Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

ok there you go.....from comments that you have read


@TagliatelliMonster doesn't ever accept testimony (claims) as evidence

1 a doctor telling you that you are sick (not evidence)

A doctor that has conducted tests and determined an illness is a fact, not testimony, not evidence. The test results are evidence of illness. The doctor informs you of the results.

2 a local man telling you where the restorant is (not evidence)

If a local person knows exactly where various restaurants are from your hotel has facts, not opinion, but fact. Facts are evidence when you need to use reasoning, or in court.

3 your neighbor telling you that he has a son (not evidence)

Why wouldn't we trust such a normal thing? The more extraordinary a claim the more evidence we demand. Mundane claims are not controversial so don't give us reason to doubt.

A person who continually shows signs of being anti-science but then claims to accept science is a contradiction, and the person has lost credibility.

You obviously disagree with him, so are you going to explain to him why is he wrong? Or are you going to support his mistake just because he is an atheist and part of your tribe.?

Why make this an issue when you refuse to correct your errors?

As for my DNA example I admit that I was wrong DNA test are more than just testimony

They aren't testimony at all. If you read through the comments most everyone is pointing out your obsession with the word "testimony" is odd, distracting, and misleading. That's your flaw to sort out. You have some motive to use it, and you aren't making any clarification.

 

[leroy]

No, no need. We're at that point where I'm not going to repeat a comment I've made twice to you already in this thread.

Already answered twice. If you want to know again, go back through the last several pages. Or search "testimony" and my screen name to be taken right to it. I've explained to you how to do that in the past, but as I recall, you never learned to do it and probably never tried.

Here's something I wrote to you last summer while trying to find where I tried to teach you how to do a search at Darwin's Illusion

"I've already covered all of this. You failed to address it then. You don't get second chances any more, Leroy. Since you can't remember what you read my posts, you refuse to do a digital search to retrieve them, you can't find them manually, and since you won't keep notes, you get one chance to address the contents of my posts - when you first see them. When you let that go by, well, it's gone for you. Those are my rules. You can adapt to them and we can have a mature discussion without all of hand-holding and your special needs, or not."

Also this:

"If you're not interested in paying that much attention to the words when you first see them, then you will miss many. I've explained this to you, and showed you how to do better, but as others note, the problem is your inefficient comprehension and retention, not that the information isn't being provided. You ask for your questions to be answered again and again, but you will be evaluating them with the same apparatus that missed the answers the first time. People aren't motivated to contribute to that."

I didn't say that, and yes I see the irony, but probably not where you mean.

Do you believe that the world was created by an intelligent agent or do you accept the naturalistic alternative? Everybody who chooses the first option is a creationist.

You are obviously contradicting yourself that is why you don’t what to answer directly to my question.

The proper word for what you're calling testimony is claim. Some claims are testimony, but some are much more. The two are not synonymous.

Ok so just change claim for testimony in all my comments

Do you accept that at least sometimes claims are evidence?


If you are not willing to clarify when something was not clear for me then why did you wrote this?

It Aint Necessarily So said:
. If you don't understand me, ask me to clarify.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you accept that at least sometimes claims are evidence? If you are not willing to clarify when something was not clear for me then why did you wrote this?

Alright, Leroy, one more time:

Testimony is a specific type of claim generally understood as somebody's uncorroborated report of what they did or saw. All claims are evidence that somebody made the claim. If the source is known from prior experience to be reliable (competent and honest), then that makes the claim more believable. Thus some unknown Bible writer's claims that others claimed to see a resurrection is not more than trivial evidence that a resurrection actually occurred. My wife's claim that she's headed to the market is strong evidence that that's where she's headed. I would call the first claim there a claim about testimonies (also claims), but wouldn't call that Bible writer's claim about claims testimony, nor would I call my wife's claim testimony.

Write this down somewhere for future reference, because I will NOT repeat it for you a fourth time, nor will I look for it to link you to it: All testimony is a claim, and all claims are evidence that somebody made the claim. If they're evidence of more as with my wife, it's because I have EVIDENCE - my knowledge of her character and history of being honest - that together make the claim strong evidence that's she's heading to the store.

