|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It would depend on how well I knew the person, what I know about their character, their mental health, and details of the story they tell, especially if any of it can be corroborated or discounted. But either way, yes, it's evidence. It might be weak evidence, it might even turn out to be evidence that is contrary to what the person claims.
Thanks for responding, I was trying to think of an example that is more similar to the one we're discussing.
I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.
I think the exception here would be if there was some kind of exceptional collaborating evidence: a lot of eyewitnesses to the same event, a lot of extra data which cannot be disputed, a lot of experts who are saying that this must have happened.
A personal saying this happened - when the thing they're describing is highly unlikely to have happened - isn't going to be regarded by many as evidence of anything.
Of course, I accept that this depends on your own frame of mind. Someone who is a conspiracy theorist may well be more prepared to believe. But I think someone who is interested in science and evidence is going to expect a lot more than just someone saying something happened.
quote:
Hold on, the universe is a very very big place, and we live in a tiny part of it. Of course we don't have convincing evidence that aliens exist. An amoeba in Antarctica doesn't have convincing evidence that polar bears exist, that doesn't mean they don't. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility of aliens existing - it's just if there are any, they are probably a long, long way away. I mean, one of the greatest scientists of our time just announced a $100,000,000 project to find extraterrestrial life. It's worth at least entertaining the possibility that aliens exist.
That's true, but not what I asked. Someone saying that they were abducted by aliens is not evidence which scientists can use to weigh whether aliens exist. The fact that some scientists believe in the possibility that they exist does not even mean that they exist.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is there a difference in the reasonableness of believing in a deity vs aliens?
Yes. The former is 'beyond', the latter is within the confines of creation. Finding out whether aliens exist or not is the task of the standard scientific method. Finding out whether G-d is or not is outside its scope.
OK. I don't think things are as clear cut as this, but fair enough.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Can either experiences alone be considered evidence, never mind proof?
Of course they can be considered evidence. It's the quality and nature of the evidence that matters (as Dafyd has been trying to explain). Evidence and proof are not the same thing.
I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.
A man standing in a dock high on drugs telling the judge that he was in a "spacecraft flying to Pluto" instead of robbing the bank he is accused of is not really giving evidence that the court will accept. In a strict sense, he is "giving evidence" in that he is speaking the words in a court of law. But I think one needs to come up with the construction of an idea that is beyond the fantastical to really be considered evidence.
The same in science, I think. A wild result is not really "evidence" if the simplest explanation is that there was some kind of methodological error. Usually such anomalous results are removed from analysis because of the potential to skew and bias conclusions.
Proof is a more difficult concept. In mathematics, a proof is something where you use deductive reasoning and logic to show that something is true in all cases.
In observed science, this is much more difficult to do, of course. It is much harder to "prove" anything definitively, so the only tools we have left are repetition and reproducibility - more experiments completed in the same way to get the same results.
In philosophy, I think if we are trying to say that it is possible to "prove" something, we are liable to get into a chain of logic like Socrates in The Republic - this then that then the other - which leads to ridiculous extremes nobody believes in.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
As a reply, I linked to a Wikipedia article that starts with the words "In epistemology, the burden of proof is ..." This article has existed for 5.5 years, and is visited approximately 300 times per day.
Does this show that 'burden of proof' is a sensible term in epistemology? It does. I am a Wikipedia contributor with over 16,000 edits.
It's a Start Class quality article.
Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable. However, they're not strong enough evidence to override contrary evidence in any given case. In particular, if you're doing academic work you stress that wikipedia itself is not a source: you can use it to find the sources cited in the article. And, as I said, the cited sources here are lacking.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website produces no hits for 'burden of proof'.
That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.
There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
Who said I'm answering your questions only? I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y. If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. I stepped on a spider and within hours it rained. Therefore, this is evidence that stepping on spiders (at least sometimes) makes it rain. Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind. You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic. There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods. The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one. That discussion can be had in a similar context to that of alien abduction or visions of the Virgin Mary. In both cases, there is heaps of the sort of evidence you seem to be considering.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That the phrase 'burden of proof' is frequently used in this way on the internet is true; I called it a cliche earlier in the thread. That the original source of the wikipedia article is any discussion within philosophy, as opposed to the internet cliche, I doubt.
There's nothing in the wikipedia article about criticisms of the concept or contrary views. In philosophy there are always criticisms of the concept and contrary views.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this paper appears to be examining the concept of "burden of proof" in terms of philosophical argument and dialogue.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Dafyd: Yes, as a default, the considerations you adduce are evidence that wikipedia articles in general are reliable.
Thank you, but this isn't exactly what I meant. The Wikipedia article could very well contain inaccuracies; that happens sometimes even if the article is visited a lot (300 visits / day is a relatively low number for that). It is evidence though that 'burden of proof' is seen as a reasonably sensible term in epistemology.
