Facts vs evidence

[Ella S.]

I don't care about legal evidence. I care about logical argumentation. For me, evidence is bound up directly in whether something is evidence "for" a particular conclusion.

So logical premises are evidence of the conclusion. Just as inductive arguments can be "strong" or "weak," evidence itself becomes "strong" or "weak" within that same context. It is weak evidence if it is used in a weak argument, but strong evidence if it is used in a strong argument.

For the sake of argument, we can grant truth to premises that are likely to be true, or at least more likely to be true than competing premises. I would, for example, accept the premise that "all men are mortal" in a logical argument, even if the truth of that statement is arrived at inductively rather defined axiomatically.

If the argument given is unsound or invalid, then the premises are not evidence of the conclusion. For instance, someone being a "theist" does not necessarily entail that they are a terrorist, so someone's theism is not evidence of their terrorism, and thus we cannot conclude that terrorism is a consequence of theism. Asserting that it is would be far removed from anything resembling a logical argument, and so we can say that such a position is baseless and irrational.

Another example, if someone says that someone lived an exemplary life, therefore they were a divine messenger, that conclusion does not necessarily follow from that premise under any form of valid inference rule. More premises are needed to get from an "exemplary life" to "divine messenger." If the argument is left as it is, then we can say that this "exemplary life" is not evidence of them being divine.

In both cases, the reason that these premises cannot even be considered to be weak evidence is because the argument that uses them is fallacious. At most, we can take the conclusion away from its premises, which makes it a claim or an assertion rather than an argument. At that point, because there is no argument, it is impossible to debate against because there are no premises to provide counter-arguments for. All you can do is provide a compelling argument for the negation of the assertion, essentially taking on the burden of proof from a bad faith interlocutor who has refused to take on the burden themselves, letting them shift that burden of proof onto you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't care about legal evidence. I care about logical argumentation. For me, evidence is bound up directly in whether something is evidence "for" a particular conclusion.

So logical premises are evidence of the conclusion. Just as inductive arguments can be "strong" or "weak," evidence itself becomes "strong" or "weak" within that same context. It is weak evidence if it is used in a weak argument, but strong evidence if it is used in a strong argument.

For the sake of argument, we can grant truth to premises that are likely to be true, or at least more likely to be true than competing premises. I would, for example, accept the premise that "all men are mortal" in a logical argument, even if the truth of that statement is arrived at inductively rather defined axiomatically.

If the argument given is unsound or invalid, then the premises are not evidence of the conclusion. For instance, someone being a "theist" does not necessarily entail that they are a terrorist, so someone's theism is not evidence of their terrorism, and thus we cannot conclude that terrorism is a consequence of theism. Asserting that it is would be far removed from anything resembling a logical argument, and so we can say that such a position is baseless and irrational.

Another example, if someone says that someone lived an exemplary life, therefore they were a divine messenger, that conclusion does not necessarily follow from that premise under any form of valid inference rule. More premises are needed to get from an "exemplary life" to "divine messenger." If the argument is left as it is, then we can say that this "exemplary life" is not evidence of them being divine.

In both cases, the reason that these premises cannot even be considered to be weak evidence is because the argument that uses them is fallacious. At most, we can take the conclusion away from its premises, which makes it a claim or an assertion rather than an argument. At that point, because there is no argument, it is impossible to debate against because there are no premises to provide counter-arguments for. All you can do is provide a compelling argument for the negation of the assertion, essentially taking on the burden of proof from a bad faith interlocutor who has refused to take on the burden themselves, letting them shift that burden of proof onto you.

Yes. But there is more. You have to consider the law of non-contradiction as to how it works and connects to the rest of the world.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes. But there is more. You have to consider the law of non-contradiction as to how it works and connects to the rest of the world.

Alright, mikkel, I'll bite, but if you have an argument you should make it rather than vaguely imply I haven't fully understood the ramifications of the law of non-contradiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Alright, mikkel, I'll bite, but if you have an argument you should make it rather than vaguely imply I haven't fully understood the ramifications of the law of non-contradiction.

