Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absence of Evidence..............
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 76 of 138 (468573)
05-30-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Marcosll
05-30-2008 10:31 AM


Re: Evidence
- Lack of empirical evidence doesn't prove that something doesn't exist (neither does it prove that it does exist).
- When we lack empirical evidence for a rare or dificult-to-physically-detect observation we must propose possible explanations.
-Dismissing things as impossible based on our current knowledge of the universe is the easy thing to do.
There is no such thing as proof outside of mathematics.
Evidence based investigation does not deal in proof and certainty. It deals in likelihood.
I have never once claimed that lack of empirical evidence disproves anything. Nor actually have I claimed that empirical evidence proves anything.
It is not about proof or certainty it is about valid conclusions and invalid conclusions.
When we lack empirical evidence for a rare or dificult-to-physically-detect observation we must propose possible explanations.
-Dismissing things as impossible based on our current knowledge of the universe is the easy thing to do.
Again you utterly fail to understand.
I do not dispute that it is quite possible for there to be an empirical basis on which to base further research into as yet unobserved phenomenon.
However if all steps that can reasonably be taken have been taken, if we are confident that our failure to detect is not merely due to the limitation of our technologies, then do we continue to believe regardless? In practical terms there must come a point where the only justifiable conclusion that can be made in the absence of empirical evidence is the absence of existence.
Some things (e.g. the existence of the soul) are claimed to be inherently undetectable. For such things the only rational conclusion must be that that such a thing does not exist.
Some things (e.g. the existence of alien lifeforms) have a firm enough empirical basis (the fact that life originated on Earth, the fact that there are milions of other planets hospitable and conducive to the existence of life as we know it) on which to base further investigation. Investigation that is inherently hampered by limited technology but that without which we can make no firm conclusions either way.
In the case of alien lifeforms we have not as yet reached this point - BUT eventually there must come a point with regard to every claim where the absence of any positive evidence whatsoever indicates deep improbability of the claim being true. In such circumstances the only rational and practical conclusion available is that the phenomenon under consideration does not exist. No matter how much people may want it to exist or believe that it does exist.
Straggler has said previously -
In the absence of empirical evidence what conclusions can we justifiably draw?
Marcosll writes -
Alas my friend it is you who is entirely missing the point.
Well lets see. So far your examples have failed to differentiate between claims for which there is poor, unreliable or insufficient empirical evidence with claims for which there is no empirical evidence at all.
What claim for which there is no empirical evidence whatsoever do you feel is justified?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Marcosll, posted 05-30-2008 10:31 AM Marcosll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 77 of 138 (468592)
05-30-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-22-2008 11:14 AM


big problem
The underlying assumption in your post is that only empirical evidence is valid in order to believe something, and that's a huge fallacy.
1. People have to make decisions all the time without scientific evidence, and arguably most of their decisions have no scientific evidence. There is no real empirical evidence for example in deciding whom to marry, except perhaps in limiting the available candidates to people with certain specific standards, and even then, conducting a peer-review study isn't feasible to determine if the evidence excluding certain people is valid.
2. Another fallacy is the assumption that empirical evidence is a good standard to follow in the first place. First off, empirical evidence is reliant on technology. If we were to base all of our beliefs on empirical evidence, we should have no morals, no ethics, and no faith because we don't have comprehensive studies, nor the technology, to accurately determine and scientifically validate many aspects of those things. I would argue we have plenty to verify the existence of God based on the order of the universe, but that doesn't tell us a lot on whether Jesus is the Messiah, for example, and we have no real evidence for what is right and wrong from a science perspective. Moreover, since our technology is limited one shouldn't expect everything to be testable just yet anyway. Lastly, subjective evidence can be and often is more accurate than objective, empirical conclusions.
To give you an example, I have believed since I was a child that the reason people got colds when it became cold had something to do with it being cold. That was a subjective opinion flying in the face of science for a very long time. The idea was that people contacted more colds due to being inside. However, last year it came out that actually certain viruses, such as the flu, grew better in cold weather. Subjective opinion was correct in this example, and accepted scientific opinion was wrong.
Another example from my childhood involved the brief period people actually claimed margerine in the 70s was healthier than butter. Never bought that for a minute.
The simple fact is empirical evidence is unreliable as a standard and must be tempered with subjective evidence from one's own life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-22-2008 11:14 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 6:10 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 78 of 138 (468593)
05-30-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
05-30-2008 12:53 PM


