Powerbecause that Power spoke to me in a vision," cannot be
regarded as evidentiary. For the vision to be evidence of a Supreme
Power, we must already know something about that Power, namely that it
communicates with humans via visions. For it to be conclusive evidence
we must also know that there are no other possible causes of visions of
the same type.
The matter of theism is always latent in the background isn't it? It's
like "let's be careful not to admit anything that may latter be used in
an argument in favor theism." But that's alright. Only consider that
theism is not necessarily the enemy of rational thought, even though
many theists (but not I) denounce the relevance of rational thought in
this matter.
So let's see. Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that a Supreme
Power does exist and does speak to some people in visions. How should a
person receiving that vision reason about her experience? This
experience is evidence but evidence of what? It may show the existence
of a Supreme Power but it also may show that one's brain is
malfunctioning, or it may show that somebody is playing a trick, etc.
You posit two conditions for her to conclude that there is a Supreme
Power:
First that she already know something about that Power, namely that it
communicates with some humans via visions. If this is part of the
definition of that Power would this constitute knowledge? Also, why
exactly is this a requirement? That Power may decide to speak to
somebody who does not know anything about it and its attributes. So?
Maybe you have never heard of diamonds and know nothing about them.
Then you are shown a diamond. Does the fact that you know nothing about
diamonds mean that you cannot conclude that what you see exists and has
such and such attributes (it's shiny, it's hard, etc)? I don't really
see why this first condition is required.
If find your second requirement reasonable: Other possible causes of
the same vision must be excluded. Often though, the world does not work
in clear-cut ways. Maybe the other possible causes cannot be excluded
completely but only probabilistically, for example the receiver of the
visions may get herself a psychiatric evaluation and decide that she is
not delusionary, but this does not actually "prove" her visions are not
delusions. Anyway one can imagine that there comes a moment where
visions are so powerful and all other alternatives are so effectively
excluded that a reasonable person must conclude with confidence that
there is that Supreme Power.
I am saying all this for the sake of discussing whether a reasonable
person may ever conclude that there is a Supreme Power - I am *not*
claiming that this is the way things are. In fact in my experience it
is not this way at all. If *I* had some kind of visions my first
conclusion would be that there is something wrong with my brain, and
even if psychiatrists found nothing wrong with it I would still think
that some kind of mental problem is the most probable cause of the
visions. Maybe I would think that my memory of visiting a psychiatrist
is a delusion too, or simply that they are mistaken. It's difficult to
imagine how one would reason while having grounds to suspect that one's
mind is becoming unstable. I believe in God but I hope I will never
have "visions" of her - in the sense of, you know, something like
seeing the sky open up, a huge being bright as the sun appear there and
speak to me with a booming voice that nobody around me is able to hear.
I really wouldn't know what to do with this evidence. Again, I believe
in God and I cannot be certain that some other people do not have such
kind of experiences, but I really hope I will never have one myself,
because it would be unfruitful. So I trust God will not allow me to
have such visions. :-)
But, visions may be fruitful for others, who knows? Who am I to claim
that in all cases where a person sees visions like that it's a
delusion? Actually - and this is a problem for strong atheism - suppose
that in all cases that people claim visions like that it can be
scientifically shown that their brains are malfunctioning and that they
are having delusions. Let's accept this as a fact. Even in this case
on what grounds does the strong atheist conclude that this malfunction
is not caused by God? Physical reality is such that it requires no God
to be understood, but it is also chaotic so that God could affect it
without detection. Affect it in the sense of directly communicating to
people in the physical sense. I don't see any argument against this
possibility, do you?
Finally, have you ever thought why you have so much confidence in the
existence of the physical universe? After all, if you think of it, it's
only a vision, no? There is a possibility that it's all an illusion,
that you are a brain in a vat, that you are the only conscious person
around and everybody else is only a construct created for your benefit,
etc. I trust you have concluded that the physical universe is real and
that the people around you are conscious. How have you applied your
second condition in this case to conclude that these other
possibilities are false? This is not a rhetorical question. I think
that discovering what gives us confidence about the existence of the
physical universe and the persons around us is helpful in understanding
theism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
10 Dec 2004 02:14:29 AM |
|
|
Edgar Svendsen wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1102513179.981579.23670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
dg>> Evidence is an important concept in reason, and is a concept used
both by theists and atheists. So it must be possible for reasonable
theists and atheists to agree at least on the meaning of evidence. I
have had a discussion about this matter in another thread, but I think
this matter is important enough to merit a new one.
