Evidence, proof and prove

[Nakosis]

Of course the consequences to us should have no bearing on whether we think the story true or not, but it would be hard to eliminate the consequences for us in weighing up the evidence if there could be consequences.
Some people would want a lot of evidence if there were consequences. Is that a sensible approach do you think?

Wanting evidence doesn't create the existence of actual evidence.
If there is actual evidence then there isn't really a issue about what happened.
One can appropriately blame the current situation on what actually happened.

 

[Polymath257]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

There is no proof of the statement.

So the next question is whether it is reasonable for others to believe him when he says he had a ham and cheese sandwich on Saturday. Questions I would then ask:

1. Did Bob have access to data supporting his claim?

2. Could Bob have remembered incorrectly or misinterpreted?

3. Does Bob have any reason to lie about his experience?

4. Is the claim something that goes beyond what we would usually expect (thereby requiring more detailed evidence)?

5. Does the claim contradict other things we know or strongly suspect?

6. How important is the claim being made?

In the case of Bob eating a sandwich, he would certainly have access to whether or not that happened, he would be unlikely to misinterpret (although misremembering specifics is a possibility). he probably has little reason to lie about his experience (although if it is an alibi for a crime, there could be). Eating a ham and cheese sandwich is pretty common, so no higher level of data is required past his claim. Unless we know that Bob was at a steak house that doesn't serve ham and cheese sandwiches, or some other confounding information, there is no contradiction to anything else we know. And the claim is of pretty minor importance.

So, unless there is good reason to doubt his claim, we would usually accept it at face value.

But, for example, if Bob claims he was at home eating a ham and cheese sandwich when 10 other people say they saw him across the city committing a crime, we would have very good reason to doubt what Bob said.

True. But does that mean it didn't happen?

In the case of being abducted by Bigfoot, there would be reason to doubt based on several of the criteria above. In fact, we would be very inclined to *not* believe such a claim. And for good reason.

Its up to the person who said it did happen to ration out whether it did or not. Not for others to tell them they are full of BS.

Clearly, that is wrong. In cases where there is no possibility of misinterpretation, that there is no reason to lie, where the claim is insignificant, etc, we may well take the claim at face value. But if those criteria are violated, we would be fully justified to say they are full of BS.

After bedtime a man's 11 year old daughter screams Daddy! Daddy! He runs in the room to find his daughter crying and upset. She says she was awakened by a knock on her window and a man was looking in at her.
Dad goes outside, walks around the wooden deck by her window. He doesn't see anyone or hear anything. Its a wooden deck so there are no footprints. Dad blows it off as a dream

Was there really someone there or not?

We cannot tell with certainty from this information, but the likelihood is that there is not. At the very least, the claim is not proven.

Here's a question: what would you have concluded as the father? What is reasonable to conclude?

True. But many things are waved off simply because "you can't prove it so therefore I don't believe you"
Not everything can be proven.

While that is true, there is also no good reason to believe until sufficient evidence is given.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

True. But does that mean it didn't happen?

Very ordinary claims only require very ordinary evidence -- or if they are inconsequential, no evidence at all. We don't care if Bob ate a ham sandwich, and we do know that people eat ham sandwiches all the time. So to Bob's claim that he ate a ham sandwich, we sah, "meh."

Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How many people are abducted by Bigfoot every day? Well, actually, so far as I know, none. Okay, maybe Bigfoot doesn't normally abduct people, but found @Clizby Wampuscat simply irresistable. However, since CW is here now to tell us about it, maybe Bigfoot let him go. Still, we have only CW's claim to go on. Now, if CW is filing an insurance claim for "indignities inflicted upon his person," I'm sure the insurance company would want some further evidence. Perhaps a little DNA proof of said indignities, or whatever. But without that, you can be sure that the insurer will NOT be paying the claim.

 

[PureX]

I agree. The point is when we should believe something to be true. You don't have to believe I had an encounter with Bigfoot, but that is not saying you believe I did not.

