Facts vs evidence

[Valjean]

By definition, a miracle does not generate probabilities because it is an unexplained phenomenon. How desperately you are trying to explain it away (by determining that it's naturally explainable) is your own issue.

It's defined as naturally impossible.

If they were fortuitous, and unexplained, yes. You seem to think the word defines the phenomena. It doesn't. It defines our experience and valuation of the phenomena. If, by our experience, it is unexplained (as it is by definition), it's illogical to then presume it must be explainable as a natural or unnatural phenomena.

So miraculous doesn't apply to objective phenomena, but to personal, individual experience?

But if it's not explainable, then you can't know if it violated natural law or not. You are just blindly presuming it to be so. Which is not especially logical unless you have some other means apart from knowledge for choosing such a presumption. (Like you really WANT miracles to be supernatural whether they are or not.)

It's defined as a violation of natural law; as a phenomenon violating the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, gravity, &c.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's defined as naturally impossible.

So miraculous doesn't apply to objective phenomena, but to personal, individual experience?

It's defined as a violation of natural law; as a phenomenon violating the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, gravity, &c.

So if a miracle is defined as naturally impossible, is it the definition that makes it impossible?
I am confused. Are you saying a definition is magical and makes something a fact by virtue of being a definition. I.e. the act of defining something makes it a fact?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me that when a scientist or a scientifically minded person asks "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", what they are really asking is "what facts support your claim?"

I think it may help resolve our debates on whether such things as alleged witness testimonies of the Bible constitute "evidence", because whilst a testimony could be factual or fabricated it may be considered "evidence" from a purely legal perspective, the legal perspective considers there to be "false evidence".

From wikipedia;
'False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case.'

Source: False evidence - Wikipedia.

By comparison i would argue there is no such thing as a false fact, only things believed justifiably or unjustifiably to be fact.

So I think it would help to separate witness testimony which could be considered admissible in a court as evidence whether false or true from fact and instead ask the question, "what facts support your claim" in the place of "what evidence supports your claim" so as not to invite the potentially false evidence of testimony being presented as valid where I think it can be argued that it is not such as with regard to supernatural or miracle claims.

Your thoughts?

A fact is a thing (data, information, observation, etc.) that is known, demonstrated and agreed to be true according to my summary of recently viewed definitions.

Evidence is a body of facts or information used to support a position, belief, proposition or claim. Summarized by me as above.

These words speak of related concepts and are often synonymized in conversation.

Evidence can be one or more facts used to support a claim.

Darwin for instance, used numerous facts as evidence for his formulation of the theory of evolution and natural selection. Who knew I would use that example?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me that when a scientist or a scientifically minded person asks "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", what they are really asking is "what facts support your claim?"

I think it may help resolve our debates on whether such things as alleged witness testimonies of the Bible constitute "evidence", because whilst a testimony could be factual or fabricated it may be considered "evidence" from a purely legal perspective, the legal perspective considers there to be "false evidence".

From wikipedia;
'False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case.'

Source: False evidence - Wikipedia.

By comparison i would argue there is no such thing as a false fact, only things believed justifiably or unjustifiably to be fact.

So I think it would help to separate witness testimony which could be considered admissible in a court as evidence whether false or true from fact and instead ask the question, "what facts support your claim" in the place of "what evidence supports your claim" so as not to invite the potentially false evidence of testimony being presented as valid where I think it can be argued that it is not such as with regard to supernatural or miracle claims.

Your thoughts?

It is a fact that this topic interests me and that fact along with my participation here is evidence of that interest.

From many examples, I recognize that there are those that view what they believe true to be a fact merely for them believing it is.

Believe, belief and believing are often not based on facts and rarely logical. Or they appear to be confined to a logic within the scope of what is believed, but with the limitation that the believed basis remains undemonstrated.

The falseness of evidence is relative to a degree I would think. False evidence is in itself evidence of something, but not, by definition, evidence of what is being proposed, claimed or charged where it is recognized or discovered to be false as the case me be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are trying to eliminate testimony in religious debates. This will be the shortest debate in history.

Many faithful feel strongly that revelation of God is evidence for God. Revelation is prophetic, and subjective.

