Facts vs evidence

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my mind, evidence has to be sufficient that it would stand up in court, under cross-examination.
Facts are 'bits' of evidence that help support the hypothesis.

Yeah, as longs as you don't cross this line:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[PureX]

In my mind, evidence has to be sufficient that it would stand up in court, under cross-examination.
Facts are 'bits' of evidence that help support the hypothesis.

Evidence does not have to be convincing to be evidence. It's why we have trials in the first place: to determine if the existing evidence is convincing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That wasn't the point.

Yes it is easy to find Christian, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Marxists, Nazis, etc who persecuted people for holding the wrong religious views, the point in question was about religious people persecuting people for science/proto-science.

People commonly assume there must be lots because "everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that" but the fact remains no one can ever name any of them beside Galileo (and even that is far from straightforward).



Darwin is dead, you can't "persecute" dead people.

This reflects the common mistake though, people look at modern US-style fundies and assume they are representative of "religionists" throughout history rather than being something quite modern and unusual.

I'm more than happy to agree modern US fundies are often anti-science though, no quibbles there.

But historically speaking, all of the diatribes about how backward and anti-science religion have to start by explaining why the church was the biggest funder of scientific activities, scientific education and text preservation, and why religious clerics are significantly overrepresented in the history of scientific advances.

Of course there are complexities and negatives, but it's largely pointless to even try to discuss these rationally when the start point in some comic book version of the conflict thesis. After all "everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that" (which is what I thought too until I actually looked at the evidence).

I find it interesting to ask people if they can name any people who were killed or persecuted and see if the fact they can't name more than 1 historical figure makes them question their initial assumption about it being common (99% of the time it doesn't, the response is "even if I can't name any, everyone knows there are lots because everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that".




Classic RF where someone fails to understand what words actually mean in context, even when corrected and it it is explicitly spelled out, then claims they have noticed a fallacy.

Try reading better.



Then you were hallucinating.

I didn't assume there were lots. You said name some as if they didn't exist, and they do.

YOU should try reading better. Especially the stuff YOU wrote. And you're right, that is classic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does anyone want to discuss what evidence and facts are or is just going to be people harping on their favorite tangential minutia?

It is classic RF for a thread to last a couple of posts before it becomes "Ice cream is a better glue than anchovies, prove me wrong".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does anyone want to discuss what evidence and facts are or is just going to be people harping on their favorite tangential minutia?

It is classic RF for a thread to last a couple of posts before it becomes "Ice cream is a better glue than anchovies, prove me wrong".

They are cognitive norms in regards to a class of experiences and models of how those add up with norms of how to add up. Now the key feature is objective. The joke is that even objective because that is also a norm, has different versions.

So that was an answer with a set of norms within sociology, because apparently science is observable as a human behavior and described using a version of science, which according to other versions is not really science. And off to the races, we are.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't assume there were lots. You said name some as if they didn't exist, and they do.

Then you should have no problem naming at least one of them rather than simply insisting they must exist even though neither you or anyone else in this thread can name any

As I’ve said many times, I’m perfectly open to accepting their existence as soon as I see any evidence.

Does anyone want to discuss what evidence and facts are

Evidence for people being killed by religious folk for their science would be examples of such people being killed for their science.

Simply asserting everyone knows such people exist while not being able to offer a single example is not meaningful evidence for this claim. Neither is claiming someone executed for calling Trinitarians polytheists was a martyr for religious opposition to science, or claiming someone killed by secular authorities for tax avoidance was a martyr for science.

Facts would be if any meaningful evidence presented can be verified beyond doubt.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you should have no problem naming at least one of them rather than simply insisting they must exist even though neither you or anyone else in this thread can name any

This is one of those classic RF lines you lamented and then jumped right into practicing. I never insisted they must exist. In fact, I doubt that there are many examples of it. I just responded with some names off the top of my head that fit the bill.

I did name some. You dismissed them, but you are not the final say in this. I don't agree with your dismissal and see it as biased.

As I’ve said many times,

Where? How man is many , considering this line of the thread is only a couple of days old. Your positive and unsupported hyperbole is also classic.

I’m perfectly open to accepting their existence as soon as I see any evidence.

I don't believe you and I don't care. Your response to the original post does not speak of someone willing and open to acceptance. It was a very closed response in my opinion.

You dismiss the persecution of Darwin and other dead scientists under the blanket dismissal that the dead cannot be persecuted. I disagree. They may no longer feel the wrath and effects of persecution, but they can still be subjected to it and are.

The fact that the point of the entire line of thought is and remains that you do not see scientists launching inquisitions and torturing and killing scientific heretics. That is the point. One you carefully excised in your response by quote mining. There is evidence of that.

Evidence for people being killed by religious folk for their science would be examples of such people being killed for their science.