I'm puzzled why so many of us think we have to believe anything. Life is full of 'I don't knows' and 'If you say so's' and 'so be its'. Yet we seem to have an obsession with achieving 'belief' status. Why? And then defending it even in the face of reasonable doubt.

I think we're all a bunch of control freaks.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm puzzled why so many of us think we have to believe anything. Life is full of 'I don't knows' and 'If you say so's' and 'so be its'. Yet we seem to have an obsession with achieving 'belief' status. Why? And then defending it even in the face of reasonable doubt.

I think we're all a bunch of control freaks.

Seeking truth is a noble goal. We will never have absolute certainty of anything but we can have a high level of certainty of a lot of things. How can we even operate if we have no beliefs?

You cannot help but have beliefs. We do not choose them instead we are either convinced or not convinced of a proposition. If we are going to have beliefs then I want to believe more tings that are true than false. So a good epistemology is essential to that goal.

My question is why wouldn't you want to seek truth?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

Well he's alive according to the story of Bob's eating adventure.

Unless he's starving to death afterwards due to a lack of ham and cheese sandwiches. ;0]

 

[Twilight Hue]

True. But many things are waved off simply because "you can't prove it so therefore I don't believe you"
Not everything can be proven.

Well there is supporting truth. Givin he's not dead of starvation.

 

[Audie]

Bob lives alone. Last Sunday Bob ate a ham and cheese sandwich.

Bob doesn't have have ham or cheese in his fridge. He already digested what he ate. He doesn't have evidence or any proof that he ate a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday so he can't prove he did.

Does that mean Bob didn't eat a ham and cheese sandwich last Sunday??

Try getting to your point

 

[Audie]

"No. It just means he doesn't have proof now"

Yep. My point is there are times when some things happen and the only person around is yourself.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just gives others a reason to doubt you.... But that doesn't mean it didnt happen.

News of the obvious, though calling it
a "reason" is ye fallacy of overgeneralizing

 

[Audie]

Its up to the person who said it did happen to ration out whether it did or not. Not for others to tell them they are full of BS.

False

 

[Quintessence]

I don't mind people sharing their experience, dreams, hallucinations. It only becomes an issue when they insist that their personal experience was an objective fact. When your (extraordinary) experience could have influence on my understanding of the world, it is worth investigating.

I don't see how a person insisting that what happened to them happened to them is a problem, except perhaps for the very cynical who assume the default human behavior is lying (which it isn't).

Accepting that someone really did (and yes, objectively) have an experience is distinct from accepting that person's interpretation of what happened. And I blame proselytizing religions for making many in our culture conflate these two things.

 

[Audie]

Personally, I believe that there is a distinction to be made between debating a topic like Sasquatch or ghosts and labeling those who believe in them as delusional, illogical, and unable to reason rationally. I don't believe there is any valid reason or excuse to disparage people with whom you disagree or do not share their beliefs. The primary reason I don't debate about my spiritual beliefs, my psychic mediumship, or my paranormal experiences is because of how most skeptics (both Christian and non-Christian) have mistreated me.

Mistreated. Or maybe a bit of tough love.

 

[Quintessence]

While that is true, there is also no good reason to believe until sufficient evidence is given.

How about basic courtesy, common sense, utter necessity, and generally not assuming everyone is lying their face off to you about everything?

 

[sun rise]

To summarize the OP which I agree with:

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Mistreated. Or maybe a bit of tough love.

I don't think it was "tough love" when some Christians called me a witch and threatened my life or when other Christians accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell because they believe I talk to demons. A furious skeptic who cruelly ridiculed me and tried to call me out in front of a crowd of people during my paranormal investigation because he was angry that I was persuading them that the paranormal is real doesn't strike me as "tough love" either. There are justified reasons why I will not debate skeptics.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think it was "tough love" when some Christians called me a witch and threatened my life or when other Christians accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell because they believe I talk to demons. A furious skeptic who cruelly ridiculed me and tried to call me out in front of a crowd of people during my paranormal investigation because he was angry that I was persuading them that the paranormal is real doesn't strike me as "tough love" either. There are justified reasons why I will not debate skeptics.