I will use the ontological version of it. Something is for a limited time in a given sense. In modern terms it is for a limited time and space in a given sense.
What follows is that if X is Y for that, then it is not given that X is Y for another time and space. You have to check what X is claimed to be and what Y is claimed to be. Further you have to check the status of "is", since there are more versions that one of "is".

 

[Ella S.]

I will use the ontological version of it. Something is for a limited time in a given sense. In modern terms it is for a limited time and space in a given sense.
What follows is that if X is Y for that, then it is not given that X is Y for another time and space. You have to check what X is claimed to be and what Y is claimed to be. Further you have to check the status of "is", since there are more versions that one of "is".

Claims can have implicit time stamps, that's true. Temporal logic deals with this quite a bit and it's even made its way into modal logics, too.

Counter-point, however: categorical claims do not require time stamps, because they describe sets of all relevant things throughout time and space. If I was to say "all men are mortal" then I would mean all men, past and future.

So time is not always relevant. Actually, most of the time, it isn't. That's why we only care about it in specialized logics, for the most part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Claims can have implicit time stamps, that's true. Temporal logic deals with this quite a bit and it's even made its way into modal logics, too.

Counter-point, however: categorical claims do not require time stamps, because they describe sets of all relevant things throughout time and space. If I was to say "all men are mortal" then I would mean all men, past and future.

So time is not always relevant. Actually, most of the time, it isn't. That's why we only care about it in specialized logics, for the most part.

Yes, I know. But here is the problem. For an one given context (in local time and space) there is one truth (sense). I agree with that. Then when you have 2 or more humans there is not always one context, because there are 2 or more humans.
An absurd version reductio ad absurdum is that I am a human and a male. So for all contexts all humans are males.

Some people argue like that in effect for "what makes sense to me as me for a given context is then so for all humans".
So for all categorial claims of all case of X is Y and not something else, I just test if I can do something else.

In a sense we are playing same, similar and/or different for everything, something, something else and/or nothing for all cases of all being in a sense for making sense of all that.
So if you can make sense of something, I just check if I can do it differently for something else.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, I know. But here is the problem. For an one given context (in local time and space) there is one truth (sense). I agree with that. Then when you have 2 or more humans there is not always one context, because there are 2 or more humans.
An absurd version reductio ad absurdum is that I am a human and a male. So for all contexts all humans are males.

That would unironically be a sound inductive conclusion to draw so long as the only humans you have observed have been male. I don't understand why that's a problem?

Some people argue like that in effect for "what makes sense to me as me for a given context is then so for all humans".
So for all categorial claims of all case of X is Y and not something else, I just test if I can do something else.

Sometimes that's a logical conclusion to draw, or at least the best starting point. We have to learn what psychological projection is and how it manifests to better avoid it, but we do that by self-correcting as we continue the logical process. It's not something we can know "a priori." We're not omniscient.

In a sense we are playing same, similar and/or different for everything, something, something else and/or nothing for all cases of all being in a sense for making sense of all that.
So if you can make sense of something, I just check if I can do it differently for something else.

I don't see the relevance of any of this. Logic isn't about what we subjectively find sensible or confusing. It's what follows from a particular dataset when it is processed according to logical axioms.

Machines conduct logical operations constantly and they have no analogue for these sorts of subjective inner states.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That would unironically be a sound inductive conclusion to draw so long as the only humans you have observed have been male. I don't understand why that's a problem?

Sometimes that's a logical conclusion to draw, or at least the best starting point. We have to learn what psychological projection is and how it manifests to better avoid it, but we do that by self-correcting as we continue the logical process. It's not something we can know "a priori." We're not omniscient.

I don't see the relevance of any of this. Logic isn't about what we subjectively find sensible or confusing. It's what follows from a particular dataset when it is processed according to logical axioms.

