Reasonable Doubt

[Fluffy]

In many areas of life, such as science or law, an acceptable level of evidence is defined as that which proves something beyond all reasonable doubt.

Personally, I have trouble understanding such a concept but I would certainly not want to knock something that I didn't comprehend properly. The word which causes me problems is "reasonable". At what point does something, in this case doubt, become reasonable or unreasonable? How can we measure the level of evidence that is required to overcome a reasonable level of doubt? Is it all just down to human judgement and, if it is, does this undermine the original proof and turn it into a mere assumption?

Thank you
Fluffy

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In many areas of life, such as science or law, an acceptable level of evidence is defined as that which proves something beyond all reasonable doubt.

I do not agree with this statement as applied to science.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It was discribed to me, as on the evidence what a reasonable man in the street would believe to be true. It is nowhere near an absolute.
As Deut says it does not work for science.

Terry
____________________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Sabio]

To me, "beyond reasonable doubt" means the point at which I am personally willing to put faith in X

Sabio

 

[Fluffy]

I do not agree with this statement as applied to science.

As Deut says it does not work for science.

Heya guys,

Is this due to errors in the statement or the limitations of the language I have used in it or because such a concept is not reconcilable with science? I have seen such an idea used in a scientific context before (for example the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism or the idea that global warming is largely due to pollution).

However, such a idea still has usage for legal and philisophical issues so I don't want to get bogged down in science too much.

It was discribed to me, as on the evidence what a reasonable man in the street would believe to be true. It is nowhere near an absolute.

This still doesn't help to limit the breadth of the category "reasonable" since you use it here again in reference to a man. The judgement of reasonable men differs from person to person even when looking at the same evidence in the same circumstances under the same conditions. How can we judge the guilt or innocence of someone (if we ignore science for now) given this?

If it is nowhere near an absolute, would that mean that something that indicated that a theory was 99.999% likely (nearly absolute) would not be proving it beyond reasonable doubt? Surely it is much nearer an absolute than, say, a wild guess which could easily be, say, 50% likely of being correct?

To me, "beyond reasonable doubt" means the point at which I am personally willing to put faith in X

Yup, that makes sense to me, Sabio.

 

[kreeden]

The word which causes me problems is "reasonable". At what point does something, in this case doubt, become reasonable or unreasonable? How can we measure the level of evidence that is required to overcome a reasonable level of doubt? Is it all just down to human judgement and, if it is, does this undermine the original proof and turn it into a mere assumption?

Ah , a man after my own ... reasoning .

All reason starts with an assumption . Even in science . Yes , even the statement " All reason starts with an assumption ".

Awhile back , someone was asking a question about Logos ". I had no idea what Logos was , and still don't really . But from what I have read on the concept , it is interesting . I believe that Logos applies to what Terry said about the guy on the street . But the thing about Logos is that it is always changing . It makes one wonder just how reasonable is logic ?

 

[michel]

I don't like the word 'reasonable' - but for another reason, which would be off topic; But I know what you mean Fluffy, and yes, I find it hard to define, in the context you have given in your opening post; I agree with you.

 

[Valjean]

Unfortunately, speaking epistemologically, reasonable doubt it all we have, and what is "reasonable" will always be subjective.

I'm somewhat perplexed by Deut's belief that this does not apply to science. Science may amass a great deal of evidence for something, but proof is beyond its purview. Most people would agree that there is an "acceptable level of evidence" for a round-Earth rather than a flat one, but this theory will never be proved.

 

[Fluffy]

After reading kreeden and Seyorni's replies I do feel comforted that my way of thinking is not ludicrous or foolish enough that others have not also come to the same idea, a conclusion I was starting to come to.

If we assume that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the closest to absolute truth we can attain, is there any significant difference between a belief in something that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and a belief that hasn't?

Descartes took the following view: "I am obliged in the end to admit that none of my former ideas are beyond legitimate doubt" "Since my present aim was to give myself up to the pursuit of truth alone, I thought I must do the very opposite, and reject as if absolutely false anything as to which I could imagine the least doubt, in order to see if I should not be left at the end believing something that was absolutely indubitable"

For him, reasonable meant legitimate and illegitimate doubt was any doubt directed at the indubitable. Does this make all arguments equal in terms of verifiability until they become indubitable or are there levels and, if so, how are such levels distinguished between?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In many areas of life, such as science or law, an acceptable level of evidence is defined as that which proves something beyond all reasonable doubt.

