|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Evidence? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What is evidence? Is evidence a thing? Is it a procedure? What makes evidence good? What makes it bad? What makes it vague? Is all reasoning deductive? If so, what is Empiricism?
Is It Science? please Jon [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Can you flesh this out a bit? Maybe it would help if you explained why you're asking these questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Maybe it would help if you explained why you're asking these questions. I want to know what evidence is. I used to think I knew, but I do not. Is it stuff? A process? A human construct? An amalgamation of the forces of Logic, Reason, and Reality? How will I know it when I see it? Will I see it? Can it exist in a vacuum? I could go on asking and asking whether it's [insert conceivable description here] or [insert some other conceivable description here], but I think it would be better if I just fessed up and said this is an open-ended question by intent. I have no answers for it, but would like to see if the fine folk here do. Often said is it 'support your assertion with evidence', but does that even mean anything? Who decides what is supporting evidence and what is not? How do they decide it? Is it. Oops; there I go with the questions. Does this clarify? Jon [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the What is Evidence? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
A statement of fact E is evidence for a theory T if E is compatable with T but ~E is not compatable with T.
Unfortunately, there's a problem: being "evidence" for a theory is a very, very weak criteria and most "evidence" for a theory is so trivially weak it's not really worth mentioning. For example, that Jon is alive is evidence that Jon is the murderer, but that evidence is so weak as to be meaningless as it also applies to every other living person. Perhaps we could define the strength of evidence in terms of the extent to which it narrows possible theories down?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Information - pretty much everything, including subjective imagination
Fact - an objective record of reality. Is repeatable and verifiable. It is possible for something to 'be a fact' and then 'not be a fact' at a later time. For example, if I show you my red hat and say "my hat is red", and you agree, then it is a fact. However, if I lose my hat, and then continue to claim that it is red... it's some likely information, but it's no longer a fact. It is no longer repeatable or verifiable. (Someone could have painted my hat).
Evidence - A fact (or multiple facts) that support possible conclusions. The more facts you have, the more evidence you have, and the fewer possible conclusions you will have.
Possible Conclusion - A guess at something that is not known that is supported by the evidence of all available facts. When can a possible conclusion be ruled out? The easiest (and best) way to rule out possible conclusion is when we obtain facts that directly contradict that conclusion. However, we are always capable of imagining some scenario where something that "seems unlikely" could still happen. This then becomes a more subjective process, and the rational explanation is identified by Occam's Razor (the simplest explantion is likely the correct one). The rational explanation may not be the correct one, but it is the logical and rational one. And, unless more facts can be obtained, it is irrational to conclude otherwise.
Accepted Conclusion - After proceeding with facts and evidence to reduce the number of conclusions as far as possible, a rational judgement must be made. Hopefully all possible conclusions have been ruled out except for one. If not, Occam's Razor will provide the rationally accepted conclusion. For example: A broken window and a golf ball on my couch is evidence of an errant golf ball. It is also evidence of a theif that left a golf ball calling card. How can I tell? The best way to proceed is to obtain additional facts. Is anything missing from my house? Does my golf-loving neighbour hate me because I just slashed his tires? However, if I am unable to attain additional facts, Occam's Razor would lead us to give the errant golf ball explanation more weight than the theif. The reality may actually be the theif, but it is irrational at this point to consider such until additional facts can be found that would support such a conclusion. The process is not perfect or foolproof. But it is the best one divised by human imagination to date that gets as close to the truth as possible. It should be noted that the process is never "done" or "completed." When (or if) additional facts are found, at any time, the accepted conclusion is re-assessed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Fact - an objective record of reality. Is repeatable and verifiable. It is possible for something to 'be a fact' and then 'not be a fact' at a later time. For example, if I show you my red hat and say "my hat is red", and you agree, then it is a fact. However, if I lose my hat, and then continue to claim that it is red... it's some likely information, but it's no longer a fact. It is no longer repeatable or verifiable. (Someone could have painted my hat). I must disagree, repeatability really shouldn't be taken as part of the criteria for a fact otherwise you cannot have any historicaly facts, which is silly. Nor am I sure what you expect to gain from repeatable over merely verifiable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Mr Jack writes: I must disagree, repeatability really shouldn't be taken as part of the criteria for a fact otherwise you cannot have any historicaly facts, which is silly. Nor am I sure what you expect to gain from repeatable over merely verifiable? You're right. Perhaps that's the difference between Fact and Raw Data?I mean, Raw Data would be 'historical fact', but how do we know it wasn't changed at all? Or done wrong? There is a difference between the three following things: 1. Me having a red hat, showing it to you, and saying "my hat is red." (Fact? - Verifiable and Repeatable)2. Me no longer having a red hat, not being able to show it to you, and saying "my hat was red when I had it and I showed it to you." (Historical Fact? - Raw Data? - Possibly verifiable if someone else also took measurements, not repeatable) 3. Me no longer having a red hat, not being able to show it to you, and saying "my hat is still red." (Not a fact in any way? - Not verifiable, not repeatable) Not sure how to define the 3 different groups, or even if there are any other groups. Obviously, they aren't all on the same level, so to treat them as such would be misleading and providing a source for errors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Evidence - A fact (or multiple facts) that support possible conclusions. The more facts you have, the more evidence you have, and the fewer possible conclusions you will have. Okay, that is a fine definition, perhaps, but let us insert the others where applicable to get a better feel for it:
"Amalgamum Maximus" writes:
Evidence - An objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the objective record of reality (or multiple such things) that support guesses at something that is not known that are supported by the ????? Endless Nesting... Oops... looks like your description creates a nesting error that can never end. Not sure how you could refer to that logical pong game as 'objective'. Try again, Joe. Jon [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So here is something:
If I fall asleep in 2010 B.C., wake up in 2009 A.D. and the first thing I see upon waking is a blank sheet of paper, is that in itself evidence; and if so, of what? Jon Edited by Jon, : First person, duh. [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Trying to logical demonstrate the validity of empirical reasoning is a) not possible (see Kant), b) silly and c) circular.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
It's evidence of roughly twelve trillion different things from no 1: you're no longer blind to no 12,111,834,121,649: trees have green leaves.
Evidence only means anything in the context of a theory for which it is being considered as evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Evidence is that which allows us to reliably distinguish "truth" from falsehood. And if that isn't an answer that poses more questions than it answers I don't know what is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Trying to logical demonstrate the validity of empirical reasoning is a) not possible (see Kant), b) silly and c) circular. Is this to say that empirical reasoning is illogical? Invalid? In being the thing external to logical reasoning, how can we say evidence connects to logic? What allows us to make a statement about 'the evidence'? Jon [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024