I would not call such people skeptics but judgemental fanatics.

 

[PureX]

Seeking truth is a noble goal.

But truth is a relative condition in a universe that's far bigger and more complex than any human can comprehend. Which, it seems to me, would make honesty the greater pursuit. And believing in things that we can't really know to be true or that are only true from a relative perspective seems like it would be dishonest, to me.

For example, I'm a theist that does not 'believe in' God/gods because I feel it would be dishonest of me to presume the existence or nature of something I can't personally know or understand. I can trust in the possibility of it, but I can't honestly 'believe it' to be so. Because I also have to respect the possibility that it may not be so.

We will never have absolute certainty of anything but we can have a high level of certainty of a lot of things. How can we even operate if we have no beliefs?

But trusting in reasoned probability is not "belief". Nor does it require that we believe anything.

You cannot help but have beliefs. We do not choose them instead we are either convinced or not convinced of a proposition.

That makes no sense to me. Why would I adopt as true a proposition that I can't and don't know to be true? Especially when I don't need to. I can simply choose to trust that it's probably true and act accordingly. No belief necessary.

If we are going to have beliefs then I want to believe more tings that are true than false. So a good epistemology is essential to that goal.

My question is why wouldn't you want to seek truth?

... Because I can't get the truth. It's beyond the scope of my humanity. The best I can get is relative truthfulness: knowing that 'this' is true relative to 'that' being true.

 

[sun rise]

I'm puzzled why so many of us think we have to believe anything.

Belief is built into our nature. We believe that if we go to college, we'll benefit (but not all do). We believe that if we get married, we'll be happy. We believe that if our political party wins, the country will be better off. We believe that if we go to work, we'll paid what we're owed.

Some beliefs are justified on the basis of evidence including scientific beliefs about proofs which are sometimes overturned by new proofs. Some are justified on the basis of personal experience.

And many of us continue to believe some of those or other things in spite of the evidence that proves such belief is not always warranted.

 

[Audie]

I don't think it was "tough love" when some Christians called me a witch and threatened my life or when other Christians accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell because they believe I talk to demons. A furious skeptic who cruelly ridiculed me and tried to call me out in front of a crowd of people during my paranormal investigation because he was angry that I was persuading them that the paranormal is real doesn't strike me as "tough love" either. There are justified reasons why I will not debate skeptics.

Some people have been nasty to me
for their own reasons.
On of the ccme within an inch of
killing me, twice. Se indeed time was
me standing on a balcony 17 floors above thre street.

We all get criticized, teased, questioned
and doubted. It's not always kind. Sometimes
it is tough love.

It's hard to believe every such word you've
heard was savage malice and totally unjustified.

I see those who question me as serving as
" outriggers" keeping my canoe from
tipping over.

Surrounding myself with only like minded
people is anathema to me so Its part of why
I frequent rf.

Side note, that cult victims generally don't
see where they went off the rails until they've
been around "normal" people for a time and
in a sort of reverse " Stickholm syndrome"
readapt themselves to the thought climate
of society at large.
Personally, I think that concentrusting on
things " paranormal" is a disastrous mistake,
so I'd hope you won't further isolate yourself from rational and productive concerns.

I wish you well.

 

[PureX]

Belief is built into our nature. We believe that if we go to college, we'll benefit (but not all do). We believe that if we get married, we'll be happy. We believe that if our political party wins, the country will be better off. We believe that if we go to work, we'll paid what we're owed.

Some beliefs are justified on the basis of evidence including scientific beliefs about proofs which are sometimes overturned by new proofs. Some are justified on the basis of personal experience.

And many of us continue to believe some of those or other things in spite of the evidence that proves such belief is not always warranted.

Human nature or not, belief is not a requirement of reasonable or effective action. And in fact, it very often is an impediment to reasonable effective action. So I can't help wondering why we're so obsessed with achieving it.