|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Standards of Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Sorry, IceAge, but the specific issues you are replying too are NOT on topic here. If we get into specifics this thread will be cluttered with every issue that the site is about.
Do NOT continue down this path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm not sure if "innocent" is quite he right word. Some of them can turn quite nasty.
But yes, they do accept anything they happen to like on the basis of only a superficial examination. And some of them know it. One creationist here got very upset when it was suggested that he should take more care in the choice of websites he chooses to cite. His way of dealing with the problem of using unreliable evidence is to wish it away and insist that nobody should mention the fact. And they can say things that are obviously false and cling to the bitter death rather than admit error. Randman is something of a prime example here, but Rob's nutty linking of "theology" and "theory" is beginning to get close. Since etymology disproves his idea the thing to do is to ignore etymology. So far as I can see the fact that they believe something (usually because they like it) far outweighs any consideration of evidence. Or sometimes even the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Creationists disagree with evolutionary interpretations, explanations and conclusions of scientific data
Indeed they do. But the point of this thread is to find out what methods of evaluating evidence are the most and least reliable in objective terms. Simply disagreeing with interpretations, explanations and conclusions is all very well but what is the basis for this agreement if it is not dogma alone? Is a written text inferior, superior or equal as evidence to a measurable verified observed prediction of the sort that all but eliminates any interpretation of the evidence? What is the reasoning behind your answer??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
But the point of this thread is to find out what methods of evaluating evidence are the most and least reliable in objective terms. Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation. Objectivity is the ability to interpret evidence contrary to presuppositions and personal bias. For example: what is the best interpretation of the appearance of design seen in biological reality? Logically, it corresponds to the work of a Designer. How about parahomologous structures and anatomy? Logically, they correspond to the inference that evolution has occurred. I am trying to be objective even though I disagree with the latter. I happen to know that the latter inference, despite being, at face value, an objective interpretation, is actually made under the presupposition that God is not seen in reality. The former (objective interpretation of design corresponding to [invisible] Designer) falsifies the presupposition of the latter. BUT the latter presupposition claims to be a justified supposition based on other evidence. But the justification is nonetheless based on the non-objective presupposition that design does not correspond to Designer. The point is that presuppositions and worldviews supplant the ideal of what is objective. Does objectivity objectively exist? Yes, IF God exists then whatever He says is the only objective truth. Why? Answer: Because He is omnipotent and omniscient God. The same can only be objective because of who He is. The point is that only God's subjective views are objective truth. The Bible claims to contain God's subjective views and those views, if the claim is true, should correspond to reality. Genesis CLAIMS that God created the world and its contents on purpose. Since the world contains the overwhelming appearance of design the same corroborates and corresponds to the work of the Genesis Creator. Therefore the logical meaning of design corresponding to Designer is confirmed objective truth and the evolutionary interpretation (including the logical inference of homology), made under the supposition that design does not correspond to Designer, is subjective and false. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation.
In summary you are saying that evidence is evaluated and interpreted either with the assumption that God definitely does exist, or with the assumption that he definitely does not exist. Is that correct?
The point is that presuppositions and worldviews supplant the ideal of what is objective. Therefore the aim of science should be to limit interpretation to increase objectivity. Right? I put to you, once again, the case of specific measurable predicted results (which you have thus far evaded) Here no interpretation of the evidence is required as any interpretation has been inherent in the theory itself.If the predictions are verified then they verify the interpretation within the theory. The evidence itself requires no interpretation whatsoever. Only accurate measurement. BB theory is a fine example of this in action. Do you agree that specific measurable predictions are the best means of evaluating any scientific theory? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Double post.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... is not a magic word that magically makes whatever you're saying true.
It has a meaning. In particular, preceding a gross logical fallacy with the word "logically" will never make it logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ray originally writes: Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation. Straggler in response writes: In summary you are saying that evidence is evaluated and interpreted either with the assumption that God definitely does exist, or with the assumption that he definitely does not exist. Is that correct? Yes. Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Therefore the aim of science should be to limit interpretation to increase objectivity. Right? Idealistically, objectivity is always the goal, and science is always subjectively defined depending on one's worldview. Objectively defined, as my initial post did in this exchange, science presupposes the existence of God and interprets all evidence under said paradigm.
Here no interpretation of the evidence is required as any interpretation has been inherent in the theory itself. "Here" means what? Your comment makes no sense.
The evidence itself requires no interpretation whatsoever. In your subjective viewpoint. Objectively, evidence always requires interpretation. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Then how is it that scientists of all faiths and none agree on the facts?
If one's religious outlook made a difference, you'd expect it to, y'know, make a difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 307 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
... is also not a magic word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You really are evading actually answering the question......
"Here" means what?
Here = The case of specific measurable predicted results Lets take a non-controversial general example of principle. E.g Theory X predicts the existence of a new and extremely difficult to detect particle with specific mass A and specific charge B. This particle has never before been detected.This particle has never before been suspected to exist. The sole reason for thinking that this particle may exist is theory X. Detection methods improve with new technology.A particle with mass A and charge B is sought and indeed detected. In YOUR eyes has this theory be vindicated?What BETTER evidence could there be for the veracity of theory X? In your subjective viewpoint. Objectively, evidence always requires interpretation.
In this example what interpretation is required of the EVIDENCE? All that is required is accuracy of measurement. No?
Idealistically, objectivity is always the goal Thus specific measurable predicted results are the BEST form of evidence for a theory as they require no post result interpretation whatsoever. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Surely in the name of objectivity God should neither be assumed to exist or not to exist?
That is how science actually works. Whether you believe it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
In this example what interpretation is required of the EVIDENCE? As to what the fact or evidence means.
Thus specific measurable predicted results are the BEST form of evidence for a theory as they require no post result interpretation whatsoever. I assume your assertion true, the issue is, what does the fact or data mean? Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Surely in the name of objectivity God should neither be assumed to exist or not to exist? Impossible ideal. "Everyone has opinions about the existence of God. Honest and objective persons state them up front so when they creep into conclusions the public will know it."
That is how science actually works. Whether you believe it or not. Darwinism says God is not involved in reality; you have misunderstood the "neutral" claim, which only seeks to conceal the Atheist agenda (presupposition that God is not involved in reality). Ray
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024