Facts vs evidence

[YoursTrue]

Humans of all walks of life will leverage institutional power to benefit themselves.

Well, yes, that's true. After Eve's sin, she was put in subjection to Adam. It was not a thrilling situation for her. But you are reminding me of what is written in the Bible about Solomon the King and the subsequent breakaway of the nation into two separate parts, led by two kings. Before that though, the people wanted a king like the other nations around them. The prophet told them that wouldn't be the greatest way to go but the people insisted and so kingship was set up. This did not lead to happiness for all. So the expression in the Bible that man has dominated man to his harm certainly applies no matter what.
Ecclesiastes 8:9 - *****All of this I have seen, and I applied my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his harm.*****
But! -- one day it will change for the better. Not by man's invention, but by God.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 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.



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



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.

Scientists of sorts have stopped performing lobotomies for the most part also. One of the more famous cases was that of a sister of John F. Kennedy who had a lobotomy because they believed it would calm her down. The result for that was tragic. As you say, there are more. Does that mean I don't go to doctors? No, I go to doctors and receive treatment when I deem necessary.
Thanks for your post.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Thank you for your post. I just read a report about a company doing trials, not one trial of their pharmaceuticals came out the winner, meaning really helped -- and, of course, despite a doctor prescribing meds immediately upon occasion, the ads (not the doctor) say 'watch out, it could cause death.' (lol) Gotta be careful. Watch who you trust.
You gotta wonder why someone would imagine that figuring about how the universe "came about" has more clout than those of testable pharmaceuticals. (I'm laughing here...)
Notice, "Over the past 25 years, pharmaceutical companies deceptively promoted opioid use in ways that were often neither safe nor effective, contributing to unprecedented increases in prescribing, opioid use disorder, and deaths by overdose. "

How FDA Failures Contributed to the Opioid Crisis

Pharma has long marketed opioids in ways that contribute to opioid use disorder and deaths by overdose. Regulatory mistakes in approving and labeling new analgesics by the FDA didn’t make us safer.

journalofethics.ama-assn.org

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Well, your suggestion is what we've seen on the Forums from the beginning -- endless, fruitless back-and-forth based only on "I believe/don't believe" criteria. Without establishiing some facts that can be agreed upon by both side, no argument ever has any hope of resolution.

The true downside to that, by the way, is that nobody learns anything, either.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, your suggestion is what we've seen on the Forums from the beginning -- endless, fruitless back-and-forth based only on "I believe/don't believe" criteria. Without establishiing some facts that can be agreed upon by both side, no argument ever has any hope of resolution.

The true downside to that, by the way, is that nobody learns anything, either.

Well, maybe this is how the world works:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[osgart]

Well, your suggestion is what we've seen on the Forums from the beginning -- endless, fruitless back-and-forth based only on "I believe/don't believe" criteria. Without establishiing some facts that can be agreed upon by both side, no argument ever has any hope of resolution.

The true downside to that, by the way, is that nobody learns anything, either.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying that's all it ever is. And when objective facts are introduced it becomes philosophical interpretation of those facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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:

I didn't say you were biased. Read it again. I'll post it for you. "I don't agree with your dismissal and see it as biased.

Kind of funny how you berate the unofficial RF mentality while embracing it with gusto.

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

You found a source that agrees with you. Congratulations.

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 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.



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



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.

You may be right. Perhaps there are no good examples of people dying at the hands of religious for science. I guess they just are killed for so many other reasons, nothing further was needed.

Your style seemed to indicate that you would keep escalating this until I was beaten down. Congratulations on that too.

The original point that you don't see anyone in science or with a scientific opinion imprison, torture our kill people of religion, but even metaphorically, as here, the religious certainly do that to others.

You have a wonderful day. Thanks for playing.

 

[Audie]

I didn't say you were biased. Read it again. I'll post it for you. "I don't agree with your dismissal and see it as biased.

Kind of funny how you berate the unofficial RF mentality while embracing it with gusto.

You found a source that agrees with you. Congratulations.

You may be right. Perhaps there are no good examples of people dying at the hands of religious for science. I guess they just are killed for so many other reasons, nothing further was needed.

Your style seemed to indicate that you would keep escalating this until I was beaten down. Congratulations on that too.

The original point that you don't see anyone in science or with a scientific opinion imprison, torture our kill people of religion, but even metaphorically, as here, the religious certainly do that to others.

You have a wonderful day. Thanks for playing.

As for playing, ya gotta know when to walk away.

 

[Augustus]

You may be right. Perhaps there are no good examples of people dying at the hands of religious for science

Which was the point of asking the question in the first place.

Yet, for some reason, folk often get precious at the possibility that there might not be any.

The original point that you don't see anyone in science or with a scientific opinion imprison, torture our kill people of religion,

Science isn't ideology so comparing it to religion is a category error.