ES> Evidence is that which would tend to convince a rational person
that something is true.
No, the argument based on evidence is what is convincing. I see a tree.
That's the evidence. I have normal vision and I am not playing a
three-dimensional virtual reality game, so I conclude that this is a
real tree. That's the argument that can be more or less convincing (to
myself and to others)
ES> Note that evidence is always evidence 'of' some thesis.
Yes, but when one starts reasoning based on some evidence it is not
clear at the beginning what conclusion (or thesis) you will are arrive
at. For example, you come back to your house and you see a broken
window. What is this evidence of? You don't know, that's what will come
out of thinking about this evidence. Furthermore two different persons
thinking on the same evidence can arrive to different conclusions - as
conclusions are probabilistic if they used good reasoning then both are
"right". For example one can conclude that some burglary took place and
the other may conclude that children playing soccer on the street broke
that window. Both are reasonable conclusions. Further evidence may
clarify who is right, or in the end both may be right: The children
broke the window and then climb into the house and stole things.
ES> Evidence is graded, that is, evidence is very convincing,
moderately convincing, not very convincing etc.
No, evidence is evidence. Any judgment about the relevance of the
evidence comes after reasoning about it. To avoid confusion nothing
produced after reasoning should be called evidence within a particular
argument. Evidence is what thought is based on, not what thought
arrives at.
Sometimes conclusions already made (by one or by others whom one trust)
can be used as basis for a *new* train of thought. But to avoid
confusion these should not be called evidence. Maybe one should call
them "premise".
ES> In court, where the whole issue of what is evidence and what is not
is a matter of great interest, evidence is used to convince a judge or
jury of certain conclusions.
First it is clear that evidence in court is always some kind of
observation, is considered subjective and prone to error. My
understanding is that the court never decides that an observation is
not evidence, it may decide that an observation cannot be admitted as
evidence, or if the observation is admitted by evidence the court can
conclude after reasoning about it that is irrelevant or inconclusive.
But in the latter case it is not really the evidence that is
inconclusive (that's a linguistic shortcut) but the argument based on
the evidence is inconclusive. Maybe a better lawyer might have found a
better argument in which case the court would find that "the evidence
is conclusive" after all. The evidence stays the same, what changes is
the reasoning about it.
ES> What is convincing varies depending on the audience. Very
convincing evidence would be evidence that, if presented to a very
diverse audience, would be convincing to all of them.
You are talking about arguments not evidence: "A very convincing
argument would be an argument that, if presented to a very diverse
audience, would be convincing to all of them." Evidence is not
convincing; evidence is just data on which a convincing argument can be
built. The argument may reach the conclusion that the evidence is
illusory or irrelevant for reaching a particular proposition, but
no-one doubts the truth of evidence itself. Even evidence that turns
out after inspection to be a falsification, is evidence. Evidence used
in showing that it was a falsification.
ES> Preconceptions play a big role, an audience watching a David
Copperfield magic show see quite remarkable things on stage, they have
the evidence of their eyes directly observing these things.
What they see is evidence. What the make of it is another matter.
ES> Most of them are not, in fact, convinced that what they saw,
actually occurred, of if it did occur, that it was caused by magic
gestures from Mr. Copperfield. Because the audience is predisosed to
disbelieve in magic.
I understand "proconception" as a wrong belief that clouds one's
reasoning. In this case, on the contrary, the audience knows that this
is a show, and therefore do not reach the conclusion on the evidence
they have that real magic took place.
ES> Observations are not evidence, evidence is presenting observations
as going to prove or establish some thesis.
To my mind this is saying the same thing in a slightly more complicated
manner. I would say: Evidence is an observation used as a basis of
reasonable thought.
ES> A particular observation may be accepted by all but there may be
disagreement as to whether that 'true' observation
does in fact constitute evidence of a particular thesis.
A particular observation *must* be accepted by all but there may be
disagreement as to whether that true observation does in fact
constitute evidence of a particular thesis. Yes.
ES> If I hear voices, that's a real oservation; whether or not that is
evidence of angels speaking to me may depend on may other cicumstances,
do I have a history of delusions, is there a radio hidden under my bed
and so on.