Machines conduct logical operations constantly and they have no analogue for these sorts of subjective inner states.

Well, let us play all of the world and observe including inference as to the theory of mind, that other people have first person subjective states.

And now we go through that with categorical logic.
Is it so that all humans with a function brain think/feel? Yes.
Is it so that all humans with a function brain think/feel the same for all cases of time and space? No.

Do you then agree that we can't apply strong logic for the case of "is", because it is not so in all contexts.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do invisible aliens live in your underwear and control your destiny?

If asking the question makes it logically possible, then it is something we all have to consider now.

I think you'll find that you can ask any question you wish, as long as it is logically possible .. but again, that is not the question being asked.
An atheist does not believe in God, and merely wishes to deflect the issue to another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you'll find that you can ask any question you wish, as long as it is logically possible .. but again, that is not the question being asked.
An atheist does not believe in God, and merely wishes to deflect the issue to another.

@Dan From Smithville is a Christian.

 

[Audie]

I think we're roughly on the same page here.

So what I'm suggesting is that whether God is guiding evolution of life or the cosmos, or that things are intended to turn out this way, isn't something we can infer from the data. In general I don't think we need to assume anything about the subject of "guidance" but if we are talking about it honestly, most of us have (sometimes unconscious) assumptions regarding the directedness of evolution, for example.

I find it more satisfying to assume that evolution is unguided. It makes more sense to me that way since I don't believe in gods but I don't believe I could find any evidence, one way or the other, from experiment.

Good enough. The "we" threw me off, sounded
too inclusive.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, when it comes to the existence of God.

The way I use the words, I'm both. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods and an agnostic because I do not declare that they cannot or do not exist. By my reckoning, as an agnostic, you're either an agnostic atheist like me if you hold no god belief or an agnostic theist if you answer yes to the question of whether you believe a god or gods exist.

Logically possible has nothing to do with actually possible

For me, logically possible means not yet proven impossible. Two kinds of things fit this definition - things that we know actually can happen like a life extinguishing asteroidal impact, or things that actually are impossible but we don't know that yet. Right now, the possibility of traveling back in time or through a wormhole can't be said to be impossible, but maybe they are and will be understood to be some day.

but we are not discussing the reason why people prefer belief or disbelief in Vampires. We are discussing GOD. A completely different concept.

I was discussing whether being logically possible was sufficient grounds for belief, and I introduced vampires as an example of something in addition to gods the existence of which is logically possible. If your grounds for belief allow you to believe in either, they allow you to believe in both.

@PureX said "That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists." ..and that is the context of my reply.

Mine, too.

An atheist scientist assumes that God does not exist.

That's incorrect. I have abandoned hope that theists on RF will ever learn what atheists believe. The correct position is at the top of this reply. Why don't you spend a few minutes looking at it and thinking about it, and perhaps the miracle of a theist learning this fact will be in evidence when you eventually update your claim to reflect what atheists actually say - an opportunity for you to demonstrate to the world that you are still capable of learning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we're roughly on the same page here.

So what I'm suggesting is that whether God is guiding evolution of life or the cosmos, or that things are intended to turn out this way, isn't something we can infer from the data. In general I don't think we need to assume anything about the subject of "guidance" but if we are talking about it honestly, most of us have (sometimes unconscious) assumptions regarding the directedness of evolution, for example.

I find it more satisfying to assume that evolution is unguided. It makes more sense to me that way since I don't believe in gods but I don't believe I could find any evidence, one way or the other, from experiment.

I am religious, but I agree.
But the side-effect of accepting the replication of the fittest genes, you in effect get in part physical/natural and subjective. The subjective doesn't sit well with some people even among some non-religious people.

 

[wellwisher]

Procedural bias is not really fair. Every discipline has its intrinsic methodology. Science has its rules for what is admissible as evidence, just as law does, or history. Physicalists extend methodological naturalism into a world view, which is not an irrational thing to do, even if one does not do this oneself. There is no doubt that evidence that is personal, subjective or anecdotal is weaker than evidence that can be independently objectively measured and corroborated by others.

