The importance of the EVIDENCE in science

[cladking]

And the tests of hypotheses produce results. which is considered evidence.

This is not how science works. The ONLY test of hypothesis is relevant experiment and the experiment exists independently of believers and Peers.

 

[tas8831]

This is not how science works. The ONLY test of hypothesis is relevant experiment and the experiment exists independently of believers and Peers.

You do not understand how science works. You do not understand what 'evidence' is. You think that you typing something counts as evidence.
Where are your experiments showing that a human infant chooses to grow a 'broccas area' [sic]?
Where is your experimental evidence that a new species forms 'suddenly' (or in 2 generations, whichever)?

 

[cladking]

You think that you typing something counts as evidence.

And you think everything you see is "evidence" and choose to ignore the fact that every person sees only what he believes. This is why science changes one funeral at a time; people don't even see experimental results when they conflict with his beliefs.

You think "science" runs on evidence and Peer review when in actuality only the scientific method, best summarized as observation > experiment, has any meaning at all to metaphysics and reality. "Science" is necessarily individual until the individual accepts experimental results. No matter how many "Peers" ignore the evidence it remains evidence. No matter what Peers believe the only thing that matters is experiment.

This would all be simple enough if you understood metaphysics instead of just what text book authors deem important.

Until you're willing to discuss the evidence I cite rather than ignoring it or simply gainsaying it (you don't believe it) there remains no point in rehashing any of this. I've explained it all a dozen times and you ignore it. This is not the proper thread for the discussion anyway and I wouldn't respond to your rebuttal even if a miracle happened and it was relevant to something I said. This thread is about "evidence" and what it means to science. "Evidence" is unique to each individual and manifests scientifically as hypothesis. It has nothing to do with any reality other than the observer's. This is very very very basic "science".

If you can't cite chapter and verse of experiments then you don't understand the phenomenon. If you can't cite chapter and verse then what you have is a belief made of someone else's opinion.

 

[gnostic]

And you think everything you see is "evidence" and choose to ignore the fact that every person sees only what he believes. This is why science changes one funeral at a time; people don't even see experimental results when they conflict with his beliefs.

You think "science" runs on evidence and Peer review when in actuality only the scientific method, best summarized as observation > experiment, has any meaning at all to metaphysics and reality. "Science" is necessarily individual until the individual accepts experimental results. No matter how many "Peers" ignore the evidence it remains evidence. No matter what Peers believe the only thing that matters is experiment.

This would all be simple enough if you understood metaphysics instead of just what text book authors deem important.

Until you're willing to discuss the evidence I cite rather than ignoring it or simply gainsaying it (you don't believe it) there remains no point in rehashing any of this. I've explained it all a dozen times and you ignore it. This is not the proper thread for the discussion anyway and I wouldn't respond to your rebuttal even if a miracle happened and it was relevant to something I said. This thread is about "evidence" and what it means to science. "Evidence" is unique to each individual and manifests scientifically as hypothesis. It has nothing to do with any reality other than the observer's. This is very very very basic "science".

If you can't cite chapter and verse of experiments then you don't understand the phenomenon. If you can't cite chapter and verse then what you have is a belief made of someone else's opinion.

It is funny how you still don't understand what sciences are, and what evidence are.

Even worse, you keep bringing up science is only "science" only in regards to "experiment".

Experiments are "evidence" and experiments are "observations"...and for the record, I don't reject experiments, but I know that experiments aren't the only evidence.

Evidence can be also be found/discovered in the fields, outside of the labs. Your bias for lab experiments, only limited the scopes of science.

Any evidence - whether they were discovered outside lab environments or the test results from lab experiments - they are all observations, and they should provide data (eg examining the properties of evidence, recording measurements of evidence, etc) useful to reach conclusions as to the validity of the hypotheses or current theories.

Not all evidence can be reproduce in lab.

For instance, I don’t know what these scientists called themselves, but they used unmanned submarine probes to explore ocean depths that manned submarines cannot venture due to crushing depth. The point is that they bring back video footage of deep water marine species never seen before. The recorded videos are “evidence” of marine organisms that exist and thrive in these depths.

These species of marine organisms cannot be produced in some lab experiments.

Likewise, NASA have sent unmanned crafts to explore part of the Solar System, and Voyagers 1 & 2 have done so, and since 2013, gone beyond the heliopause, the boundary between the Solar System and interstellar space. All observations, recordings, measurements are sent through communication to the Deep Space Network.