Exactly! Observe that you called that "real observation" "evidence". It
is evidence but may be not evidence of the existence of angels, but may
be evidence of the existence of a radio. Only reasoning about it will
show which possible proposition is more convincing.
ES> Strictly speaking any discussion of evidence should address both
issues, the validity of the observation and the logic chain that says
that it is evidence of the thesis that someone is attempting to
establish.
The validity of the observation is part of the reasoning. I must insist
that we distinguish between evidence and reasoning about it. Let's
leave evidence alone and not qualify it as "good evidence", "convincing
evidence", "illusory evidence", etc. These are all conclusions one
reaches *after* thinking about the evidence.
ES> These are not "on - off" things, an observation is somewhat
reliable and the chain of reasoning is more convincing or less
convincing depending on circumstances.
What is more or less convincing is the conclusion, not the evidence one
starts with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
12 Dec 2004 10:26:47 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
... I see a tree. That's the evidence.
You, personally, seeing a thing a thing is not a requirement for the
thing to be evident sir.
'Evident' means clear to human vision or understanding.
Where X is anything the existence of which is evident, the existence of
X is evident (clear to human vision or understanding) whether you,
personally, have ever seen X or not. Get used to it, everything is not
allways about you, sweetheart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
12 Dec 2004 03:13:15 PM |
|
|
In article <aj_ud.487915$wV.386260@attbi_s54>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
... I see a tree. That's the evidence.
You, personally, seeing a thing a thing is not a requirement for the
thing to be evident sir.
'Evident' means clear to human vision or understanding.
That tree is clear to Dianelos' human vision and understanding.
Unless Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, wants to question Dianelos'
humainty, the issue is now settled in Dianelos' favor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
13 Dec 2004 06:46:01 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <aj_ud.487915$wV.386260@attbi_s54>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
... I see a tree. That's the evidence.
You, personally, seeing a thing a thing is not a requirement for the
thing to be evident sir.
'Evident' means clear to human vision or understanding.
That tree is clear to Dianelos' human vision and understanding.
Precisely, because 'tree' is a proposition having a basis in fact, and
GD's observation can be tested by any human, even the doubters.
But this is fallacy of diversion on your part and GD's part; the
existence of trees is not in doubt, the issue is the hypothetical
(speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact) "God."
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The question is, "Is there a God evident (clear to human vision or
understanding, like trees are)?"
See Popper, _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_, Chapter 1, Section 8,
"Scientific Objectivity and Subjective Conviction"
[Personal subjective conviction with no basis in fact has no bearing on
demonstrating scientific discovery.]
"Only when certain events recur in accordance with rules or
regularities, as is the case with repeatable experiments, can our
observations be tested - in principle - by anyone. We do not take even
our own observations quite seriously, or accept them as scientific
observations, until we have repeated and tested them. Only by such
repetitions can we convince ourselves that we are not dealing with a
mere isolated 'coincidence', but with events which, on account of their
regularity and reproducibility, are in principle inter-subjectively
testable." --Popper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
13 Dec 2004 08:30:38 PM |
|
|
In article <dJqvd.652629$mD.133720@attbi_s02>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <aj_ud.487915$wV.386260@attbi_s54>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
... I see a tree. That's the evidence.
You, personally, seeing a thing a thing is not a requirement for the
thing to be evident sir.
'Evident' means clear to human vision or understanding.
That tree is clear to Dianelos' human vision and understanding.
Precisely, because 'tree' is a proposition
"Tree" is not a proposition in any form of logic available to anyone
except Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon.
Pray, how does one "prove" such a proposition to be true, or false?
Unless one is a Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon,having a direct, but
anti-theist, line to knowledge without evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
13 Dec 2004 09:50:58 PM |
|
|
| But this is fallacy of diversion on your part and GD's part; the
| existence of trees is not in doubt, the issue is the hypothetical
| (speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact) "God."
it is a theory and they are allowed an infinitude of time to gather evidence
for the case. their diversions are so good that i do not see it at all! all
theory, again, is speculative. why do you cry "special pleadings"
consistently but apply the same when someone builds a defensable
position...even an agnostic one. need i remind you further that most
theories are birthed with no basis in fact. "facts" are gathered once the
posit is made. one is premature to automatically assign false to a
hypothesis' state before there is evidence to substanciate the value.
another hypocrytical act in which you continually partake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 06:16:16 PM |
|
|
steve wrote:
need i remind you further that most
theories are birthed with no basis in fact?