Simply asserting everyone knows such people exist while not being able to offer a single example is not meaningful evidence for this claim. Neither is claiming someone executed for calling Trinitarians polytheists was a martyr for religious opposition to science, or claiming someone killed by secular authorities for tax avoidance was a martyr for science.

Facts would be if any meaningful evidence presented can be verified beyond doubt.

I gave you evidence. If only one would be sufficient, then I would say it is Giordano Bruno. His claims about the motion of the Earth were heretical. He claimed that Earth wasn't unique and there were perhaps many worlds like it inhabited by things even the Church didn't know about. He is a martyr for many issues it seems.

But I don't think you care. I think in good classical, unofficial RF style, you are out to win the rhetorical argument by stomping your opponents to bits and blood bubbles.

By the way, Lavoisier was executed under the authority of the Church and even if they didn't do it for his scientific work, pleas to save him for his scientific contributions fell on deaf ears. Only after his death was he exonerated of the charges. It was such a very nice act that had no meaning to his life.

You may continue to let this hang in your head, but it was trivial to me to begin with and I've already spent too much time on this blind tangent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, as longs as you don't cross this line:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I suppose you could cross the line, but it wouldn't hold up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They are cognitive norms in regards to a class of experiences and models of how those add up with norms of how to add up. Now the key feature is objective. The joke is that even objective because that is also a norm, has different versions.

So that was an answer with a set of norms within sociology, because apparently science is observable as a human behavior and described using a version of science, which according to other versions is not really science. And off to the races, we are.

I'm not certain I follow. Are you saying that the norms of a discipline are relative within discipline and less relevant outside the discipline?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not suggesting to take someone's word for it. I'm saying there can be subject evidence that can be looked at objectively. I'm also saying philosophical debate is a merry go round that may not lead anywhere. I'm saying philosophical debate is unavoidable and no amount of evidence is going to absolutely negate the other side's position. They'll look at the very same evidence and draw contrary conclusions in science vs. religion debates.

I agree that a strictly philosophical debate can go in endless circles and is often unavoidable.

The problem isn't just looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. It is that many of those looking at the evidence don't understand it, don't understand how it was acquired or much about it at all. They often just declare contrary conclusions that they would have if no evidence had been available to begin with.

It is for this reason, among others, I rather like the idea of this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Responding to @Dan From Smithville you say "it's not many"
but now it's not any.


Whatevs.

I should have gone with "Whatevs" myself.

 

[osgart]

I agree that a strictly philosophical debate can go in endless circles and is often unavoidable.

The problem isn't just looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. It is that many of those looking at the evidence don't understand it, don't understand how it was acquired or much about it at all. They often just declare contrary conclusions that they would have if no evidence had been available to begin with.

It is for this reason, among others, I rather like the idea of this thread.

I'm wondering how that evidence applies to religion in general though. Evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology will overlap with specific religious claims coming from certain scriptures. Not much of a debate there other than denial from the religious.

I admit I have a lot of science to catch up on. I read what all the critical thinkers provide on this forum and that throws me into different studies. But I don't see why people might be adamant about everyone must conclude that naturalism is true. As a method naturalism certainly is powerful because it restricts everything to the physical. My sense is that tangible evidence has its limits and there's very good reasons why naturalism is just a philosophy.

Now I've seen Aaron Ra and Jerry Coyne videos on evidence and evolution. I admit that evolution happens. I've been reading a book entitled "Sapiens" . This is all fascinating science and philosophy. I still don't see how it applies to general religious and spiritual convictions arrived at through subjective evidence. Other then that I have a strong intuition that natural intelligence is a process that produces consciousness. I don't see how naturalism is anything more than intuition to the contrary.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't rule out that there could be some, as with anything I'm open to evidence on the issue.

It's just for many people (as this thread illustrates), their absolute unshakeable confidence that there are numerous examples is completely unaffected by their inability to name a single one of them.

As you note, scientists and other academics are prone to squabbles, often quite bitter and no doubt some of those have used whatever institutional power they have access to.

Richard Owen springs to mind as a particularly mean spirited example:

Richard Owen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

OK, but then there are scientists who will squash another scientist's career because of selfishness.

 

[Audie]

I should have gone with "Whatevs" myself.

I felt it had the appropriate tone

 

[We Never Know]

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?

Do facts support evidence? Does evidence support facts?
Do they compliment each other?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you should have no problem naming at least one of them rather than simply insisting they must exist even though neither you or anyone else in this thread can name any

As I’ve said many times, I’m perfectly open to accepting their existence as soon as I see any evidence.



Evidence for people being killed by religious folk for their science would be examples of such people being killed for their science.

Simply asserting everyone knows such people exist while not being able to offer a single example is not meaningful evidence for this claim. Neither is claiming someone executed for calling Trinitarians polytheists was a martyr for religious opposition to science, or claiming someone killed by secular authorities for tax avoidance was a martyr for science.