These unmanned crafts whether it explore the deepest parts of the oceans or explore parts of Solar System that no man have physically traveled to, to gather observations/evidence and data, they are part of scientific researches.

As to Metaphysics.

You are ignoring...actually, you have continued to ignore...that Metaphysics don't mandate the needs for experimentation in the first place.

Evidence and experiments are actually only essential requirements of Scientific Method, not that of Metaphysics.

Scientific Method isn’t a criteria for Metaphysics, or for its subset - Metaphysical Naturalism, hence experiments are not essential criteria to Metaphysics & Metaphysical Naturalism.

But the Scientific Method is essential to Natural Science and to Methodological Naturalism.

 

[cladking]

But the Scientific Method is essential to Natural Science and to Methodological Naturalism.

You do not get to define the words I use.

If you want to communicate you must use my definition or translate it to something you understand. I can't count the number of time we've been through this.

I am defining "metaphysics" as "science and its basis along with how science works". Saying "Scientific Method isn’t a criteria for Metaphysics," is illogical, non sequitur, and contrary to definition. Please stop!!!


You also just ignored virtually everything I said while repeating your contention that evidence is equivalent to science. This IS the disagreement. You must address what I say to have a discussion. Just gainsaying or ignoring other arguments is not "discussion".

Even worse, you keep bringing up science is only "science" only in regards to "experiment".

Of course some observations are nearly equivalent to experiment but you still can't found theory on logic, observation, or the opinion of Peers or other experts. Real theory runs counter to no experiment and experiments say we see what we believe. We therefore also observe what we believe which makes observation very weak when it takes the place of experiment. While theory should be supported by observation this is not the same as establishing theory by what we see, compute, or hear in our ivory tower. Computer modeling and thought "experiments" are not experiment either and no amount of calculation can whip and infinite number of ramps into existence in an infinitesimal time. Mathematics is not science and neither is Peer review.

Not all evidence can be reproduce in lab.

No, of course not.

In this day and age it's a wonder how many experiments are performed in the lab or under other controlled conditions. The real "muscle" in modern science is experiment design. It really always has been but it gets increasingly more difficult to test hypothesis.

I am the biggest fan of science and some of the methodology lies in my wheelhouse. But I know enough metaphysics to know a lot of what is being foisted on the public and generated by Peers is simple nonsense and lacks any logical, experimental, or proper observational basis. Math is not science and computer modeling is mostly nonsense where any chaotic variables exist. You can design simple tools or machines with computers but you can't (at this time) predict the future or generate new theory. This should be patently obvious to anyone who understands basic metaphysics. If you understand how science actually works then you know there are extreme limits to prediction. Crunching numbers or watching nature are insufficient to generate complex prediction or simple prediction of chaotic phenomena.

While it's probable all the basic forces and processes are relatively simple the simple fact is that they all work at the same time. If you had any experience with simple machines you'd see just how complex processes can become. Even though every parameter can often be controlled and defined all manner of unexpected and uncontrollable events can occur. Systems can be designed more robustly than they are but they still need operators and they can usually find a way to cause processes to go wildly out of control. Nature (reality) is infinitely more complex than any human machine.

 

[tas8831]

All of this dopey gibberish:

And you think everything you see is "evidence" and choose to ignore the fact that every person sees only what he believes. This is why science changes one funeral at a time; people don't even see experimental results when they conflict with his beliefs.

You think "science" runs on evidence and Peer review when in actuality only the scientific method, best summarized as observation > experiment, has any meaning at all to metaphysics and reality. "Science" is necessarily individual until the individual accepts experimental results. No matter how many "Peers" ignore the evidence it remains evidence. No matter what Peers believe the only thing that matters is experiment.

This would all be simple enough if you understood metaphysics instead of just what text book authors deem important.

Until you're willing to discuss the evidence I cite rather than ignoring it or simply gainsaying it (you don't believe it) there remains no point in rehashing any of this. I've explained it all a dozen times and you ignore it. This is not the proper thread for the discussion anyway and I wouldn't respond to your rebuttal even if a miracle happened and it was relevant to something I said. This thread is about "evidence" and what it means to science. "Evidence" is unique to each individual and manifests scientifically as hypothesis. It has nothing to do with any reality other than the observer's. This is very very very basic "science".

If you can't cite chapter and verse of experiments then you don't understand the phenomenon. If you can't cite chapter and verse then what you have is a belief made of someone else's opinion.

... to avoid addressing these questions in that same post:


Where are your experiments showing that a human infant chooses to grow a 'broccas area' [sic]?
Where is your experimental evidence that a new species forms 'suddenly' (or in 2 generations, whichever)?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And you think everything you see is "evidence" and choose to ignore the fact that every person sees only what he believes.