Can you understand why I refuse to do this again? It's annoying that you let the words go by without comment, then say that they were never written and claims to the contrary are lies. Why would I or anybody else want to continue repeating themselves with somebody who does that?

 

[leroy]

A doctor that has conducted tests and determined an illness is a fact, not testimony, not evidence. The test results are evidence of illness. The doctor informs you of the results.

If a local person knows exactly where various restaurants are from your hotel has facts, not opinion, but fact. Facts are evidence when you need to use reasoning, or in court.

Why wouldn't we trust such a normal thing? The more extraordinary a claim the more evidence we demand. Mundane claims are not controversial so don't give us reason to doubt.

A person who continually shows signs of being anti-science but then claims to accept science is a contradiction, and the person has lost credibility.

Why make this an issue when you refuse to correct your errors?

They aren't testimony at all. If you read through the comments most everyone is pointing out your obsession with the word "testimony" is odd, distracting, and misleading. That's your flaw to sort out. You have some motive to use it, and you aren't making any clarification.

Why wouldn't we trust such a normal thing? The more extraordinary a claim the more evidence we demand. Mundane claims are not controversial so don't give us reason to doubt.

I don’t know ask @TagliatelliMonster , I am equally amazed both by his comment and by your (plural) reaction……… if any YEC would have made such a ridiculous claim the thread would be flooded with corrections and even insults to such a nonsense position.

But obviously it is now clear to me that internet atheism is a cult, and that you will support each other no matter what

 

[leroy]

Alright, Leroy, one more time:

Testimony is a specific type of claim generally understood as somebody's uncorroborated report of what they did or saw. All claims are evidence that somebody made the claim. If the source is known from prior experience to be reliable (competent and honest), then that makes the claim more believable. Thus some unknown Bible writer's claims that others claimed to see a resurrection is not more than trivial evidence that a resurrection actually occurred. My wife's claim that she's headed to the market is strong evidence that that's where she's headed. I would call the first claim there a claim about testimonies (also claims), but wouldn't call that Bible writer's claim about claims testimony, nor would I call my wife's claim testimony.

Write this down somewhere for future reference, because I will NOT repeat it for you a fourth time, nor will I look for it to link you to it: All testimony is a claim, and all claims are evidence that somebody made the claim. If they're evidence of more as with my wife, it's because I have EVIDENCE - my knowledge of her character and history of being honest - that together make the claim strong evidence that's she's heading to the store.

Can you understand why I refuse to do this again? It's annoying that you let the words go by without comment, then say that they were never written and claims to the contrary are lies. Why would I or anybody else want to continue repeating themselves with somebody who does that?

Thamks for the answer and for your time

So is there any objective metric that you would suggest to determne if a claim is “valid evidence” or not?

My suggestion would be

1 If the claim is made by a well-informed person

2 + in a context where lie is improbable

3 + if the intrinsic probability is not too low

4 + any alternative explanation is less likely

A claim with all 4 criteria should be considered “good evidence” is one is missing the it is weaker if two are missing then even weaker etc.

Would you add or remove anything from the list ?





So your wife claiming to be in the market

1 she is well informed (she obviously knows where she is)

2 why would she lie

3 there is nothing improbable about going to the market (things would be different if she would have claimed that she is in the moon)

4 alterntives such as, she is lying, she is hallucinating, etc. seem less likely to be true ,



Given that the claim of your wife seems to fulfill all of the points it is fair to call her claim “good evidence”

 

[Pogo]

Thamks for the answer and for your time

So is there any objective metric that you would suggest to determne if a claim is “valid evidence” or not?

My suggestion would be

1 If the claim is made by a well-informed person

2 + in a context where lie is improbable

3 + if the intrinsic probability is not too low

4 + any alternative explanation is less likely

A claim with all 4 criteria should be considered “good evidence” is one is missing the it is weaker if two are missing then even weaker etc.

Would you add or remove anything from the list ?





