Facts vs evidence

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.



I certainly will not argue 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.



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.

The problem is that you can't see the meaning and worth of life and thus you get this from a science site:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Audie]

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.

Ok...I don't do research- by- vid but
regardless what does it have to do with what i said?

 

[MikeF]

The problem is that you can't see the meaning and worth of life and thus you get this from a science site:

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

Are you saying I cannot see your personal and subjective meaning and worth assigned to life? Wasn't @PureX arguing against this very thing, injecting ones personal opinion into the matter? Arguing from bias? How is your or anyone else's bias relevant to the evaluation of evidence supporting a proposition, hypothesis, or statement of fact?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you saying I cannot see your personal and subjective meaning and worth assigned to life? Wasn't @PureX arguing against this very thing, injecting ones personal opinion into the matter? Arguing from bias? How is your or anyone else's bias relevant to the evaluation of evidence supporting a proposition, hypothesis, or statement of fact?

Because if I have a subjective meaning, then that is psychical and a part of nature. The problem is that you want to play on 2 horses. The belief in the supernatural is wrong, yet a fact, that some people do that. So how can it be wrong? According to you it is a fact and physical.

You claim it is both wrong, yet a fact and physical.

 

[osgart]

Ok...I don't do research- by- vid but
regardless what does it have to do with what i said?

You dismiss teleology in favor of naturalism because teleology is ridiculous to you. Then you're saying those that hold to teleology are claiming intellectual superiority, when they are just being intellectually dishonest.

I never claimed intellectual superiority. I deferred the argument to smarter scientists who write research papers studying teleology in biology.

If all the evidence you have currently suggests naturalism then that is a limited, narrow viewpoint of what's actually going on. I always insisted that teleology was true, and now I'm seeing science that affirms my conclusion. I've always faced ridicule for intelligence and teleology in nature, and always hear that old argument has been refuted long ago, and that naturalism is blatantly obvious. Well this research has turned that worn out insult on its head.

I sympathize with the naturalist intuition but I never subscribed to its limitations. My intuition was always more logical to me.

I certainly understand the need to debate against many of the scriptures of religious history. However the benefits of a general faith in spirituality, and the views of teleology can't be swept under the rug and easily dismissed.

Of course teleology doesn't prove the existence of God, but agency in the makings of life cannot be ruled out, nor can natural intelligence be ruled out.

 

[MikeF]

Because if I have a subjective meaning, then that is psychical and a part of nature. The problem is that you want to play on 2 horses. The belief in the supernatural is wrong, yet a fact, that some people do that. So how can it be wrong? According to you it is a fact and physical.

You claim it is both wrong, yet a fact and physical.

It is not at all contradictory. A belief is an abstract construction that resides physically in the brain. All well and good. But what is the abstraction about? Is it meant to represent an abstract idea such as currency or a political entity such as a country? Or is it meant to represent or point to something that exists in the real world, like a bicycle or a dinner plate? Or is the abstract construction pointing to something imaginary and impossible to exist in the real world? We have the physical capacity for all of that.

Having an emotional or psychological need for a particular belief is a separate issue from whether a particular abstract construct represents or points to an actual existent thing in the world.

 

[PureX]

I've yet to see evidence that all of natural life is due to mindless, blind processes.

The fact that it is a fairly long standing proposition is evidence. The fact that it is a possibility is evidence. The fact that we have no other verified or verifiable explanation is evidence. The fact that one can choose to believe it to be true and suffer no ill consequence is evidence. There is always plenty of evidence both for and against the existence of God/gods. What we do with the evidence is a choice we make for ourselves. On some questions we will mostly agree, and on others we will come to very different conclusions, or no conclusions at all.

No one feels obligated to show forth anything on the matter. It's simply a philosophy posed as fact.

Yes, the interesting thing about "belief" is that what we're really believing in is our own presumed righteousness. And that's as true for the "nature of the gaps" conclusion as it is for the "God of the gaps" conclusion.

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.

Yes. We humans are not comfortable with the unknown, because we have no control in the face of it. The idea that "reality" is something far beyond what we think we know and can maybe control, or anticipate more or less, is a revelation that a lot of people will fight hard to reject.

 

[Audie]

You dismiss teleology in favor of naturalism because teleology is ridiculous to you. Then you're saying those that hold to teleology are claiming intellectual superiority, when they are just being intellectually dishonest.

I never claimed intellectual superiority. I deferred the argument to smarter scientists who write research papers studying teleology in biology.

If all the evidence you have currently suggests naturalism then that is a limited, narrow viewpoint of what's actually going on. I always insisted that teleology was true, and now I'm seeing science that affirms my conclusion. I've always faced ridicule for intelligence and teleology in nature, and always hear that old argument has been refuted long ago, and that naturalism is blatantly obvious. Well this research has turned that worn out insult on its head.