I can think of only one that stands out like a sore thumb: the theolog
theory that there might be a magic invisible space pixie who is the
First Cause, the Creator of the universe.
You say MOST theories are birthed with no basis in fact??? Then you
should have no trouble itemizing at least forty more in addition to the
one mentioned above. Please proceed, Doctor, the floor is yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 08:42:48 PM |
|
|
In article <knLvd.261257$R05.232467@attbi_s53>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
steve wrote:
need i remind you further that most
theories are birthed with no basis in fact?
I can think of only one that stands out like a sore thumb: the theolog
theory that there might be a magic invisible space pixie who is the
First Cause, the Creator of the universe.
That "theory" is held only in the head of Septic X. Troll, the Craven
Capon, and nowhere else on earth.
"Theolog", "magic", "invisible" "space" and "pixie" are attributes of
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon's own personal theory of god and are
no part of any one else's. No one else would ever say that a "magic
invisible space pixie" is "the Creator of the universe".
\There are those who reject both the necessity and the impossibility of
god(s) as being unproven which leaves them open to speculate that there
might or might not actually be any gods. But it is, at most, a
speculation about the unknown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 11:57:35 PM |
|
|
| \There are those who reject both the necessity and the impossibility of
| god(s) as being unproven which leaves them open to speculate that there
| might or might not actually be any gods. But it is, at most, a
| speculation about the unknown.
but the verdict is in on numb-nuts' intelligence quotient...65 at best. just
sufficient enough to allow him to control his own drool - or at least wipe
it away when it slips his mind.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 06:43:33 PM |
|
|
steve wrote:
one is premature to automatically assign false to a
hypothesis' state before there is evidence to substanciate the value.
You mean to say that when you are hauled into criminal court you will
waive your right to the reasonable default presumption of the null, "No
guilt" (meaning zero guilt) in your case?
You want a default presumption the proposition in question is true in
every case, and that stands forever, or until it is proved false,
whichever occurs first?
Remind me to never vote for you if you run for judge.
Also, you had better inform the scientists at SETI right away that they
are making a big mistake, they are doing the Argus Study all wrong.
They are taking the null (meaning zero), "There are no ETs" (meaning
that there are zero ETs) as the default presumption, and they are in the
process of crunching numbers on thousands of computers, analyzing data
from radio telescopes all over the world, looking to see if there is
sufficient logically satisfactory evidence to warrant rejecting the null
hypothesis!
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
Could all these brilliant scientists be wrong? Wouldn't somebody have
pointed it out ling before now? How could they have secured funding if
what they are doing isn't right?
Have you ever tried to get funding for a study in which you would have a
default presumption the theory in question is true unless proven false??
Give it a try. See how far you get.
Hmmm. There seems to be a fly in the ointment you are dispensing Doctor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 11:49:12 PM |
|
|
<eggs@nospam.com> wrote in message news:VMLvd.261327$R05.108995@attbi_s53...
| steve wrote:
|
|
| > one is premature to automatically assign false to a
| > hypothesis' state before there is evidence to substanciate the value.
|
| You mean to say that when you are hauled into criminal court you will
| waive your right to the reasonable default presumption of the null, "No
| guilt" (meaning zero guilt) in your case?
null and "null hypotheses" are two separate things...the alternate choice in
criminal presumption of innocence is for social reasons. this is entirely
not the same scenario we've been discussing here (though there are theories
of gawd's existance that are "null hypotheses".)
| You want a default presumption the proposition in question is true in
| every case, and that stands forever, or until it is proved false,
| whichever occurs first?
you're a fucking, raving loon! the default state of a hypothesis is
NULL...all else is a presumption of state.
| Remind me to never vote for you if you run for judge.
yes, i see quite often physicists changing careers to run for public office.
that was sarcasm...i know you'd miss it if i didn't tell you...but then
again, i have no assurance that will even work since all evidence would
predict otherwise.