Re: Evidence
Some things (e.g. the existence of the soul) are claimed to be inherently undetectable. For such things the only rational conclusion must be that that such a thing does not exist.
Wrong. First off, the idea isn't the soul is inherently undetectable but merely we cannot detect it now, and many probably think we never could, but there is always the potential for technology to evolve whereby we can detect the soul.
Secondly, the idea isn't even that we cannot detect the soul, but rather we subjectively can detect it.
The only rational conclusion is that it is absurd to dismiss the existence of the soul based on limited technology and invalid assumptions about the limits of empirical inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 12:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-30-2008 5:49 PM randman has replied
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 7:43 PM randman has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 79 of 138 (468601)
05-30-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
05-30-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Evidence
randman writes:
The only rational conclusion is that it is absurd to dismiss the existence of the soul based on limited technology and invalid assumptions about the limits of empirical inquiry.
But isn't this pretty much equivalent to arguments used by believers in Bigfoot, ghosts and alien abductions?
One problem with the absence of evidence argument is that there's never really an absence of evidence. There's always a scale running from strong evidence to moderate evidence to slim evidence to nearly non-existent evidence, but I don't the evidence for something, no matter how unlikely it might seem to many, ever reaches zero.
The measure that science uses for the strength of evidence is the number of scientists in the relevant field that it is able to convince.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:12 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 88 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:58 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2008 3:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 138 (468607)
05-30-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
05-30-2008 4:24 PM


Re: big problem
The simple fact is empirical evidence is unreliable as a standard and must be tempered with subjective evidence from one's own life.
In all your examples you confuse personal empirical experience with wholly subjective thoughts and feelings. Personal empirical experience may well be at odds with accepted scientific thinking. That is neither here nor there in this context.
Nothing is wholly reliable and even less is certain. But empirical evidence (including empirical experience) is the only means of making conclusions that are even remotely reliable.
Saying I have a soul because I personally feel that I have a soul is very different to saying that in my personal experience whenever people get cold there seems to be greater chance of them catching a cold.
Subjective and personal are not necessarily the same thing. Wholly subjective is inherently unverifiable. Personally experienced empirical experience is as potentially verifiable as any other empirical evidence.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:24 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:14 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 83 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 81 of 138 (468608)
05-30-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
05-30-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Evidence
But isn't this pretty much equivalent to arguments used by believers in Bigfoot, ghosts and alien abductions?
So you have a prejudice against these particular beliefs?
Interesting.
Fact despite scoffing at these things, which are widely varying, in reality each one should be considered on it's own merits. Take Bigfoot.....that's something subject to objective analysis, not something like the soul.
Why is it mentioned here then by you?
Ghosts? Ok, could be this is close to things like the soul or God in terms of our lack of technology. Are we to dismiss all personal stories of encounters of ghosts just because some are prejudicial against the idea? It would be more reasonable to think all of these people did in fact experience something. Personally, I think there is a real phenomenon of ghosts but don't know what it is.
Alien abduction? Once again, there is something real in the experience of the people that claim these things, but by "real" it could be something psychological and not externally real, or it could well be there are alien abductions. Simplistically writing this off just displays an intellectual bigotry.
Bottom line...since science is limited by technology, it is always incapable of producing empirical data for some issues until someone figures out how to do so, and so it's just ignorance to pretend a lack of empirical evidence has any real meaning when subjective evidence is present. The more reasonable conclusion is that the weight of the evidence thus far indicates some sort of reality. In other words, dismissing subjective evidence wholesale unless confirmed with empirical evidence is a fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-30-2008 5:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 82 of 138 (468609)
05-30-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
05-30-2008 6:10 PM


Re: big problem
But empirical evidence (including empirical experience) is the only means of making conclusions that are even remotely reliable.
Prove it then. Show me where empirical evidence, the kind measuring up to scientific scrunity, is reliable for deciding whom to marry, for deciding what is right and wrong or if even right and wrong outside personal choice, even exists.
In reality, making conclusions based solely on empirical evidence is wholly unreliable for most choices a human being makes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 6:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 6:18 PM randman has replied
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 7:48 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 83 of 138 (468610)
05-30-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
05-30-2008 6:10 PM