I sympathize with the naturalist intuition but I never subscribed to its limitations. My intuition was always more logical to me.

I certainly understand the need to debate against many of the scriptures of religious history. However the benefits of a general faith in spirituality, and the views of teleology can't be swept under the rug and easily dismissed.

Of course teleology doesn't prove the existence of God, but agency in the makings of life cannot be ruled out, nor can natural intelligence be ruled out.

Who would disagree that wings evolved because they serve a purpose?

Your first paragraph is just things you choose to,assume about me.
The intellectual superiority i referred to is a different
conceit than you think.

As for opinion about narrow view, I think we all
from caveman to present have this intuition that's
there's more going in than we do or can know.

I don't know what you teleologize. If it's that,
say, evolution has goals then i think that's
just religion, and contrary to evidence.

You've always insisted teleology is true- I guess it is,
depending. Grand Design of universe by God,
not so much. Venom serving a purpose for a scorpion, sure.

I dont know what sort of teleology conclusion you believe
in and have no guess what benefits might come from
teleology / spiritualism or even what it is.

I.m not into ruling things out when evidence is lacking.

Ruling things out is more a religious practice than
a logical or scientific one.

 

[PureX]

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.

Yes. My point is that 'evidence' is not defined by whether or not we find it pertinent, or convincing. Yet this is exactly how it is being defined by quite a few people here (and elsewhere). And to define eviednce in that way this is wildly illogical and rife with bias, and yet most surprisingly, more often seems to occur in people who fancy themselves as being especially logical and unbiased.

When we are confronted with any sort of question, there will always be a lot of evidence related to it that we have to consider and weigh up before we can man develop an informed conclusion as to the answer. There is never "no evidence" as even the question itself will contain information that stands as evidence for or against any possible answer. And yet we will never even be able to consider and weigh up any of this information if we've dismissed it out of hand as not being "evidence" simply because it was not driving us to the conclusion that we have already defined for ourselves in our own minds.

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.

It only applies to those who make that proclamation ("There is absolutely no evidence...!"). As they are defining evidence out of existence (in their own world view) based on a biased preconception of what evidence is supposed to be: i.e., that which convinces me that my conclusion is right.

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.

Yes, but again, they are defining evidence as that which they can evaluate by (their own chosen) scientific means. And that is not a proper definition of evidence because that is a very narrow subset of the full realm of possible evidence that is available to us. I undersand they are saying there "is no evidence" when what they mean is "there is no evidence available that I can evaluate by my own chosen scientific methodology". But again, that still ignore the vast real of evidence that does not lend itself to their specifi preferred method of evaluation. And again, they are using their own preferred method of evaluating evidence to define what is and is not evidence. Which is wildly illogical and based.

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.

The fact that we can ask a question is evidence in itself. And with in fact there will be a fairly elaborate set of information both for and against any possible answer we would consider to conclude. So yes, there is ALWAYS evidence to be considered, and usually a fair amount of it if we have articulated our question sufficiently.

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.

Sure, sometimes there is simply not enough evidence for us to determine the conclusion we were seeking. But that is in no way the same thing and there being "no evidence". Nor of there being insufficient evidence. As there is only insufficient evidence in relation to the question being asked.

 

[Ponder This]

Very many of the 95% are going to have evidence besides "eye witnesses".
So for this comparison, you are going to have to split those numbers between
- among the cases based on only "eye witness" , how many of those end up in jail while innocent?
- among the cases that had objective evidence , how many of those end up in jail while innocent?

I don't know those numbers, but i'll bet whatever you want that it will proportionally be higher in cases with only testimony.
Just look at the innocence project. Take a look at the solved cases. The extreme vast majority of them = all put in jail based on mere testimony and "eye witness".

People lie. People misremember. People make mistakes. People think they have seen something but are instead making false connections / conclusions.
Testimony can be unreliable for all kinds of reasons.




No. The problem here is that witness / testimony is unreliable.
And yes, in court they have to take a decision when there is no evidence and just testimony to decide on guilt
And when you have to do that, you will often be mistaken when accepting the claim.



As said, that number is for all cases. What you need for this conversation is a comparison between cases based on only witness testimony and cases that include objective evidence.

Eye witness testimony is just one form of (non-scientific) evidence used in cases and science need not be excluded. I gave problems with an only science approach to trial and debate.

One can't make a mistake by placing too much emphasis on science. Suppose one believed that science would eventually answer every question. He may be incorrect, but what's the harm? One can, however, put too much emphasis on faith, which answers no questions. Your complaint is generally part of a plea to accept the idea of a religious magisterium, that religion can make valuable contributions to man's fund of knowledge, which is voiced as too much reliance on science rather than what is actually is - a complaint that there is not enough respect given faith as a source of knowledge by critical thinkers.