If this were true, no one would ever change their mind.

 

[cladking]

If this were true, no one would ever change their mind.

Nothing is universally true or true in every instance for numerous reasons. But this doesn't change the fact that we all see and experience all of reality in terms of what we believe. Obviously, things that fall far outside of our beliefs or that can't be explained by our beliefs are sometimes experienced but even then we tend to go over them again and again until they "fit" instead of changing our beliefs. It's also true that scientists hold many of their beliefs in terms of models that are sculpted largely from the interpretation of experiment but again even the best scientists easily overlook anomalies because they fit neither beliefs nor models.

Just as you can't step into the same river twice we are each changing all the time but we also almost invariably go to our graves very much the same people we were when young. Scientists hold onto what they were taught on their parents' knees and their early instruction right along with their training in a specialty. Science and the human race change one funeral at a time.

Every man is a product of his time and place and it is necessarily funerals that define the nature of times and places.

None of this is truly my point though which is that everything is evidence but each person picks and chooses what he accepts as evidence. "Evidence" contrary to one's beliefs simply isn't even seen. This makes "evidence" not so much a weak basis for theory but no basis at all. Of course we are each different and some have more ability to change than others but I believe almost everybody has far less ability to see evidence or change than he believes. We each believe we see reality while nobody at all really does because we preferentially see our expectations. This is necessary for homo omnisciencis or we'd be overwhelmed by our senses. Everyone else sees only what is known so is not very susceptible to sensory overload.

 

[gnostic]

You do not get to define the words I use.

You’re joking, right?

I haven’t change any definitions of scientific terms, like the following terms:

• test,
• observations
• scientific evidence,
• experiment
• Scientific Method,
• Methodological Naturalism,
• Metaphysics,
• Metaphysical Naturalism,
• Natural Philosophy,
• Natural Science
• empirical science,
• experimental science

They are all terms that I have accepted as they are.

The only person, attempting to redefine them to suit his agenda , is you.

You are ignoring that Metaphysics is a philosophy, not science, and that Metaphysics don’t mandate testings, nor experiments, hence it doesn’t support Scientific Method.

And if Scientific Method is requirement in Metaphysics, it cannot be equate to experimental science.

Metaphysicians only try to deal with the existence of natural phenomena, based only on logic of “cause and effect”, without evidence and without experiments. Hence, Metaphysics is more talks than actions (eg tests and observations, hence it either evidence or experiments or both).

The philosophy that do support Scientific Method is Methodological Naturalism, not Metaphysics or it’s subset , Metaphysical Naturalism.

The only person twisting what evidence and scientific method and Metaphysics, is you.

 

[cladking]

Now that you can see we are using words a little differently then maybe we can open a dialog and actually discuss something!!!

Let's start with the word "metaphysics". What word would you like me to use when I mean "science and its basis along with how science works"? It can be any word you like but I'm not going to write a treatise for each usage of the concept in a post. If you like "xxxxxxx" then I could say "metaphysics (or xxxxxxx for gnostic)" or I could just write "xxxxxxx (or metaphysics for everyone but gnostic)". Your choice but you must quit twisting my meaning to suit your agenda.

"Metaphysics" (xxxxxxx for gnostic) really is philosophy as you say. This is because definitions can't be tested in the lab. Axioms can't be tested in the lab. Experimental interpretation can't be tested in the lab. Models, individual understanding, and consciousness can't be tested in the lab or compared to the results of reductionistic science. To do ANY of this we need thought and words and we need to actually communicate rather than to lecture to the heretics.

The "scientific method" is not philosophy per se. Terms are strictly defined and these terms say evidence is used to form hypothesis not theory. Experiment and proper observation form theory. While "peer review" is not now and never has been part of the scientific method if it were then I would agree that the method is philosophy because individuals would have to communicate properly before voting on the nature of reality. They could not forego discussion because by definition those who don't participate in state of the art are not "Peers".

Much of your error here is that you can't imagine science exists outside of textbook and opinion. Indeed, it is exactly this, opinion, that science was invented to exclude. It is experiment that excludes opinion and not evidence and not "Peers". Without experiment all anyone has is opinion. Outside of metaphysics (xxxxxx gnostic) science has no meaning. Outside of metaphysics (xxxxxxx gnostic) theory can not exist.

 

[cladking]

It is experiment that excludes opinion and not evidence and not "Peers".