So your wife claiming to be in the market

1 she is well informed (she obviously knows where she is)

2 why would she lie

3 there is nothing improbable about going to the market (things would be different if she would have claimed that she is in the moon)

4 alterntives such as, she is lying, she is hallucinating, etc. seem less likely to be true ,



Given that the claim of your wife seems to fulfill all of the points it is fair to call her claim “good evidence”

@leroy, this is all irrelevant and hair-splitting. You are using the wrong word for English conversation. Testimony is used in legal situations and in religious situations, outside of that not.
Now if you were a foreign language speaker and you used the word testimony in a scientific situation after a little confusion, the hearer would probably understand what you were trying to say if the other parts of your speech showed familiarity with the subject at hand. In fact they would probably accept preached. The next thing that would happen as happened here is that the English speaker would politely explain that in this conversation space testimony with it's connotations is not an appropriate word. Having dealt with a fair number of non-native speakers, we chuckle and that is the end of it.

Never have I run into anyone who insists on using the wrong word and further doubles down by trying to create micro-usages and justifications. But then I haven't run into that many rude narcissists. Fortunately I have never met the former guy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thamks for the answer and for your time

So is there any objective metric that you would suggest to determne if a claim is “valid evidence” or not?

My suggestion would be

1 If the claim is made by a well-informed person

2 + in a context where lie is improbable

3 + if the intrinsic probability is not too low

4 + any alternative explanation is less likely

A claim with all 4 criteria should be considered “good evidence” is one is missing the it is weaker if two are missing then even weaker etc.

Would you add or remove anything from the list ?





So your wife claiming to be in the market

1 she is well informed (she obviously knows where she is)

2 why would she lie

3 there is nothing improbable about going to the market (things would be different if she would have claimed that she is in the moon)

4 alterntives such as, she is lying, she is hallucinating, etc. seem less likely to be true ,



Given that the claim of your wife seems to fulfill all of the points it is fair to call her claim “good evidence”

That's a reasonable assessment. Absent convincing evidenced argument, extraordinary claims ("I'm an extraterrestrial alien") are less believable than claims of the ordinary ("I was in the military."), and claims from reliable sources are more believable than similar claims from unknown sources, which are more reliable that claims made by sources known to be dishonest or incompetent.

There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with sound impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like.

This is why I would believe anything from the likes of Carl Sagan or Neal DeGrasse Tyson before a contradictory comment coming from somebody like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. But none those people's bare claims is as useful as a good argument supporting their claim. Sagan and Tyson can do that and typically do, but the others cannot and do not, which is why the former are more believable even without seeing why they believe what they do that the latter.

Joe Biden makes a bare claim ("the economy is excellent") and Donald Trump contradicts it without counterargument ("the economy is tanking"). Assuming that he hasn't seen the economic data but is familiar with the character of both men, which one is a critical thinker going to believe? Ethos matters. It's also why two juries believed E. Jean Carroll over Donald Trump in a he said-she said dispute.

 

[leroy]

That is essentially what you have been attempting to do. Unless you have some specific examples, I do not recall seeing evidence of logical fallacies being applied by others to address your claims.

The difference between you and I is that I support my accusations, you accuse me of commiting logical fallacies or scientific mistakes, but you never support those assertion.

I am @TagliatelliMonster accusing for committing a straw man fallacy and this is my justification:

I said:
well supported testimonies made by well-informed people in a context where lies are improbable count as evidence.

His reply (starwman)

I have bridge for you to buy.
Apparently your standard of evidence is so low that the above became "more likely", merely because I claimed it.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/irony-of-the-evolutionary-belief.272884/page-113#post-8510662

So this is obviously a starwman fallacy, since I didn’t say that mere claims are evidence, nor that all calims are evidence. I provided criteria and only claims that complete this criteria can be considered evidence (his bridge example doesnt pass the criteria, becasue he is clearly lying)

So my question is, what are you going to do? Are you going to correct Tag? Are you going to respond with an arrogant tone and tell him to go study some logic or reading comprehension?.... or are these arrogant comments and corrections only apply to people like me or @YoursTrue or peole that are not part of your cult?

In other words do you reprobate all fallacies or just the ones made by people that disagree with you on specific topics like evolution

But scientific papers are not testimonies and this has been explained to you and you have even recognized that you received that explanation and found it useful. That sort of belies your claims and the claims of other creationists that no explanations are ever offered to you all.