If one places "too much" emphasis on science then by definition one has made a mistake and should've placed less emphasis on science.
If one places "too much" emphasis on faith, then by definition one has made a mistake. Believing that one has every answer to every question is, generally speaking, a mistake.

 

[PureX]

Are you saying I cannot see your personal and subjective meaning and worth assigned to life? Wasn't @PureX arguing against this very thing, injecting ones personal opinion into the matter? Arguing from bias? How is your or anyone else's bias relevant to the evaluation of evidence supporting a proposition, hypothesis, or statement of fact?

That's a good question. And an interesting one.

Is the desire for "X" to be true evidence in support of it being true? Or is it evidence in support of it not being true? The desire itself is a fact, and that fact is evidence. But by itself it could be used to either support or negate the proposition that "X" is true. We need more facts to relate that fact to. More evidence to weigh it against. So let's add to that fact the additional fact that one can choose to believe that "X" is true and suffer no negative consequence from doing so. NOW we have two facts that together begin to add some weight to the conclusion that "X" is true. Not much weight, but some.

Of course most of us will want a lot more evidence than just these couple of facts to develop a conclusion. And that will be to each his own to determine.

 

[osgart]

Who would disagree that wings evolved because they serve a purpose?

Your first paragraph is just things you choose to,assume about me.
The intellectual superiority i referred to is a different
conceit than you think.

As for opinion about narrow view, I think we all
from caveman to present have this intuition that's
there's more going in than we do or can know.

I don't know what you teleologize. If it's that,
say, evolution has goals then i think that's
just religion, and contrary to evidence.

You've always insisted teleology is true- I guess it is,
depending. Grand Design of universe by God,
not so much. Venom serving a purpose for a scorpion, sure.

I dont know what sort of teleology conclusion you believe
in and have no guess what benefits might come from
teleology / spiritualism or even what it is.

I.m not into ruling things out when evidence is lacking.

Ruling things out is more a religious practice than
a logical or scientific one.

Well you have not explored teleological evidence in biology. As for evolution, there's more going on in biology than evolution. The person I mentioned is definitely the key to that.

No I don't see grand design. Agency is very plausible.

I don't see any conceit on my part, no.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If one places "too much" emphasis on science then by definition one has made a mistake and should've placed less emphasis on science. Your complaint is generally part of a plea to accept the idea of a religious magisterium, that religion can make valuable contributions to man's fund of knowledge, which is voiced as too much reliance on science rather than what is actually is - a complaint that there is not enough respect given faith as a source of knowledge by critical thinkers.

You had said, "Placing too much emphasis on science to resolve every question leads to the problem that science doesn't actually resolve every question." I say that there is no problem there however much one expects science to eventually accomplish.

Too bad that you didn't address any of that paragraph after the first sentence. I'll assume that it's because you didn't disagree.

Believing that one has every answer to every question is, generally speaking, a mistake.

Agreed, but who made that claim?

 

[Audie]

Well you have not explored teleological evidence in biology. As for evolution, there's more going on in biology than evolution. The person I mentioned is definitely the key to that.

No I don't see grand design. Agency is very plausible.

I don't see any conceit on my part, no.

Teleoloical evidence in evolution...
I will see what I can see.

I didn't use "conceit' to mean
like stuck up. It cam also refer
to such as an elabourate methor.

Which wasn't what I meant either, I misused the word.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, but again, they are defining evidence as that which they can evaluate by (their own chosen) scientific means. And that is not a proper definition of evidence because that is a very narrow subset of the full realm of possible evidence that is available to us. I undersand they are saying there "is no evidence" when what they mean is "there is no evidence available that I can evaluate by my own chosen scientific methodology". But again, that still ignore the vast real of evidence that does not lend itself to their specifi preferred method of evaluation. And again, they are using their own preferred method of evaluating evidence to define what is and is not evidence. Which is wildly illogical and based.

I disagree here. We accumulate knowledge as we go along. We sometimes head down a dead end path, have to reevaluate and get back on track. We human beings have been at this task of understanding the world around us a very long time and each generation doesn't have to start with square one, but builds our knowledge and understanding from where the previous generation leaves off.

With that understanding, scientific investigation doesn't arbitrarily limit the scope of "evidence" it is willing to consider. Science will consider everything, yet filter for known sources of error and bias in the investigative process. We have learned and continue to learn the many ways we human beings can go astray in our pursuit of knowledge. That's a good thing, and there is a track record of success to bolster the efficacy of such an approach. It is just not clear to me what constitutes the vast realm of evidence that you imply the scientific community is ignoring. I just don't understand how you consider filtering out wildly illogical and biased beliefs as being itself a wildly illogical and biased process. Makes no sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



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 too

Not to belabor this, but it isn't about a comparison between religion and science, but between different types of people.