"Observation", "statistics", "computer modeling", and every single thing else will not exclude opinion either because we are each a product of our beliefs and we each act solely on our beliefs. Programming the behavior of fluids and wing shapes into a computer requires almost no opinion of any sort so it works well but programming complex things we don't and might never understand simply returns what we believe and beliefs are the "garbage" in "GIGO". It's the same with statistics. There is an infinite amount of data that can be collected on even the simplest processes so which data we select is partly determinant of the conclusion and then we still can't understand an even "valid" conclusion without understanding all the influences of extraneous forces and processes on what we believe we are measuring.

These are all powerful tools when used in conjunction with existing theory founded in experiment but now days science is getting far afield from experiment and trying to create theory from mathematics and various forms of voodoo. Today we take reality apart to study but it is rarely put back together again to look at systems. Business is highly ineffective and inefficient because the right hand doesn't even know that it doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Government holds it all together and keeps the economy humming along at 5% efficiency as we fill the dumps with the resources of the earth. These are resources that can never be reclaimed like ancient gold tailings but rather the stink of wasted human effort and the decomposition of organic structures and simple molecules. We convert everything to CO2 and throw what's left in the trash. Worse is we have leaders who blame fly over country for flatulent cows which must be eliminated to achieve utopia.

People should be far more careful what they choose to believe because beliefs are what drive modern reality and "always" has been. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

In the ideal, metaphysically (xxxxxxally for gnostic), evidence is virtually irrelevant to all of science except hypothesis formation. In the real world we must use evidence but we must also consider its meaning and remember we see only the evidence we expect to see. Otherwise we quickly cross into belief and superstition.

 

[tas8831]

Dearest @cladking:


Where are your experiments showing that a human infant chooses to grow a 'broccas area' [sic]?

Where is your experimental evidence that a new species forms 'suddenly' (or in 2 generations, whichever)?

 

[tas8831]

If this were true, no one would ever change their mind.

It is true in his case. He will never change his mind, even when his claims have been soundly refuted over and over.

 

[cladking]

It is true in his case. He will never change his mind, even when his claims have been soundly refuted over and over.

...And you'll see the same "evidence" until the day you die.

 

[gnostic]

...And you'll see the same "evidence" until the day you die.

Evidence don’t change, cladking.

What changes, are people’s understanding of the evidence.

Evidence are either the physical or natural phenomena - the physical reality.

This physical reality is governed by the laws of physics.

We, humans tried to understand these laws by modelling explanation and prediction and testing them to see if it is true or false.

History have shown that knowledge accumulate over time, as well as change what they previous know, correcting past errors, as well as replacing outdated knowledge with alternatives.

Astronomy have a long history, with Bronze Age stargazing demonstrating how little they see and how little they know when comparing to what have been discovered in today’s astronomy.

Medicine is another one that have long history.

The points are - what we know then and what we know now, have changed our understanding of the physical/natural reality.

 

[cladking]

Interesting post!!! You're pretty much saying what I am now.

What changes, are people’s understanding of the evidence.

Yes. Each person sees what he expects based on his beliefs and models. If these change then the "evidence" changes. It becomes reinterpreted or not even seen.

Evidence are either the physical or natural phenomena - the physical reality.

But we can no more see reality than we can each see the same evidence.

This physical reality is governed by the laws of physics.

I seriously doubt this is true. We believe in laws of nature because of the way reductionistic science works. We see each part of our knowledge operating on things all the time so assume that everything behaves known and unknown laws.

We, humans tried to understand these laws by modelling explanation and prediction and testing them to see if it is true or false.

Ancient science worked this way as well. The difference is that we must use experiment because evidence is dependent on the observer. They used simple observation and logic which worked because Ancient Language was completely logical just like reality. The observer saw parts of reality directly in observation but we must reduce reality to experiment to see it at all. There is no "evidence" that can show the nature of reality whether you can see it directly or must see it through experiment.

History have shown that knowledge accumulate over time, as well as change what they previous know, correcting past errors, as well as replacing outdated knowledge with alternatives.

It seems this way to us but we have used science for a mere 400 years. Science must undergo a paradigm shift from time to time to more accurately reflect the nature of reality. As experiment accumulates that shows theory is wrong or incomplete all knowledge must be reorganized.

But real life in all its forms is punctuated equilibrium and not all changes are progress. Humans desire truth and efficiency so there is a tendency to progress but some changes are forced upon us or simply appear on the road we travel. It's rare we can go back and must proceed even when the road ahead becomes rocky.