I am defining testimony as “what other people sayo or report” and atleast according to Chat GPT the definition is correct………….but if you have a different definition in mind then non of my comments apply

Scientific papers are reports from other people, so by my defection they are testimonies…………. But you can use any other word if you want

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't need to be so demanding of yourself... Your opponents take the opinions of others as "testimony" as if they were evidence. Many times those opinions are accepted only because of the titles of those who express them and not because they really have evidence.

Nope. Several of us have already explained in great detail why and how we accept scientific findings/evidence.
It's not about opinions. It's about the evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a coincidence!!! I also have experts

Matt. 24:45 “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.

What do you suppose these people who wrote the Bible were experts in?

The difference is that my "experts" have been appointed by God, not by men.

A claim that requires evidence rather than just assertion.

 

[leroy]

I hope it is not the same imaginary model. That would be awkward.

I think there is a disconnect here due to testimonies being used as evidence in the courts. A testimony is a claim without evidence used as evidence in legal proceedings and that distinction is too subtle to understand for some. Or those that try to equate the scientific literature as merely testimony equal to any empty claim are hoping that subtlety is missed by everyone else and they buy the flawed equivalency.

Luckily nobody is equating scientific literature with “mere claims”

A testimony is a claim without evidence

accordign to chat gpt

The statement "A testimony is a claim without evidence" is not entirely accurate. While a testimony can be a form of claim, it doesn't necessarily imply a lack of evidence. Testimony often refers to the statement or declaration made by a witness under oath, and it can be supported by evidence such as personal observation, experience, or other forms of documentation.

However, it's essential to recognize that testimonies alone may not always constitute sufficient evidence to prove a claim beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in legal contexts where corroboration and other forms of evidence may be required for validation. Nevertheless, testimonies can still hold significant value in various situations, particularly when they align with other evidence or provide unique perspectives.


So ether CHAT GPT is also part of this massive pro creationsits conspiracy………. Or maybe (just maybe) you are wrong, maybe testimony doesn’t necessarily implies “without evidence” According to the common usage of this word



Regardless of your reply…………… do you understand that I am more likely to trust Chat GPT as a source than random people from forums with a clear bias for disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing and with clear bias to defend each other, even when they are obviously wrong?


For the sake of this thread I will follow @It Aint Necessarily advise use the Word claim instead of testimony , but I am far form convinced that testimony implies “without evidence” and zero supporting evidence has been provided for such a claim

 

[leroy]

That's a reasonable assessment. Absent convincing evidenced argument, extraordinary claims ("I'm an extraterrestrial alien") are less believable than claims of the ordinary ("I was in the military."), and claims from reliable sources are more believable than similar claims from unknown sources, which are more reliable that claims made by sources known to be dishonest or incompetent.

There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with sound impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like.

This is why I would believe anything from the likes of Carl Sagan or Neal DeGrasse Tyson before a contradictory comment coming from somebody like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. But none those people's bare claims is as useful as a good argument supporting their claim. Sagan and Tyson can do that and typically do, but the others cannot and do not, which is why the former are more believable even without seeing why they believe what they do that the latter.

Joe Biden makes a bare claim ("the economy is excellent") and Donald Trump contradicts it without counterargument ("the economy is tanking"). Assuming that he hasn't seen the economic data but is familiar with the character of both men, which one is a critical thinker going to believe? Ethos matters. It's also why two juries believed E. Jean Carroll over Donald Trump in a he said-she said dispute.

agree

yes, Biden and Trump both have good reasons to lie about the economy, so even though they might be experts in economy, their claims are not very valuable because they have incentives to lie. (like kent hovind or ken ham)

However if Trump recognizes that Biden has done some good things , like reducing fossil contamination, then his claim would become valuable and considered good evidence for “less contamination” because trump would lose points with such an admition. (he is unlikely to lie about Baiden´s success)

Any disagreement so far


In response to your previous question, the meaning of Ethos is among the things that I have learned in this forum

 

[leroy]

@leroy, this is all irrelevant and hair-splitting. You are using the wrong word for English conversation. Testimony is used in legal situations and in religious situations, outside of that not.
Now if you were a foreign language speaker and you used the word testimony in a scientific situation after a little confusion, the hearer would probably understand what you were trying to say if the other parts of your speech showed familiarity with the subject at hand. In fact they would probably accept preached. The next thing that would happen as happened here is that the English speaker would politely explain that in this conversation space testimony with it's connotations is not an appropriate word. Having dealt with a fair number of non-native speakers, we chuckle and that is the end of it.