Re: big problem
Personal empirical experience is as potentially verifiable as any other empirical evidence.
Sure, if someone is willing. Take acceptance and belief in Jesus Christ. It's something that can be verifiable to someone that walks the walk. It's personally empirical though still subject to debate. Nevertheless, almost if not every Christian I have known feels they have personal contact with God and some in remarkable manners, including receiving miracles.
Moreover, the idea they should reject belief in Christ, despite the mountain of evidence often in their own lives, just because a scientists says there is no empirical proof of Christ is an absurd fallacy. Just because the scientist has no personal evidence of Christ does not mean others are the same as him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 6:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Straggler, posted 05-30-2008 7:53 PM randman has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 84 of 138 (468611)
05-30-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by randman
05-30-2008 6:14 PM


Re: big problem
If you do action A and see it makes person B feel bad, or hurts them. Is that empirical evidence? If you do action A and notice that it makes you feel bad or hurts you, is that empirical evidence? If so, we could say that those types of observations are the basis upon which we decide what is right or wrong.
In fact, if you ascribe to a Utilitarian-esque point of view regarding ethics, it seems to be quite empirical in practice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:34 PM Perdition has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 138 (468612)
05-30-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Perdition
05-30-2008 6:18 PM


Re: big problem
If you do action A and see it makes person B feel bad, or hurts them. Is that empirical evidence? If you do action A and notice that it makes you feel bad or hurts you, is that empirical evidence? If so, we could say that those types of observations are the basis upon which we decide what is right or wrong.
No, it's not empirical evidence. Furthermore, it could never be the basis of deciding right and wrong other than personal or soceital choice. The idea that what is right and wrong is what makes people feel good is not empirically arrived at, but is itself a subjective choice.
Let's say the idea is to make yourself feel good and that is the basis of right and wrong....who is to say empirically? So you'd have to ask what made you feel good, not what made the other person feel good, or heck, how about the fact something can make both you and another person feel very good, but someone else very bad.
Morality is simply not empirically verifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 6:18 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 6:40 PM randman has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 86 of 138 (468614)
05-30-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by randman
05-30-2008 6:34 PM


Re: big problem
Utilitarianism would beg to differ. It states that "good" is that which causes the most happiness. The feeling of happiness is not empirical, but the awareness of the emotion IS empirical.
Morals and ethics are solely created by man anyway. There is no Universal "Good" floating around out there that we tap into. I think it is quite possible to say that ethics and morals have evolved due to observation and memories of things that have happened to us in the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:49 PM Perdition has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 87 of 138 (468615)
05-30-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Perdition
05-30-2008 6:40 PM


Re: big problem
Utilitarianism would beg to differ. It states that "good" is that which causes the most happiness.
So in other words, you arbitrarily choose utilitarianism as your morality and then claim you did so via empirical evidence?
Also, "causes the most happiness" to whom? the majority? the species of human beings? the earth itself?
Morals and ethics are solely created by man anyway. There is no Universal "Good" floating around out there that we tap into.
That's your opinion, not fact. But let's play a game here. Say one nation decides, hey, we don't like these people....maybe they set up death camps to get rid of them. Hey, there is no universal "good" according to you.
Would you agree then with someone claiming the reason the Holocaust was wrong was that the Allies won and the Germans lost? If they had won, then they'd be writing the rules for the "most happiness."
Moreover, it is arguable that the most happiness would have been if we joined in with Germany since Stalin and communism caused far more unhappiness to far more people than even Hitler. Hitler was just intent on killing the Jews, gypsies and mentally handicapped folks. Stalin was killing off whole towns and such. Mao's policies results in the starvation of more than both Hitler and Stalin's murders.
So utilitarianism would have to say that the right thing to do was to sacrifice the Jews to appease Hitler in order that the most happiness for the most people would be acheived.
Right?
This is, of course, an extreme example, but it illustrates the difficulty even after ASSUMING a standard for good, being able to empirically validate the right path. It also, imo, illustrates the problem with rejecting right and wrong as something out there we tap into.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 6:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Perdition, posted 05-30-2008 7:22 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 88 of 138 (468616)
05-30-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
05-30-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Evidence
speaking of ghosts and empirical evidence....
http://www.news.com.au/...story/0,23739,23776826-954,00.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 05-30-2008 5:49 PM Percy has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 89 of 138 (468619)
05-30-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by randman
05-30-2008 6:49 PM


