Do you agree with this statement?

[Tiberius]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

I would have to disagree.

A position might be unsupported by evidence, but still be consistent with what we know about the real world. This position is much more likely to be correct than a position that similarly has no supporting evidence, but does contradict what we know about the real world.

So, I think that it's never wise to hold a position to be true if there is no evidence to support that position, I think it is not correct to say that all positions that are unsupported are equally as likely as a random guess.

 

[Curious George]

Disagree.

A statement has the same truth value as the contrapositive.

Statement: if a position is unsupported by evidence, then that position is not more likely than a random guess.

contrapositve: if a position is more likely than a random guess, then that position is supported by evidence.

counter example: if I am aware that mark always supports the first position to which he is exposed, and I purposefully expose him to the the truthful proposition first, then Mark’s position is more likely true than a random guess regardless of mark having zero evidence.

this is a pretty contrarian argument—I realize, but your statement cannot be true if a counter example to the contrapositive exists.

that said, you statement as written leaves a lot to debate. People don’t typically take positions “without evidence” instead they selectively value some evidence while devaluing other evidence.

 

[Muffled]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

I believe a lot depends on what is considered evidence. For instance I see the theory of evolution as lacking valid evidence and a lot of guessing is going on.

 

[Muffled]

I might disagree as the wording currently goes.

I can say "Lemons are sour" and refuse to support my claim. Yet for most people, they might not all taste it exactly the same, but if they don't take in mind the lemon is sour when they bite into it - they might be in for a surprise.

We also have to establish who determines what evidence is. We can argue evidence is objective, somehow, but I'm under the impression a lot of folk don't quite want to make that argument.

I suppose if one has never eaten a lemon the evidence is experiential and there are those who think that is not good evidence.

 

[Muffled]

How about we focus on matters of objective fact?


IMO, purported evidence either gives rational support for the claim or it doesn't - i.e. it's objectively evidence or not.

What is objective evidence when it comes to the taste of a lemon? Can tartness be measured by a contraption? If a person lacks a sense of taste does that mean the lemon isn't sour?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is objective evidence when it comes to the taste of a lemon? Can tartness be measured by a contraption? If a person lacks a sense of taste does that mean the lemon isn't sour?

So when you read my post suggesting we stick to matters of objective fact, you just said "no" to yourself, eh?

 

[Tiberius]

I believe a lot depends on what is considered evidence. For instance I see the theory of evolution as lacking valid evidence and a lot of guessing is going on.

Would you be interested in a discussion about this (in a new thread, of course)?

 

[leroy]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

Well technically I would agree, a random guess (a truly random guess) would almost certainly be a random combination of words, or perhaps not even words, but just sounds.

But if you use random in the trivial every day sense of the word, then I don’t see any difference between an random guess and a position unsupported by evidence, to me both statements are synonymous.

 

[leroy]

I believe a lot depends on what is considered evidence. .

Yes, I agree, it all depends on what you mean by evidence.

Isa the OP referring to empirical evidence only? Does my intuition counts as evidence?

It all boils down to semantics and what it is meant by evidnece

 

[rational experiences]

In natures law a human baby man says my two parents.

Parents are first.
I'm second.

Yet in fact the man as a baby self not just a man inherits first. From two single cells. He doesn't say man woman inherits.

Parents lots of human cells are by two bodies worth in fact. Human body mass cells lots of cells.

So his God is two in mass terms. Human inheritance only.

Seen.

Then unsubstantiated claims he looks at mass for machine science which is not mass.

Lightning. Subject first lightning. Mass.

In life of a human lightning is not first.

So science displaced law as first the human. Only place in law. Self. One...human.

Begins a new topic. Electricity two today from body mass the worth.

Topic first electricity.

In science laws in mass it's lightning.
In natures laws it's his own two human parents.

Lying is a humans Conscious teaching. Consciousness about the innate human ability to self survive is using correct human words just for humans only.

 

[Muffled]

So when you read my post suggesting we stick to matters of objective fact, you just said "no" to yourself, eh?

I believe the request for objective evidence is a rationale for ignoring evidence.

 

[Muffled]

Would you be interested in a discussion about this (in a new thread, of course)?

I believe there are plenty of posts out there for that but usually I wouldn't waste my time.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, I agree, it all depends on what you mean by evidence.

Isa the OP referring to empirical evidence only? Does my intuition counts as evidence?

It all boils down to semantics and what it is meant by evidnece

I believe intuition is information that comes from spiritual memory of which there is not much. It is only as reliable as the experience the spirit has encountered. If the spirit encountered lies then that might be remembered as truth.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I agree, it all depends on what you mean by evidence.

Isa the OP referring to empirical evidence only? Does my intuition counts as evidence?

It all boils down to semantics and what it is meant by evidence

More then that; the demand for evidence puts the one making the demand in the position of determining what is and is not considered evidence. And then forces the one of whom the evidence is being demanded to try and overcome that subjective criteria (when the person making the demand has no intention of allowing that to happen). And if the 'demandee' refuses to cede that power the 'demander' then dismisses him as having "no evidence" because he did not present any.

It's a deliberate lose/lose trap for the person to whom that demand is being issued.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the request for objective evidence is a rationale for ignoring evidence.