The philosophy of science limits itself to evidence that comes to us, from outside, through our five senses. This external sensory evidence allow a collective standard, by which we all can participate, for collective verification of external reality. Our five sense work pretty much the same for all. We should all be able to see or sense the same evidence that is outside us.

Say we were in the woods at night counting meteorites. It is a little spooky and we all hear something rustling in the bushes. We can all hear sounds for the collective verification of sound from the bushes, but we cannot all agree on what we think we saw; raccoon, bear or nothing. The philosophy of Science can target only the collective sound we all heard; agreement. It cannot address the products of an active imagination. This dividing line, between internal and external data, was the basis for the philosophy of science.

However, there is also an inner world within each person, where an entire range of objective data exists. However, this data can be unique and therefore outside the range limits created by the philosophy of science. A good example is a dream. We all have had dreams and dreaming can be verified, by our common senses, via watching brain scans. However, we cannot use the scientific method or collective verification, to verify specific dreams details, from unique dreams, as narrated by the very person having the dream. These internal visuals/actions exists and are hard objective evidence to the person who is having the dream. However, the dream details will be called subjective; soft science, not because it can not be objectivity witnessed; by the person who had the dream. It is called subjective, because the entire herd cannot sense it for collective verification. In this case, the herd becomes subjective due to the dividing wall of science, but calls subjective, objective, based on philosophy.

As another example, we all enjoy different foods, from around the country and world, from spicy to bland, from surf to turf. We are each objective to our own individual and sometimes unique tastes. However, our personal preferences will be called subjective, not because you as a person are unable to analyze the hard evidence of your unique personal preferences; unique excitement and enjoyment, etc., but because others cannot climb into your skin to see your unique objective evidence, as you see it. The Philosophy of science only applies to half of your full objective reality. It applies to the social you, but it does not fully apply to the individual you.

Often in philosophy and Eastern Religions, claims are made that language and thought define reality. The world is an illusion. Data is processed inside us first and impacts what we wish to believe in terms of explaining collective sensory expectations. Science forms theory, which amounts to an internal assessment of evidence, that we then try to support via collective external evidence. Theory changes with time, which means it was never really externally objective, but the evidence merely fit our collective expectations; old theory, until those expired.

As another example, the Russian Collusion Coup was conjured in the minds of leadership. They then tried to find data and evidence that appeared to support their theory, stemming from their internal reality; paranoia. Millions of people thought this was being objective by the standards of science, since so many could see the evidence. But it was really external reality being molded to a theory, that had been formed within internal reality; sensory expectations. This was sort of a magic trick, to fool the collective senses, into believing that the laws of common sense could be violated. What one was actually seeing was their internal reality, projected into external reality. It took a large scale investigation of that theory, to disprove it. It was really external reality reversed engineered, from a theory induced within inner reality.

Part of the social problem is since the philosophy of science excludes the inner world, science lacks sufficient insight as to how this inner world can impact their perceptions of external objectivity. What is called a done deal in science can still be an illusion reverse engineered, to fool the senses; magic trick.

For example, the standard BB model and other cosmology models are not sure how to explain the latest evidence of fast forming galaxies, so early in the universe, when the theoretical expectations did not see this coming. I have the advantage of learning from both areas of objectivity; internal and external. I am not convinced that manmade climate change, for example, was not reverse engineered to fit sensory expectations.

My gut feeling is based on the earth naturally going through climate change cycles with a billion years of geological evidence, up and down to extremes, apart from humans. The magic trick it to make natural cycle seem to imply the unnatural, so seeing is believing. This theory comes from the same people who ran the collusion coup and who proved they can do a good magic tricks for their base. Beyond that, current earth theory does not yet include lots of new provocative evidences such as more water hidden under the crust that is on the surface. Sensory expectations is based on theory nearing its expiration date.