I agree with you on the latter. The problem is people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

All the evidence of science supports that life exists unguided. That is the point. It isn't say there is no "guide", just that there is no evidence of one. Science cannot be used to claim something without the support of evidence.

 

[MikeF]

That's a good question. And an interesting one.

Is the desire for "X" to be true evidence in support of it being true? Or is it evidence in support of it not being true? The desire itself is a fact, and that fact is evidence. But by itself it could be used to either support or negate the proposition that "X" is true. We need more facts to relate that fact to. More evidence to weigh it against. So let's add to that fact the additional fact that one can choose to believe that "X" is true and suffer no negative consequence from doing so. NOW we have two facts that together begin to add some weight to the conclusion that "X" is true. Not much weight, but some.

Of course most of us will want a lot more evidence than just these couple of facts to develop a conclusion. And that will be to each his own to determine.

This is, in many respects, the heart of the issue, and why I find fault with much of Philosophy. The desire for "X" to be true speaks only to the mental state of the individual who holds the desire. The mere desire for "X" says nothing about the veracity or existence of "X".

Due to the nature of abstraction, we have the capacity to mix and match abstract constructs in infinite ways, and those combinations of abstractions do not carry the restrictions of natural laws or other abstract rules unless we make the effort to do so. I can write the equation 5+7 = 362 because the abstractions do not have intrinsic properties to prevent their association. For the abstract system of mathematic to be useful, we use the axioms and rules of mathematics in making abstract mathematical constructs.

This applies to language as well. We can take abstract constructs that we use to represent physical objects in the real world, yet combine those abstract representations in ways that the actual physical objects could never be combined in the real world.

Beliefs are constructed from abstraction, and unless we police ourselves and ensure our abstractions remain coherent, that we remain synthetic to the real world if talking about the real world, we will get lost in fiction and fantasy.

We learn about and understand the world, not by rationalizing what we want to be true, but instead by exploring and discovering what is actually out there.

 

[exchemist]

You dismiss teleology in favor of naturalism because teleology is ridiculous to you. Then you're saying those that hold to teleology are claiming intellectual superiority, when they are just being intellectually dishonest.

I never claimed intellectual superiority. I deferred the argument to smarter scientists who write research papers studying teleology in biology.

If all the evidence you have currently suggests naturalism then that is a limited, narrow viewpoint of what's actually going on. I always insisted that teleology was true, and now I'm seeing science that affirms my conclusion. I've always faced ridicule for intelligence and teleology in nature, and always hear that old argument has been refuted long ago, and that naturalism is blatantly obvious. Well this research has turned that worn out insult on its head.

I sympathize with the naturalist intuition but I never subscribed to its limitations. My intuition was always more logical to me.

I certainly understand the need to debate against many of the scriptures of religious history. However the benefits of a general faith in spirituality, and the views of teleology can't be swept under the rug and easily dismissed.

Of course teleology doesn't prove the existence of God, but agency in the makings of life cannot be ruled out, nor can natural intelligence be ruled out.

What research do you have in mind that demonstrates teleology in biology? Which scientists?

 

[PureX]

I disagree here. We accumulate knowledge as we go along. We sometimes head down a dead end path, have to reevaluate and get back on track. We human beings have been at this task of understanding the world around us a very long time and each generation doesn't have to start with square one, but builds our knowledge and understanding from where the previous generation leaves off.

With that understanding, scientific investigation doesn't arbitrarily limit the scope of "evidence" it is willing to consider.

Of course it does. Science cannot investigate any evidence that is not physical phenomena. And science and empiricism can only determine the universal functionality (repeatability) of a proposition. That leaves out the large and significant realm of subjectively perceived and experienced and evidence.

Science will consider everything, yet filter for known sources of error and bias in the investigative process.

Ah yes, and herein lays the bias. The bias so catered to and blinding that it causes the holder to define out of eistence any evidence that does not fit the pre-ordained and biased profile of "not probe to error" evidence.

We have learned and continue to learn the many ways we human beings can go astray in our pursuit of knowledge.

So now you're just trying to justify your bias against any evidence that you preordained to have "gone astray", right?

It is just not clear to me what constitutes the vast realm of evidence that you imply the scientific community is ignoring.

That's because you have rejecrted it as not being evidence at all. You are proving my point here, and cannot even see yourself doing it. I will give you an example. Is wanting "X" to be true evidence for or against "X" being true? Or is it not evidence at all because it is information that has "gone astray" from the process that you consider to be reputable in determining a conclusion? My bet is that for you, it's the latter.

I just don't understand how you consider filtering out wildly illogical and biased beliefs as being itself a wildly illogical and biased process. Makes no sense.

Yes, that bias is that blinding.