|
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 |
Evidence only means anything in the context of a theory for which it is being considered as evidence. Then you will need to define evidence, which is what the OP was trying to get at. Most folk would disagree, insisting that evidence is something which leads to only certain conclusions. For example, to such folk, 'leaves are green' would not be a possible conclusion from the evidence 'paper'. Afterall, the paper could just as easily evidence that 'the sky is green and sun purple' if we are allowing it to evidence any and all things, including those with which it has no (or a limited) relationship. I once proposed the following explanation for evidence: Iff X then E X=thing that creates evidenceE=evidence resulting from X Is this inadequate? Incorrect? I am no longer sure if it is a proper explanation anymoreit fails to capture the notion of things that do not emit evidence, for example. One possible way to ask this question: does evidence have to be something sensible (capable of being sensed)? (Note: knowledge is sensible in that we can be aware of its existence.) Edited by Jon, : No reason given. [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Evidence is that which allows us to reliably distinguish truth from falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Evidence is that which allows us to reliably distinguish truth from falsehood. It is too vague a definition with too many subjective constituents. What is reliability? What is truth? What is falseness? At what degree do we declare distinction? If evidence is only something that "allows us to [XYZ]", does that mean that for something to be evidence a human must sense it? And if this is the case, then is evidence merely a human construct? If so, in what way is evidence connected with the Reality? Or, is it not? Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jon, try this:
Evidence is an organization of facts, such that a logical conclusion can be derived, that follows from the facts used. Maps are flat, therefore the earth is flat. The flat maps are the evidence for the flat earth conclusion. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Jon writes: 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. You are correct, I messed it up a bit. Here, I'll fix it for you:
Fact - An objective record of reality.
Evidence - A fact that supports one or more possible conclusions.
Possible Conclusion - A guess at something that is not known that is supported by all the available facts. So we end up with:
Evidence - An objective record of reality that supports one or more guesses at something that is not known that is supported by all the available objective records of reality. Thanks for helping in the clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Evidence is an organization of facts, such that a logical conclusion can be derived, that follows from the facts used. So, can one thing by itself constitute evidence? I would almost think it could be evidence, if of nothing else, of its own existence. Or is it that we must also contain additional evidence to conclude such, for example, the knowledge that things we sense exist?
Maps are flat, therefore the earth is flat. The flat maps are the evidence for the flat earth conclusion. Exactly. Jon Edited by Jon, : dern punchuation [O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jon,
Exactly. Notice that the evidence set is not necessarily a complete one, nor that the conclusion is necessarily valid - validation comes through further evidence ... and a lack of contradictory evidence. The earth seen from space is evidence that the earth is roundish (an oblate spheroid), which contradicts and invalidates the flat earth conclusion. In turn we see that assuming a flat plane for the surface portion covered by the map is a good approximation of the surface due to the size of the earth and the large radius of curvature compared to the scale of the map. Surveyors still approximate the surface as relative to a flat plane due to the small error introduced at normal survey scales and the additional difficulty of using spherical geometry.
So, can one thing by itself constitute evidence? I would almost think it could be evidence, if of nothing else, of its own existence. It certainly is evidence of a possibility if nothing more, usable until more evidence comes along.
Or is it that we must also contain additional evidence to conclude such, for example, the knowledge that things we sense exist? Additional evidence serves to make the conclusion stronger ... if it doesn't invalidate the conclusion. You can form conclusions on subsets of information - cherry picking is common - but the validity is tested against all the available evidence. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1525 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Evidence is what we say it is. Good evidence speaks for itself imo. Was Foxy Knoxy was railroaded?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
Iff X then E X=thing that creates evidenceE=evidence resulting from X Under this definition almost nothing is evidence. It is astonishingly rare (if even possible) for a piece of evidence to be unique to a single possible theory. I cannot think of a single example, can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It is astonishingly rare (if even possible) for a piece of evidence to be unique to a single possible theory. I cannot think of a single example, can you? When you use evidence in this sense, it sounds like you are equating it to material things. Is this reading of your understanding true? Jon [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 |
I have no idea what you mean by "equating it to material things".
According to your definition "iff X then E", E is evidence only when X is the only possible explaination of E. I cannot think of a single example of a piece of evidence for any theory ever that meets this requirement. Can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I cannot think of a single example of a piece of evidence for any theory ever that meets this requirement. Can you? Depends on how we define evidence. Are you equating evidence to material things? Is one material/physical thing equal to one unit of evidence? [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 |
Depends on how we define evidence. Anyway you like. Can you now?
Are you equating evidence to material things? No. Evidence could be a material thing, or it could not be. A piece of evidence could be one thing, or it could be a trillion. A 'piece of evidence' is whatever you want to present as a 'piece of evidence' so that we can consider whether it is, in fact, evidence for your statement. Edited by Mr Jack, : Clarify
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
No. Evidence could be a material thing, or it could not be. A piece of evidence could be one thing, or it could be a trillion. A 'piece of evidence' is whatever you want to present as a 'piece of evidence' so that we can consider whether it is, in fact, evidence for your statement. Is evidence indivisible, a non-count mass, or simply an holistic entity individually composed? Jon [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 |
You're dodging the question I posed. Give me an example of evidence you think meets your definition, please.
Is evidence indivisible, a non-count mass, or simply an holistic entity individually composed? The only reasonable definition on that axis is whatever you've chosen to present, as I already said. Evidence, as I've said several times now, is only meaningful with respect to what it is evidence for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024