Argument from Revelation. There is an argument to prove that god exists. It is based upon sacred scripture. It is based on the belief that god has revealed god's existence to humans through the creation or inspiration of the text, which is then thought to be a sacred text.
Queensborough Community College › intro_text
Argument from Revelation



If we remove this type of argument and stick to facts and what can be inferred from facts then it'll end up being a philosophical debate.

There's no way to proceed with debate strictly using objective facts. Imo.

I think debate is more fruitful if one introduces a claim and the opponent makes a counter claim. That way both have to defend their claims.

Debates using strictly objective facts would be scientific debates.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence such as testimony is evaluated by its source = a method that works for courtrooms and for debates.
Science evaluates hypotheses via experimentation, which is why it is not well-suited to a courtroom or to a debate.
Placing too much emphasis on science to resolve every question leads to the problem that science doesn't actually resolve every question.

But the use of facts and evidence obtained through science is well-suited for use in courts. The problem that I have seen arise using science is the limited and varied understanding of the science and techniques used to obtain that evidence as perceived by the court officers and juries.

While it is not the fault of science, the information obtained from science can be manipulated and misused to confuse and obfuscate judges and juries. This has and is done outside of courts too, over many issues pertinent to public and private sectors.

Perhaps that is why discussions like this are very useful to learn to better understand and evaluate facts and evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is a fact that this topic interests me and that fact along with my participation here is evidence of that interest.

From many examples, I recognize that there are those that view what they believe true to be a fact merely for them believing it is.

Believe, belief and believing are often not based on facts and rarely logical. Or they appear to be confined to a logic within the scope of what is believed, but with the limitation that the believed basis remains undemonstrated.

The falseness of evidence is relative to a degree I would think. False evidence is in itself evidence of something, but not, by definition, evidence of what is being proposed, claimed or charged where it is recognized or discovered to be false as the case me be.

The problem is what makes a fact a fact.
The classical problem is that it sometimes ends up as a self-referring negation.
A fact is only that which I can observe. The problem is that, the statement itself according to its own norm/rule/definition is not a fact. It is not observed. It is somebody thinking that.

So another version is that science is what works according to a set of collective rules. That is in a sense a sociological observation. Science is a limited set of human behaviors in relation to a set of collective rules.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your OP is well-phrased and extremely good to keep in mind.... but far too optimistic/overly hopeful that the religious folks would even attempt to hold to scientific methodology. As stated above, the faithful consider testimony (by those supporting their beliefs) to be true and unbiased, and their holy text(s) to be infallible.

Unfortunately, we have lost the "Optimistic" frubal.

You don't need to be a scientist, referring to or using science to employ or need an understanding of what facts and evidence are and how to use them logically in arguments to explain and defend a proposition.

The problem with believed views is that the main premise of the believer is that what they believe is established in their minds as fact merely by believing it. How they came to this position can be for many different reasons, but it all amounts to the same thing. They consider their belief to be the established position and that all others have to prove them wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is what makes a fact a fact.
The classical problem is that it sometimes ends up as a self-referring negation.
A fact is only that which I can observe. The problem is that, the statement itself according to its own norm/rule/definition is not a fact. It is not observed. It is somebody thinking that.

So another version is that science is what works according to a set of collective rules. That is in a sense a sociological observation. Science is a limited set of human behaviors in relation to a set of collective rules.

That sort of relates to what I just wrote. And also why I mentioned facts as agreed upon to be considered correct and accepted as fact.

I think we would agree that the subject of this thread is a fact, though we are communicating them in the abstract of written language with all the caveats of ambiguity and translation that exist between page and brain for each individual.

Does a fact have to be observed to be recognized as fact? I cannot observe all 8 billion people estimated to exist or the accuracy of that estimation, but I accept it as a fact based on other reasons and other facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't need to be a scientist, referring to or using science to employ or need an understanding of what facts and evidence are and how to use them logically in arguments to explain and defend a proposition.

The problem with believed views is that the main premise of the believer is that what they believe is established in their minds as fact merely by believing it. How they came to this position can be for many different reasons, but it all amounts to the same thing. They consider their belief to be the established position and that all others have to prove them wrong.