People who hold rationalistic ideologies have certainly tortured and killed religious people though as they viewed religion as an impediment to progress. French Revolution was based on Enlightenment principles, The Young Turks embraced Positivism, Marxists (mistakenly) thought they were applying scientific principles to society, etc.

The problem is not "science" or "religion" but the fact that humans are a violent and oppressive species and thus frequently abuse institutional power when they acquire.

You have a wonderful day. Thanks for playing.

You too

 

[PureX]

"Facts As Evidence" ... and evidence as proof".

A VERY common misconception I see being expressed around here all the time regarding evidence is that; "if it's not convincing, it's not evidence". Meaning, essentially, that I get to decide what is evience and what isn't according to whether or not it supports my conviction. And that is clearly a grossly biased position and standard. Yet I see people take this position all the time on here. Mostly from atheists proclaiming endlessly and vociferously that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that God/gods exist. Which is clearly and patently false. And yet those making this proclamation will seldom relent. They have set themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence, based on whether they have been convinced of it's voracity, and they are not about to give up that absurdly biased advantage.

Are YOU one for these people? Are you able to see why that is an absurdly biased position to take? Can you understand that there is always going to be evidence both for and against any proposition whether or not you accept or reject it's validity?

 

[Twilight Hue]

As for playing, ya gotta know when to walk away.

That's what Kenny Rogers sang.

 

[Audie]

"Facts As Evidence" ... and evidence as proof".

A VERY common misconception I see being expressed around here all the time regarding evidence is that; "if it's not convincing, it's not evidence". Meaning, essentially, that I get to decide what is evience and what isn't according to whether or not it supports my conviction. And that is clearly a grossly biased position and standard. Yet I see people take this position all the time on here. Mostly from atheists proclaiming endlessly and vociferously that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that God/gods exist. Which is clearly and patently false. And yet those making this proclamation will seldom relent. They have set themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence, based on whether they have been convinced of it's voracity, and they are not about to give up that absurd advantage.

Are YOU one for this people? Are you able to see why that is an absurdly biased position to take? Can you understand that there is always going to be evidence both for and against any proposition whether or not you accept or reject it's validity?

And yet as with "scientism" no living
example - or shall we say fact / evdence,
can be produced.

As for your clear and patent evidence re God
claim, we'll, sure there is "evidence". The absurdly
biased don't distinguish among plausible, feasible
and specious evidence or matching reasons for
rejecting said evidences.
Nothung but specious evidence for "god" and
you figure its absurd to consider reject it.
That's some philosophy.

The anti science religionists, and " philosophers"
specialize in the specious.

As, yes, "evidenced" by ongoing failure to
come forth with an actual of example,
whether of "scientism", actual evidence for God,
or such as the Cambrian bunny to drove ToE.

All talk no action.

 

[PureX]

And yet as with "scientism" no living
example - or shall we say fact / evdence,
can be produced.

As for your clear and patent evidence re God
claim, we'll, sure there is "evidence". The absurdly
biased don't distinguish among plausible, feasible
and specious evidence or matching reasons for
rejecting said evidences.
Nothung but specious evidence for "god" and
you figure its absurd to consider reject it.
That's some philosophy.

The anti science religionists, and " philosophers"
specialize in the specious.

As, yes, "evidenced" by ongoing failure to
come forth with an actual of example,
whether of "scientism", actual evidence for God,
or such as the Cambrian bunny to drove ToE.

All talk no action.

The depth of your blindness is awsome!

 

[osgart]

"Facts As Evidence" ... and evidence as proof".

A VERY common misconception I see being expressed around here all the time regarding evidence is that; "if it's not convincing, it's not evidence". Meaning, essentially, that I get to decide what is evience and what isn't according to whether or not it supports my conviction. And that is clearly a grossly biased position and standard. Yet I see people take this position all the time on here. Mostly from atheists proclaiming endlessly and vociferously that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that God/gods exist. Which is clearly and patently false. And yet those making this proclamation will seldom relent. They have set themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence, based on whether they have been convinced of it's voracity, and they are not about to give up that absurdly biased advantage.

Are YOU one for these people? Are you able to see why that is an absurdly biased position to take? Can you understand that there is always going to be evidence both for and against any proposition whether or not you accept or reject it's validity?

I've yet to see evidence that all of natural life is due to mindless, blind processes. No one feels obligated to show forth anything on the matter. It's simply a philosophy posed as fact. Life follows natural laws and works within the constraints of natural laws therefore that is all there is to it because the naturalist says so and nothing more.

They despise the implications of teleology because it implies more than what appears.

 

[Audie]

The depth of your blindness is awsome!

You have zero to show and it's my
deficiency that I don't see what isnt there.