Never have I run into anyone who insists on using the wrong word and further doubles down by trying to create micro-usages and justifications. But then I haven't run into that many rude narcissists. Fortunately I have never met the former guy.

I did my research on sources that I consider reliable (chat GPT) and found out that my definition of testimony is correct and that testimony doesn’t imply “without evidence” as you claim

You can not blame me for trusting Chat GPT over a random guy in a forum that has a clear bias in favor of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing



BTW in response to your previous question, i didnt know about the Ethos , so you can include that in the list of things tha tI have learned in this forum

 

[Pogo]

I did my research on sources that I consider reliable (chat GPT) and found out that my definition of testimony is correct and that testimony doesn’t imply “without evidence” as you claim

You can not blame me for trusting Chat GPT over a random guy in a forum that has a clear bias in favor of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing



BTW in response to your previous question, i didnt know about the Ethos , so you can include that in the list of things tha tI have learned in this forum

The testimony of chatGPT agrees with you.

Talk about unverifiable source taken on faith and who knows what question you actually asked.
You really don't get this scientific information thing at all.

 

[leroy]

The testimony of chatGPT agrees with you.

Talk about unverifiable source taken on faith and who knows what question you actually asked.
You really don't get this scientific information thing at all.

My options are

1 trust GPT

2 trust an anonymous guy in the forum with a clear bias and that has been proven to be dishonest in the past

Do you see why I am inclined to pick option 1?

who knows what question you actually asked

well I do.

 

[Pogo]

My options are

1 trust GPT

2 trust an anonymous guy in the forum with a clear bias and that has been proven to be dishonest in the past

Do you see why I am inclined to pick option 1?


well I do.

Yup that is the normal meaning of testimony trust a hearsay statement.
It is totally inappropriate for discussing scientific research.

And yes I see why you behave as you do, because you are ignorant and unaware.

 

[leroy]

Yup that is the normal meaning of testimony trust a hearsay statement.

I love the irony, you say that we shouldn’t trust testimonies………………but then you are asking me to trust your testimony


Do you grant that chat GPT is more a more reliable source than a random guy from a forum?

 

[Pogo]

I love the irony, you say that we shouldn’t trust testimonies………………but then you are asking me to trust your testimony


Do you grant that chat GPT is more a more reliable source than a random guy from a forum?

No, for the umpteenth time, we are explaining to you that the word testimony is not the correct word to use when discussing scientific research.

I note that your chatGPT quote does not even address the issue, probably because you did not ask it a useful question, probably because you still don't understand why you are being questioned about your choice of words, probably because your education is significantly deficient in science.

 

[F1fan]

Do you grant that chat GPT is more a more reliable source than a random guy from a forum?

You’re the random guy.

This is why reputation is built when people follow norms in language and reasoning. Getting science right shows a sort of intellectual integrity and this is valued by like minded individuals.

Creationists have flawed assumptions and behaviors that sabotage their reputation in forums. And one such flaw is an inability to recognize their own flaws. It’s entertaining but also sad to see otherwise smart people fall into a trap of flawed patterns of thought.

 

[leroy]

No, for the umpteenth time, we are explaining to you that the word testimony is not the correct word to use when discussing scientific research.

I note that your chatGPT quote does not even address the issue, probably because you did not ask it a useful question, probably because you still don't understand why you are being questioned about your choice of words, probably because your education is significantly deficient in science.

And when I was told to use a different Word (claim) I changed the Word………….so what is your issue?

I am still not convinced that “testimony” means without evidence and you haven´t done anything to support that claim. So forgive me if I don’t accept your words just because you say so………… you would do the same think in my position

r education is significantly deficient in science

The fact that you are focusing on “vocabulary” strongly suggest that you don’t have any scientific case against any of the claims that I have made