I'm a development worker not a philosopher, so I don't know how universally the term is accepted in epistemological circles. I googled a bit, and I found some peer-reviewed articles that discuss the concept rather quickly; I can give you the links if you want. I'd say that this is sufficient evidence (I might even say proof) that the term isn't just an internet cliché.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
On burden of proof:
Richard H. Gaskins, Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse (Yale, 1992).
K. Parsons, God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism (Prometheus Books, 1989).
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
To me, perhaps the most interesting and exciting thing about the scientific method is that the Theories involved are constantly open to challenge. This often reinforces the Theory in question, but any new, improved addition, or correct challenge, is, in the main, welcomed by those seeking the truth. There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris: There is no Theory of or for God (or god/s) so there are no facts to be corrected, challenged or improved, are there?
I do agree with you, more or less. All of us have theories about God to some degree, and we do challenge each other on those theories (a lot of discussions on the Ship are about exactly that). Sometimes this leads to our personal theories being corrected or improved.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are wrong here: given that alien abductions are widely discredited and when examined have never been shown to have any evidence, I don't think it would matter who was saying these things.
I think I would personally phrase it as: the evidence for alien abductions when examined has always been found to be weaker than the evidence against.
quote:
I think on reflection that the definitions of evidence and proof that Dyfyd is using is not really the one that a scientist would use. And I don't think it would carry much weight in a court-of-law either.
Scientific enquiry requires that evidence be checkable or repeatable. And personal testimony is not generally checkable.
That doesn't mean that the relation between evidence and proof differs. It just means that what counts as admissible evidence in science is different from what counts as admissible evidence in, for instance, history or sociology or autobiography. That's why history is not a science.
Suppose someone wants to find out which group of birds flamingos are most closely related to. Looking at anatomy they seem most closely related to storks; the lice in their feathers are most closely related to duck lice (lice are conservative enough in their hosts that this is evidence); and their egg proteins are most similar to herons.
Are those all evidence? Yes. They are all evidence. But at least two must be evidence for a false conclusion.
In fact, according to wikipedia recent genetic studies, and studies of fossil anatomy, suggest flamingos are most closely related to grebes. DO the egg proteins still count as evidence, even though we now know there is no relation to ducks? It seems to me that they are still evidence even though we are confident that the conclusion is wrong due to the preponderance of evidence that they're unrelated.
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain. That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
Does that make my position clearer?
(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.
quote:
Personal testimony of alien abduction is evidence; it is just that the considerations that tell against alien abduction are overwhelmingly stronger. If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.
I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.
quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
quote:
Does that make my position clearer?
No, not really, I'm afraid.
quote:
(I am not a lawyer, but I believe nothing prevents a defendant from claiming that they weren't there because they were abducted by aliens at the time. The jury will form their own judgement as to whether said testimony is strong enough to outweigh any other evidence that might be offered. However, if the defendant were to claim that the aliens had informed the defendant of the real culprit that would be hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.)
I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.
[ 23. July 2015, 12:21: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The overall point is that frequently there is evidence on both sides of a question. So just because the evidence on one side is strong, even overwhelmingly stronger, does not mean that what you have on the other side isn't still evidence.
That seems to me like an odd way to describe evidence. It seems like you are saying information which is incorrect, or even irrelevant is still usable to make a case. If it turns out the egg protein is not relevant to make a decision on the most related species, I can't see how that can be simultaneously also usable evidence; it is irrelevant, it turns out.
Whether it's evidence can't depend on how it turns out in the end. The whole point of evidence is that you don't know how it will turn out in the end. If it's only evidence if it turns out to be relevant in the end, then you don't know whether you've got evidence until you know how it will turn out, which defeats the purpose of using evidence.
What makes the egg protein evidence is the existence of a general rule that if two bird groups have similar egg proteins they are probably related (because similar egg proteins are probably created by similar genes which are probably inherited from a common ancestor). The general rule exists even in the minority of cases where the probabilities don't turn out.
Saying the egg protein is not evidence if it turns out evidence in the wrong direction is a bit like saying you were wrong not to buy a lottery ticket if the lottery comes up with your birthday.
quote:
quote:
If I step on a spider and it rains half and hour later that is evidence that stepping on spiders make it rain; however, if I then step on a spider and it doesn't rain that is much stronger evidence that it doesn't make it rain.
I don't understand this point. Stepping on spiders is independent of rain, therefore it is not proof either way. These are just two randomly correlated events without causation.
I believe Komensky was referring to a superstition that stepping on spiders makes it rain.
He is saying that there is no evidence for the superstition. I'm saying there may be very weak evidence outweighed by far stronger evidence in the other direction.
quote:
quote:
That we have strong beliefs about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might be triggered by stepping on spiders, and about the kinds of causal mechanisms that might cause rain, and lack of overlap is also if not technically evidence a rational consideration against.
I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
Not quite my point. If I believe that in general pigs do not fly, and I see what I think is a pig flying, I can either revise my belief that pigs don't fly or I can decide that there must be some other explanation for what I think I saw.