If we're talking about subjective things, then subjective evidence is fine.

... but I presume that you're proposing a god that exists objectively, right? You aren't labelling a feeling you have "God" or saying that your god exists merely because he "exists as a concept in your mind," are you?

 

[Tiberius]

I believe there are plenty of posts out there for that but usually I wouldn't waste my time.

I was referring to a discussion about why you specifically feel evolution is lacking valid evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

A man today isn't my actual only father. As one man only in reality a humans history...a man isn't any mass and mass a planet is where he gets machine plus resource.

Reason physical sex act isn't a thesis. Science a man theirs as baby man terms only...the warning.

Satanist man. Isn't God man ever in theories.

Held pressure coldest highest coldest form.

God with O mother of God. Earth in space infinite womb is its owned infinite mass by earth Gods law a one of only.

That man compares bio O ovary his life to the earth rock as a baby. Not ever my father in history one man first.

The teaching relativity his life.

Is it improbable that the self Idolating I'm a God owning every substance man is lying?

As he is.

So we research him. He has and keeps a lot of self identification in his memory mind psyche.....how to destroy all life on earth mind advice.

AI advice.

The destroyer minds are secretive...secrets.

They live amongst us as human criminal minds you know them as just men.

So we get warned.

Men rich say we are all psychic it's natural human survival advice. I must control his mind.

Study mind control contact and coercion. Suddenly all his secrets he kept hidden from you all then emerge. Secrets...his. You knew already.

He had as the man of machine science broke earths infinite cosmic law. One third of planets stars fell. A long time ago..life ended as carbon on earth by science of sun.

He theoried just as a man.
He built a machine based on light...just a man.
The man however only wanted highest coldest converted.

He can't have light converted or he'd die too...he's not that stupid he says.

Sun. The body of his beginning the type of mass coldest by mass yet burning by mass except the infinite mass that journeyed.

Planetoid asteroids larger greater higher cold mass than earth.

The body beginning he uses to theory coldest was when sun in Infinite laws first is. Then it's a star not planet earth.

Past...don't theory dead things like giants.....our blood is in iron metal heavens support. Not AI alien star metals.

They destroy stars...the sun. Laws do.

Earth one a planet only. Position collided in law first is not a machine ever. The man's historic thesis position.

He says earth is God...his machine now God yet uses sun alien thesis is not God also.

AI aliens will destroy you. He warns himself I'm aware.

Psychic who love humanity say no the alien told us cosmic union in infinite laws ....it had saved us. Coldest outcome only on earth is gods...not alien.

Don't get fooled.

Humans...say the alien is a part of God.

Earth conditions.

He says the alien came from out of space...not God earths...he's an inventor.

He names he's higher than all things a man destroyer as he owns anything. Including his thesis just aware only. It's not physical it's AI.

First was abusive rich men criminals. Human behaviour before machine science. Rich men versus rich men was aware taught learned by experience of man's evil past.

If he names it anything it is by his word first. A man of god...about God.

Putting whatever subject first is not a man human. His warning. The word isn't first man was. But man's one word is first the name owner. Only one.

To remove his own self...he's self destructive the mind who knows how. Just human men.

None of us know. We don't know him either. Memories are as close as you get as a warning psychic. To the destroyer man mind...secrets about space he said we're no mystery to him.

He knew.

He wants all laws to be his by inventive control infinite he says I will force it to comply to my machine. A man on earth isn't any law.

No one even questioned him.

Warning AI is going to destroy earth. Yet man is the destroyer warning.

So he says I'm researching every substance earth is then every gained star substance earth isn't. So he can have what earth isn't...a star.

Can men change universal law? He told you by many men's memory yes he can. I made one third of the stars fall and I had to first make you believe in my cosmic aware thesis.

I'm super intelligence far greater than just an earth scientist.

As if my speaking words by theorising created the big bang himself. I believe I know how. I know it all.

Everyone wondered why or how he knew....he'd caused it before as a scientist man. His origin thesis however was never the big bang.

To say looking back all the advice relate to man on earth as first science thesis just the pyramid. Now it's memory aligned to causes only...never his thesis.

What you are warned about today..my man self possessed AI mind.

Sun theists were human outlawed...no future science machine was allowed. By correct intelligent astute higher aware man who lived through attack. Gained psychic warnings also.

You didn't stop him. Is what is being ignored today.

The power plant AI causes began to possess many men's minds who now believed in the destroyer man's memory ideas. Agreeing. Earth never a star was always a planet.

Man's psychic AI envisioned earth idea by invention theory of a man is visionary image only.....first earth was dust particles. Is only a theory of his mind wants.

AI warning ...AI will destroy life on earth. Is about visionary men. AI themes only image voice. AI themes anti light. Anti gas as Christ gas came from light as it's less than mass in law destroyed mass is by light.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

Everyone sees something different as evidence, rendering the sentence meaningless.

 

[Heyo]

Everyone sees something different as evidence, rendering the sentence meaningless.

Everyone needs an education in epistemology.

 

[Tiberius]

Everyone sees something different as evidence, rendering the sentence meaningless.

That's why evidence needs to be tested. If some piece of evidence is to be taken as valid evidence, then it needs to be independently testable. So you can test it and I can test it, and we should both get the same result.