All your intellectual superiority is
over people who dont even exist.

You will never ever give even one example,

Is it simple blindness or the fog of feigned
philosophy that lets you hide from the
significance of such abject failure?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have zero to show and it's my
deficiency that I don't see what isnt there.

All your intellectual superiority is
over people who dont even exist.

You will never ever give even one example,

Is it simple blindness or the fog of feigned
philosophy that lets you hide from the
significance of such abject failure?

Well, here is the problem in the end. If the world is natural or any other similar variant, then religion is natural too. So now you just have to show with science alone that religion is wrong. Can't wait for that one.

 

[Audie]

I've yet to see evidence that all of natural life is due to mindless, blind processes. No one feels obligated to show forth anything on the matter. It's simply a philosophy posed as fact. Life follows natural laws and works within the constraints of natural laws therefore that is all there is to it because the naturalist says so and nothing more
They despise the implications of teleology because it implies more than what appears.

It's much simpler than that. Nothing other than
natural processes has ever been observed.
Real tough to study something like that.

You, like your " philosopher" friend seem to find
it necessary to invent people and attitudes in
order to have something to which you are superior.

Think not? Same challenge. Show us an example
of "...all there is to it because the naturalist says so."

You worked in two claims of intellectual dishonesty
in those few words.

Let's see you provide an example of either one.
Making one up does not count.

 

[osgart]

It's much simpler than that. Nothing other than
natural processes has ever been observed.
Real tough to study something like that.

You, like your " philosopher" friend seem to find
it necessary to invent people and attitudes in
order to have something to which you are superior.

Think not? Same challenge. Show us an example
of "...all there is to it because the naturalist says so."

You worked in two claims of intellectual dishonesty
in those few words.

Let's see you provide an example of either one.
Making one up does not count.

Well there are scientists working on regenerative biology at Tufts University I discovered on YouTube. Michael Levin uses teleology to discover the bioelectric blueprints to life.

They are lengthy videos. The points of teleology in his discoveries that he makes are rather lengthy explanations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's much simpler than that. Nothing other than
natural processes has ever been observed.
Real tough to study something like that.

You, like your " philosopher" friend seem to find
it necessary to invent people and attitudes in
order to have something to which you are superior.

Think not? Same challenge. Show us an example
of "...all there is to it because the naturalist says so."

You worked in two claims of intellectual dishonesty
in those few words.

Let's see you provide an example of either one.
Making one up does not count.

The trick is that natural is a definition and according to that everything is natural. But you can't show that with evidence, since it is a definition.

 

[MikeF]

"Facts As Evidence" ... and evidence as proof".

A VERY common misconception I see being expressed around here all the time regarding evidence is that; "if it's not convincing, it's not evidence". Meaning, essentially, that I get to decide what is evience and what isn't according to whether or not it supports my conviction. And that is clearly a grossly biased position and standard. Yet I see people take this position all the time on here.

I am trying to think very carefully about what you have written here. I would agree with the sentiment that simply because some data is considered insufficient to convince one that a proposition is true does not mean the data is not valid data and represent *something*. The data is still evidence. But I don't think this is what you mean. I think you are saying it is wrong to say, "if it's (the data or evidence) not convincing (sufficient to prove the proposition), it's not evidence that can be considered in support of the proposition. And here all I can say is that it depends. And it is also meaningless to consider only one persons judgment in such matters. It doesn't matter what any of us think personally, as we all carry biases in varying degrees. That is why we need a mechanism and procedures to identify and filter out the bias of observers and investigators when evaluating the evidence presented in support of a proposition.

Mostly from atheists proclaiming endlessly and vociferously that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that God/gods exist. Which is clearly and patently false. And yet those making this proclamation will seldom relent. They have set themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence, based on whether they have been convinced of it's voracity, and they are not about to give up that absurdly biased advantage.

I certainly do not disagree that there are individuals who make such personal proclamations, but I would disagree that such an accusation applies to everyone. There are those who rely on the principles and standards of scientific investigation to weigh the value of evidence presented for a particular proposition, and it is through an evaluation of the evidence in that way, to mitigate human error and bias, that degree of confidence is determined for a particular proposition. If the proposition is "It is a fact that "God" (pick your version) exists." I would say that science quite sufficiently supports the position that such a statement is not true.

Are YOU one for these people? Are you able to see why that is an absurdly biased position to take? Can you understand that there is always going to be evidence both for and against any proposition whether or not you accept or reject it's validity?

I do not agree that there will always be evidence both for and against any proposition. This is certainly not true. There are facts about the world, and by definition, a fact cannot have contradicting properties. If the same, insufficient set of information can be used logically to support opposite factual conclusion, then the verdict should be that there is insufficient information upon which to make a determination, not that the limited data set "proves" both opposite conclusions.