If it was strongly reasonable for me to believe beforehand that pigs don't fly then the latter is the rational option.
quote:
I am not either, but I think a judge will direct a jury to ignore information given in a trial that cannot be accepted as evidence.
I believe hearsay evidence (that is, reports of what somebody else said) cannot be accepted and forced confessions, or such like. I don't believe a judge can direct a jury to ignore evidence on the grounds that it's a tall story, though she may I think make sarcastic remarks in her summing up. I think she has to leave judgements of whether something's a tall story to the jury to decide.
[ 23. July 2015, 13:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm learning a bit about this difference between evidence and proof myself. It came up in a discussion I had with orfeo a couple of weeks ago. I'm hampered a bit by the fact that these seem to translate as the same word (bewijs) in Dutch.
quote:
mr cheesy: I don't think that belief in and of itself is evidence. I can believe rain and spiders are related, but I'd be wrong.
The way I understand it, in this case your *belief* wouldn't be the evidence. But if you could show in some way that on Tuesday 2.13pm you stepped on a spider and on 2.35 it rained, this would be evidence in favour of your belief that stepping on spiders causes rain.
It would be very weak evidence of course, and it would immediately be disproved by stepping on a couple of dozen other spiders, but if we look at the definition of the word, it would be called evidence.
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose in science, that things like repeatability are emphasized. Thus, if you step on a spider and it rains, you would expect, first to repeat this yourself, to see if it happens again, and second, that others will also repeat it. Furthermore, you might start to guess about possible connections, and also make predictions, which are testable.
This seems very different from personal experience, although I suppose that some people have 'repeats'. But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this? Maybe to an extent - I know Buddhists and Sufis who have had very similar experiences, but not of the Shimmeringness, alas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Uttering something, no matter how many times, does not contribute to its truth claims.]
What does this have to do with my questions?
Who said I'm answering your questions only?
Well since you quote my questions, then immediately make this statement, I think I can be forgiven for thinking this is an answer to my questions. That's kind of how quoting and responding tends to work here. Why would you quote my questions, and my questions only, and then immediately ignore them and answer somebody else? It makes no sense. But then there's a hell of a lot on this thread coming from the atheists that makes no sense.
quote:
I'm not at all confused about degrees of evidence. You seem to be arguing that someone's experience of X is evidence of some kind for Y.
You're reasoning circularly again. I'm saying that somebody claiming to have witnessed X is evidence for X. This happens in law courts every day, thousands of times a day. It may not be very good evidence. They could be hallucinating. They could be misremembering what they saw. And so forth. But it is still evidence, according to the definition of evidence. If we can't agree on what words mean, we cannot have a sensible or fruitful discussion.
quote:
If someone prays that they get a new job and then shortly after they get a new job, it is no evidence of any kind (bad or good) of the efficacy prayer or the existence of God—or anything supernatural. <snip>
All none to the point, as your examples are not analogous to what I am arguing.
quote:
Your starting point ('there is a God') is completely and totally without any kind of evidence beyond the sort of subjective or anecdotal kind.
That's not my starting point in this discussion. This strand of the discussion is merely about the meaning of the word "evidence," which you have wrong.
quote:
You are taking a fairy story as axiomatic.
No I am not. Nowhere in this discussion am I presupposing the existence of God/gods.
quote:
There is no more evidence for the Christian God Yaweh than there is for Thor or Zeus or any of the other thousands of 'dead' gods.
You don't know that. How many people claim to have encountered (say) Zeus? How many people claim to have encountered Yahweh? Each such claim is one piece of evidence. It may amount to a hill of beans. They may all be mistaken. But that's not what the word evidence means. You claim to know what it means but repeatedly insist on using it improperly.
quote:
The discussions about experience of the idea of god (or gods) is a separate one.
No, that is the discussion I am having. The discussion about the EXISTENCE of gods is separate from this one. I am merely trying to establish the common-sense, dictionary meaning of "evidence," and the fact that you are not using it properly.
For any discussion to be fruitful, everybody needs to be using the words the same way. Otherwise they will think they are agreeing, or think they are disagreeing, when in fact they aren't even saying the same thing.
I am working (as is Dyfed) towards agreement on the meaning of the word "evidence." I am taking the common-sense, dictionary meaning of the word, and showing that people here are not using it according to the normal definition. They have created a special definition which suits their argument, and which nobody has actually defined with any degree of precision, or in a way that is not question-begging or a category error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
DISCLAIMER: No animals were harmed in the composition of this post, and by writing this post I'm not advocating hurting animals in any way.
Spiders are not animals. They are demons from the yawning chasms of Hell in exoskeletal form, spawned from the evil mind of the Prince of Darkness himself.
Scientific proof of this claim available upon request.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?
There are certain herbs that can help you with this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: But if I experience the great Shimmering Shimmeringness of All, can I get you to repeat this?
There are certain herbs that can help you with this.
Some friends of mine travelled to the Amazon to take ayahuasca, and had a good vomit, anyway, when they got back, realized you can get it in Brixton. Not such nice scenery though, same vomit maybe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