I agree with Deut--the way you have worded this, it doesn't really apply to science. A scientific theory can have an acceptable level of evidence and still not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[kreeden]

If we assume that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the closest to absolute truth we can attain, is there any significant difference between a belief in something that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and a belief that hasn't?

In a purely Subjective Reality , no there isn't . All one has to do is believe .

 

[Sabio]

Yup, that makes sense to me, Sabio.

Fluffy,

Usually in science it takes empirical evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" (and this gives birth to faith), though these are not always "absolute" proofs but enough evidence exists to give the scientist "conviction".

For the believer in God it takes Faith to confirm something as "beyond reasonable doubt"; (Hebrews 11:1) NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].

Thus we (as humans) always end up having to make a decision to place our faith in something, and the amount of evidence that is sufficient to make the choice of faith is different for everyone though the same facts are before all of us.

Sabio

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Usually in science it takes empirical evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt"

No, empirical evidence proves nothing in science. It either falsifies or fails to falsify (confirms) a theory. But I can collect black ravens for the rest of my life without proving the 'theory' that "all ravens are black".

 

[Sabio]

No, empirical evidence proves nothing in science. It either falsifies or fails to falsify (confirms) a theory. But I can collect black ravens for the rest of my life without proving the 'theory' that "all ravens are black".

Duet, You've just shown that "reasonable doubt" is personal and subjective...

Sabio

 

[michel]

Duet, You've just shown that "reasonable doubt" is personal and subjective...

Sabio

I think I can see Deut's logic, Sabio, he can collect as many ravens as he can for the whole of his life, and they may all be black, but logically, there might be a red one somewhere that he just hasn't come across................

Fluffy, quote ............"After reading kreeden and Seyorni's replies I do feel comforted that my way of thinking is not ludicrous or foolish enough that others have not also come to the same idea, a conclusion I was starting to come to.".................

Hehe - I'm usually the one who says silly things - but think on, we are here to learn. Once you get into the realm of mathematic probability and science, we seem to have some very well versed people here! making mistakes is a good way of being taught something - I don't think you forget them!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Duet, You've just shown that "reasonable doubt" is personal and subjective...

Given that this was never at issue, I'll try not to be too overwhelmed by my accomplishment. Nevertheless:

• I may believe that the the Theory of Relativity has been proved (demonstrated) beyond a resonable doubt, and
• the scientific community may believe that it would be unreasonable for me to doubt this theory, but
• the only two things that science can legitimately say is
  1. It is a robust theory in the sense of being falsifiable and having significant explanatory power, and
  2. it has successfully resisted all attempts at falsification

 

[Sabio]

Given that this was never at issue, I'll try not to be too overwhelmed by my accomplishment. Nevertheless:

• I may believe that the the Theory of Relativity has been proved (demonstrated) beyond a resonable doubt, and
• the scientific community may believe that it would be unreasonable for me to doubt this theory, but
• the only two things that science can legitimately say is
  1. It is a robust theory in the sense of being falsifiable and having significant explanatory power, and
  2. it has successfully resisted all attempts at falsification

Duet

I don't disagree with your statements here. I think (based on my observations) that most people (scientists included) see empirical evidence and are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, IE all those black ravens you counted would convince the majority of people to have faith that all ravens are black, even though there is no absolute proven. The majority of people do not think as deeply, or examine as thoroughly as you.

Sabio

 

[michel]

Duet

I don't disagree with your statements here. I think (based on my observations) that most people (scientists included) see empirical evidence and are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, IE all those black ravens you counted would convince the majority of people to have faith that all ravens are black, even though there is no absolute proven. The majority of people do not think as deeply, or examine as thoroughly as you.

Sabio

I understand your point Sabio, but that only goes to show how few people are logical, I am afraid..............

I mean, if I understood the point about the ravens, it must be a pretty simple example, for me to understand it!

 

[Sabio]

I understand your point Sabio, but that only goes to show how few people are logical, I am afraid..............

I mean, if I understood the point about the ravens, it must be a pretty simple example, for me to understand it!

Exactly!

We all need to be careful about what we believe "beyond a reasonable doubt" and what we put our "faith" in. But we also need to be aware that some (no one presently posting on this thread) will argue the reasonableness of something in order to undermine the faith of others.

Sabio

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But we also need to be aware that some (no one presently posting on this thread) will argue the reasonableness of something in order to undermine the faith of others.

You have the right to have faith in whatever unreasonable nonsense you choose. Such right does not render its unreasonableness off limits.