Re: big problem
So in other words, you arbitrarily choose utilitarianism as your morality and then claim you did so via empirical evidence?
No. In fact, I think Utilitarianism makes too strong a claim on people. However, I think remembering something that hurt me, whether physically or emotionally, is an empirical observation. Action A led to feeling B. The feeling itself is subjective, but the observation of the causation is empirical. Recognizing that similar situations cause similar feelings in others is also empirical. Thus, asking that people not do what causes me pain, is a logical request. Offering to do the same to others as a means of assuring my request is followed, is likewise logical.
Also, "causes the most happiness" to whom? the majority? the species of human beings? the earth itself?
First of all, the earth doesn't feel emotions, its rock. Pure Utilitarianism looks only at humans, but there are others who extend the definition of happiness to other species. Yet another group argues that biodiversity leads to a healthier ecosystem, which leads to a healthier human population, which leads to happier peolpe in general, so being eco-conscious is the best thing, not ebcause it ascribes happiness to other animals, but because it ultimately leads to longer term happiness for humans. Regardless, it does deal with the majority. If an action causes 50 people to be happier, but makes 2 people less happy and another action makes 30 people happy, and makes 22 people unhappy, then the first action is the better of the two. It goes further, though and says we should try and find an even better action that would make all 52 people happy, and makes no one unhappy.
That's your opinion, not fact. But let's play a game here. Say one nation decides, hey, we don't like these people....maybe they set up death camps to get rid of them. Hey, there is no universal "good" according to you.
Utilitarianism is not moral relativism. Death camps causes pain and unhappiness to vast amounts of people. Not having death camps would not cause as much pain and unhappiness, therefore not having death camps is a better choice.
Humans create morality. I can see evidence of that, in that feral children have little to no compunction about hurting other people. That would seem to imply that morality is learned, not ingrained.
Moreover, it is arguable that the most happiness would have been if we joined in with Germany since Stalin and communism caused far more unhappiness to far more people than even Hitler. Hitler was just intent on killing the Jews, gypsies and mentally handicapped folks. Stalin was killing off whole towns and such. Mao's policies results in the starvation of more than both Hitler and Stalin's murders.
One of the fallacies of this argument is that it implies a false dichotomy. Either support Nazism or support communism. The best choice would have been to oppose Hitler from the beginning, rather than trying appeasement. Once that wasn't an option anymore, allying with Russia to take out Hitler, again, lead to a faster end to Nazism than not allying would have done, thus increasing happiness. Allying with Russia in one instance is not an indication of support of his other actions. Once Nazism is out of the way, it becomes the good thing to do to oppose the communism that is causing unhappiness.
To be perfectly clear. I'm not saying Utilitarianism is THE RIGHT way to consider moral questions. But it is an objection to your claim that we can't make moral decisions empirically. In fact, I think it is close to the way people do make decisions. They use past experience in order to decide future action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 6:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:43 PM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 90 of 138 (468620)
05-30-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by randman
05-30-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Evidence
Wrong. First off, the idea isn't the soul is inherently undetectable but merely we cannot detect it now, and many probably think we never could, but there is always the potential for technology to evolve whereby we can detect the soul.
Secondly, the idea isn't even that we cannot detect the soul, but rather we subjectively can detect it.
The only rational conclusion is that it is absurd to dismiss the existence of the soul based on limited technology and invalid assumptions about the limits of empirical inquiry.
Hmmmm. So what research is required to verify the existence of the soul?
What technology is it that we are missing?
What empirical research would persuade you of the deep improbability of the existence of the soul if no evidence for it's existence could be found?
On what empirical basis is there any reason to even think that the existence of the soul is a remote possibility? Why should we research that for which there is no evidential basis?
To what other empirical conclusion would you apply the same standards of evidence as you would the existence of the soul?
but rather we subjectively can detect it.
We can subjectively "detect" anything that we are capable of imagining. This is no form of detection at all. Genuine sensory perception of an objective reality and inherently subjective imagination are not the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 4:27 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:28 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024