Well, I learned to be a skeptic, before I became religious, so my religious beliefs are mine. For the everyday world I am a leftie and believe in democracy, the welfare state and human rights. So my religious beliefs are only a fact to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is what makes a fact a fact.
The classical problem is that it sometimes ends up as a self-referring negation.
A fact is only that which I can observe. The problem is that, the statement itself according to its own norm/rule/definition is not a fact. It is not observed. It is somebody thinking that.

So another version is that science is what works according to a set of collective rules. That is in a sense a sociological observation. Science is a limited set of human behaviors in relation to a set of collective rules.

I'm not sure I can find fault with that definition of science in a general way. Was it still science before we discovered these rules? Is it still science despite the rules yet to be discovered?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I learned to be a skeptic, before I became religious, so my religious beliefs are mine. For the everyday world I am a leftie and believe in democracy, the welfare state and human rights. So my religious beliefs are only a fact to me.

That illustrates the broader categories of facts as subjective and objective.

It might be a fact that I believe I am Napoleon from subjective facts and evidence, but others will find no objective reason to conclude I am Napoleon. It is a fact that I use Napoleon as my example out of a bias for former cultural use of the late emperor.

Two men claim to be Napoleon. One of them must be wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I learned to be a skeptic, before I became religious, so my religious beliefs are mine. For the everyday world I am a leftie and believe in democracy, the welfare state and human rights. So my religious beliefs are only a fact to me.

I grew up in religion and skepticism concurrently. I accept some things purely out of belief and others more broadly out of a demand for evidence.

I recall asking questions as a child in church that seemed to make adults uncomfortable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure I can find fault with that definition of science in a general way. Was it still science before we discovered these rules? Is it still science despite the rules yet to be discovered?

Yeah, the anarchistic version is that anything goes as long as agreed upon. That one is even a little bit to anarchistic to me.
But yes, if science is a self-correcting process then even what that is, is a self-correcting process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I grew up in religion and skepticism concurrently. I accept some things purely out of belief and others more broadly out of a demand for evidence.

I recall asking questions as a child in church that seemed to make adults uncomfortable.

Well, I grew up in a secular society in a teacher foamily and was taught to look in the books. But I learned to ask uncomfortable questions later. I am in a sense a bit naive.

 

[osgart]

Debates using strictly objective facts would be scientific debates.

That's true if you assume everything to be explainable by physical objective facts. Otherwise there are things inferred from objective facts that are philosophical. In a science vs. religion debate their shouldn't be such assumptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Related terms that are often commonly referenced in similar discussions are:

common sense-good sense and sound judgment in practical matters

common knowledge-something known by most people

logic-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

reasoning-the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way

logical fallacies-deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion, but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination

I think these are terms important to better understand the subject of this thread. Skill at the employment of these varies, but can be improved in my opinion. Hopefully, here is one place for us all to learn a little bit towards that effort.

I just grabbed the first definitions I could find on Google and don't consider these in stone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I grew up in a secular society in a teacher foamily and was taught to look in the books. But I learned to ask uncomfortable questions later. I am in a sense a bit naive.

It sounds familiar. Review of existing work was the first step I was taught, though I did not understand it for that until later in life.

I'm a bit naive myself.

 

[Valjean]

So if a miracle is defined as naturally impossible, is it the definition that makes it impossible?
I am confused. Are you saying a definition is magical and makes something a fact by virtue of being a definition. I.e. the act of defining something makes it a fact?

It's the violation of natural law, like the sun stopping in the sky, turning water to wine, &al that defines Miracle. This is how a miracle is generally understood, not as something merely perplexing or astonishing, but as something that would be impossible, given all everyday experience or with reference to established physics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's true if you assume everything to be explainable by physical objective facts. Otherwise there are things inferred from objective facts that are philosophical. In a science vs. religion debate their shouldn't be such assumptions.

Well, there have to be some or we get this: I am right in my understandings, because I am right. And that means you are wrong.
You wouldn't accept that, so why should I, if somebody else does that.