The manmade and natural parallel, for the magic trick, is analogous to the magic trick that some animals do X, therefore it is natural for human to also do X. You can see the animals for yourself; sensory expectation. But that does not prove anything unless you also know how the operating system of the human brain is organized. That type of data is lacking, since science cannot go there, so a magic trick can be performed behind that wall. We will have to wait and see. Statistical makes magic easier since there is never zero odds, so anything seems possible if hustled the right way.

 

[Nakosis]

That's incorrect. I have abandoned hope that theists on RF will ever learn what atheists believe. The correct position is at the top of this reply. Why don't you spend a few minutes looking at it and thinking about it, and perhaps the miracle of a theist learning this fact will be in evidence when you eventually update your claim to reflect what atheists actually say - an opportunity for you to demonstrate to the world that you are still capable of learning.

Perhaps they can't wrap their head around the idea of being comfortable with one's own ignorance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The philosophy of science limits itself to evidence that comes to us, from outside, through our five senses. This external sensory evidence allow a collective standard, by which we all can participate, for collective verification of external reality. Our five sense work pretty much the same for all. We should all be able to see or sense the same evidence that is outside us.
...

That is just one version of empiricism. In my country we in effect use another version of empiricism and thus have a different version of science.
So in effect there is no one philosophy of science but let not that stop you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods and an agnostic because I do not declare that they cannot or do not exist.

..bit of a contradiction..
You say that it is possible that God exists, but you think it highly unlikely.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps they can't wrap their head around the idea of being comfortable with one's own ignorance.

Well, I know nothing and I don't even know that. But that is just one version of understanding knowledge. But that is philosophy of science and even more generally philosophy as such.

 

[PureX]

It is possible too then, that God does not exist and you must consider that as evidence too.

Yes, that is true.

I didn't say a vivid imagination was nothing, but that some possibilities are nothing more than a vivid imagination.

All possibilities are the result of imagination.

I did not relegate imagination to nothing either.

... "Nothing more than"... implies something less than.

But what you have to do is show that possibilities are more than just imagined and your evidence is not evidence of what you claim.

Why do you keep denigrating imagination? All of what we call "reality" is imagined. ALL OF IT. "Actual" reality is just a bunch of incoherent sensory input, to us.

I see evidence that humans ask questions. Evidence that we can think about things that go beyond what our senses perceive. Evidence that we can extend these musing into something that may or may not be real, but that some of us begin to see it as real.

The phenomenon is already "real". This is what you don't seem to be grasping. "Reality" is a conceptual phenomenon created by our imaginations. Everything else is just incoherent sensory input.

None of that means what is believed is real. It isn't evidence for the possible reality, but for those postulating it as reality.

We are all always "postulating reality". All the time. You keep trying to imply that doing this is somehow objectionable. When it fact it's inevitable as it's the human condition.

You say that the evideence of God being possible is not useful or relevant because it does not convince you that God eists and more than it convinces you that God does not exist. But that's your problem. The evidence stands regardless. The truth does not exist to be revealed to you. It simply is what is. God is possible. That is the truth. So those who believe that God is "reality" are being as honest and logical as those that do not. This seems to be something that many atheists really don't want to recognize. And instead want to disparage as "mere imagination". When in fact it's no more or less imaginative than anyone else's imagined reality.

 

[exchemist]

..bit of a contradiction..
You say that it is possible that God exists, but you think it highly unlikely.

There's not really a contradiction there, surely? We all have beliefs based on probability, and sometimes intuition or instinct, rather than certainty, for many - if not all - things in life. For instance I believe, with a high degree of conviction, that throughout our happy marriage my wife was faithful to me. But I have to be open to the logical possibility that she deceived me.

The world is not black and white and we can always be surprised by things not being what we thought, but at the same time we all need to take a view on issues, or we would be paralysed by our indecision.