Facts would be if any meaningful evidence presented can be verified beyond doubt.

Agreed. There's always an excuse, and then if you ask too many questions of some people, and they are in power (like kings), they can squash you.

 

[Audie]

Do facts support evidence? Does evidence support facts?
Do they compliment each other?

One may well be in possession of a fact.

I don't believe anyone has an evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not certain I follow. Are you saying that the norms of a discipline are relative within discipline and less relevant outside the discipline?

Yes, there is no strong objective version of science, philosophy and religion. They are all in effect cognitive constructs. The closest you can get to objective as neutral is to state how it works. That is the trick with objective in the end. You just describe and don't evaluate.

But that I chose to describe and not evaluate, is a subjective choice in me.

 

[Augustus]

I did name some. You dismissed them, but you are not the final say in this. I don't agree with your dismissal and see it as biased.

I gave you evidence. If only one would be sufficient, then I would say it is Giordano Bruno. His claims about the motion of the Earth were heretical. He claimed that Earth wasn't unique and there were perhaps many worlds like it inhabited by things even the Church didn't know about. He is a martyr for many issues it seems.

Seeing as you have decided I'm biased and have an anti-science agenda or some other figment of your imagination, I will use a peer-reviewed verbatim quote:

in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology, and this is clearly shown in Finocchiaro’s reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno (see also Blumenberg’s part 3, chapter 5, titled “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno”).

Nicolaus Copernicus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

He was killed for saying many things that definitively were heretical such as Jesus wasn't god, Mary wasn't a virgin and basically denying all of the Catholic Church's main doctrines and preaching things like reincarnation.

He is certainly a martyr for free speech and a martyr for religious toleration but he wasn't killed for his science and he wasn't really a scientist in the sense of a Copernicus, Brahe or Galileo anyway. He was more of a mystic who speculated on things that we now consider to be scientific.


If you are interested in a longer explanation regarding the myth Giordano Bruno was a Martyr for Science

I don't believe you and I don't care. Your response to the original post does not speak of someone willing and open to acceptance. It was a very closed response in my opinion.

I asked a simple question in good faith "can you give any evidence in favour of the claim you just made". Then multiple people got precious because they couldn't provide any evidence in support of their claim, insisted it doesn't matter as they are still definitely right and that asking them to provide evidence is evidence I have some nefarious agenda.

When asked what the point of the question was, I noted that when people realise they can't provide any evidence, this has no impact on their conviction that they are right, which is something that multiple posters have proved perfectly well by resorting to accusations of bias, petty quibbling, changing the scope of the question and offering irrelevant examples, Bruno is the only one that really even merits a response.

Still no actual examples though.

By the way, Lavoisier was executed under the authority of the Church and even if they didn't do it for his scientific work, pleas to save him for his scientific contributions fell on deaf ears. Only after his death was he exonerated of the charges. It was such a very nice act that had no meaning to his life.

Thank you for confirming he wasn't an example that supports your claim.

The fact that the point of the entire line of thought is and remains that you do not see scientists launching inquisitions and torturing and killing scientific heretics. That is the point.

That's never been the point. The point was "can you name anyone killed by religionists for their science?"

Nothing else. No agenda. Simple question regarding factual history. Either you can name one and I learn something new, or you can't and I can test my theory that this inability will have no impact on the confidence with which you hold your belief.

Ironically, I can actually name a scientist who has had numerous people killed for "scientific heresy" (See Lysenkoism, and more broadly science in the USSR if you are interested in learning something) but it's irrelevant to the point I was making so do with it what you will.

"Team science" v "team religion" tribalism is reductive and minimises critical thinking on both sides.

 

[Augustus]

OK, but then there are scientists who will squash another scientist's career because of selfishness.

Agreed. There's always an excuse, and then if you ask too many questions of some people, and they are in power (like kings), they can squash you.

Humans of all walks of life will leverage institutional power to benefit themselves. If you are president of China you have a lot of institutional power to leverage, if you are head of department at a university, you have much less.

Given many academics are remarkably petty (as you can see from public science disputes) and many humans are vindictive, of course scientists have used institutional power against intellectual enemies ("heretics") to deny them jobs, damage their reputation, try to get them defunded, etc.

(See for example Ancel Keys' hostility to John Yudkin regarding the latter's contention sugar was worse than fat when the orthodoxy was that fat was the big evil)

Scientists tend not to have held positions where they have had significant power to enforce uniformity, but when they did, scientists in the USSR persecuted (which ultimately killed) other scientists for "heresy".

Religion aligned with institutional power can be abusive, but so can just about everything else. This is one of the problems when looking back on history and judge the impact of something like religion as opposed to looking at the general way institutional power was exercised in society as a whole, and how religion fits into this broader context (The Galileo affair is interesting in this regard, and why Galileo faced problems but someone like Copernicus did not).