<seti fetish snipped>
ET's, like gawd, qualify as a null hypothesis moron. the alternative chosen
is that there are none until there is reasonable evidence to the counter.
| Have you ever tried to get funding for a study in which you would have a
| default presumption the theory in question is true unless proven false??
| Give it a try. See how far you get.
you mongoloid! read what you wrote then compare what you quote:
| > one is premature to automatically assign false to a
| > hypothesis' state before there is evidence to substanciate the value.
must one assume the extreme (even though i've pointed it out before that
neither true nor false should be initial state of a hypothesis) rather than
the stated? in case you missed it, NULL should be the default state of a
posit...not true and not false - both these require evidence.
are you extreme or just intentionally a lier? i think it is an
amalgomation...you are an extremely stupid lier!
| Hmmm. There seems to be a fly in the ointment you are dispensing Doctor.
hmmm. maggots have eaten the vital portions of your brain...and starved in
the process!
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
15 Dec 2004 12:11:21 AM |
|
|
before you divert attention to it...liar is the spell checked correction for
lier. i suspect you'll take aim at it anyway so you can have a break at
looking like the poster child of stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 08:49:46 PM |
|
|
In article <VMLvd.261327$R05.108995@attbi_s53>,
"eggs@nospam.com" <eggs@nospam.com> wrote:
steve wrote:
one is premature to automatically assign false to a
hypothesis' state before there is evidence to substanciate the value.
You mean to say that when you are hauled into criminal court you will
waive your right to the reasonable default presumption of the null, "No
guilt" (meaning zero guilt) in your case?
That a defendant pleads "not guilty" does not mean that he believes it.
And why criminal court? The issue seems more appropriate for civil court.
You want a default presumption the proposition in question is true in
every case, and that stands forever, or until it is proved false,
whichever occurs first?
No! We want the default presumption to be that the truth is not known
about any proposition until there is enough evidence to conclude that
the truth is known about that proposition.
This is the only way not to beg the question in favor of one side.
Septic X. Troll, the Craven Capon, of course, wants all questions begged
in his favor.
Agnostics revile that attitude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
14 Dec 2004 11:54:15 PM |
|
|
| No! We want the default presumption to be that the truth is not known
| about any proposition until there is enough evidence to conclude that
| the truth is known about that proposition.
|
| This is the only way not to beg the question in favor of one side.
you MAY want to EMPHASIZE and "mark" the key words for X(tremely stupid one)
since his comprehension level is X(tremely) abismal. although i have tried
this and it seems to be of no affect. the upside is that it makes him look
even more silly when he misrepresents what you say...esp. when the keys are
SPECIALLY MARKED and you supply the quote after said misrepresentation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: on evidence (was: If you met God) |
08 Dec 2004 09:33:05 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
I hope you don't mind if I jump in on this, but I think you missed
something...
You are alone on island. You see, touch and eat from a tree. This is
sufficient evidence for you to claim with high confidence that the tree
exists. A second person comes to the island, sees the tree, and tells
you so. This also is evidence for you, so your confidence level for the
existence of the tree grows. I haven't seen the tree myself, but if the
two of you come to me and tell me about the tree this will also count
as evidence, albeit second hand evidence. If I know you well and trust
you then I will conclude with a fair level of confidence that that tree
exists. Suppose a surveillance camera on a satellite shoots some
pictures in which the tree is visible; while nobody knows anything
about these pictures there is no new evidence there. But if somebody
sees these pictures (experiences them subjectively) then it will count
as new evidence for the existence of the tree, and increase the overall
confidence level in its existence.
I accept everything you say above but want to add something. If those
two people come to you and one says, "there is a bush on the island with
pink berries on it." while the other says, "there is a tree on the
island with grapefruit on it." Do you still have evidence of a tree?
What if one of them told you the tree was made of metal and produced
little edible silver cherries?
As evidence is always experiental, atheists should accept the
possibility that theists have personal evidence for God.
It is much like the extension to your example I give above. It is simple
to find any number of people who claim to have "personal evidence for
God" but upon further examination, unless these people have consulted
each other to get their story straight, you will find that you have as
man different ideas of God as you have people, and many of them will
contradict each other. Hell, many of them will contradict themselves.
That's really the defining moment. It isn't the fact that i see the moon
that causes me to think it exists, it's that fact coupled with others
describing the exact same thing that convinces me.
www.infidels.org comes very close to recognizing that. I quote: "Note
that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation,
some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be
incommunica | |