The points are - what we know then and what we know now, have changed our understanding of the physical/natural reality.

I don't disagree per se but we think we understand reality now. Most individuals whether they believe in cosmology, astrology, or business administration think what they see is reality and see no anomaly and nothing that isn't known to Siri or some expert somewhere. We can not see reality any more than we can tell "evidence" from a "red herring". We see our beliefs and we color in everything we perceive with the colors of our beliefs. Reality exists but we can't see it directly at all. It is invisible to us. The ancients called it "amun" and this word meant "the hidden" but they could see aspects of amun directly in glimpses. Their reality wasn't reduced to observers, evidence, and experiment. Their reality was never taken apart for study. They had no word for "evidence" because everything either existed or it did not. We live in a digital world and reduce it for our analog "minds". "Evidence" is never labeled, we choose what the evidence is. There was no ancient word for "evidence". There were no abstractions and for us even "reality" is an abstraction. Every other life form and individual takes reality as being axiomatic. This essentially defines life and consciousness. It's little wonder that life and consciousness are largely abstractions to us.

All reasonable people understand the importance of "evidence". Ideally we use it to formulate our beliefs and models but especially we use it to develop hypothesis. Obviously also "evidence" has many definitions and everybody has to deduce every sentence in which it appears to approximate the intention of the author. Some definitions of "evidence" are barely even abstractions at all.


It's easy to get caught up arguing definitions and here it seems that we are coming to at least some meeting of the minds. I would agree that "evidence" is important to everything but then I'd include everything. It is reason and evidence upon which we must depend because there are no alternatives. But when we lose sight of the weakness of reason and evidence we charge headlong into certainty which does not exist. We come to believe that experts might be wrong but they are more right than they ever have been before. We come to believe the formatting and the omniscience. Mountains of nonsense, modeling, statistics, and assumptions are being called "evidence" and we are acting on "theory" generated by this evidence despite the simple fact it all flies in the face of experiment and often common sense as well. We are caught up in 4000 year old circular argument and have lost sight of the most important concept to science; experiment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you think everything you see is "evidence" and choose to ignore the fact that every person sees only what he believes. This is why science changes one funeral at a time; people don't even see experimental results when they conflict with his beliefs.

You think "science" runs on evidence and Peer review when in actuality only the scientific method, best summarized as observation > experiment, has any meaning at all to metaphysics and reality. "Science" is necessarily individual until the individual accepts experimental results. No matter how many "Peers" ignore the evidence it remains evidence. No matter what Peers believe the only thing that matters is experiment.

This would all be simple enough if you understood metaphysics instead of just what text book authors deem important.

Until you're willing to discuss the evidence I cite rather than ignoring it or simply gainsaying it (you don't believe it) there remains no point in rehashing any of this. I've explained it all a dozen times and you ignore it. This is not the proper thread for the discussion anyway and I wouldn't respond to your rebuttal even if a miracle happened and it was relevant to something I said. This thread is about "evidence" and what it means to science. "Evidence" is unique to each individual and manifests scientifically as hypothesis. It has nothing to do with any reality other than the observer's. This is very very very basic "science".

If you can't cite chapter and verse of experiments then you don't understand the phenomenon. If you can't cite chapter and verse then what you have is a belief made of someone else's opinion.

The projection is strong in this one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have noticed that some people don’t understand what EVIDENCE are.

• Some people that you can make up any claim, and this claim is evidence to whatever ones believe to be true.
• Some other people think that evidence are maths.
• Some do think that any statement and concept can be considered scientific without any evidence.

All of them are wrong.

So what is evidence?

Evidence is the reality, and it is physical phenomena, possibly natural, but sometimes it is man-made or artificial.

And this is very important to remember, the evidence is independent to any concept, to any explanation and to any model (eg explanatory model, predictive model or logical model in a new hypothesis or the current scientific theory).

The physical phenomena (natural or artificial) is independent to scientific theory, but theory does rely on the physical evidence of that phenomena.

Put it this way, the theory is an attempt by scientists to understand the physical phenomena, and they do by trying to logically explain the phenomena.

Once that explanation (including the predictions) have been formulated it, scientists would try to test their explanations/predictions, through discovery and OBSERVATIONS of the EVIDENCE (eg uncontrolled fieldwork) or through EXPERIMENTS (normally performed in controlled environments, like a laboratory)...or both.

In a newly formulated hypothesis, the EVIDENCE will

1. either “verify” the hypothesis as being “probable”,
2. or “refute” the hypothesis, because the hypothesis is “improbable”.

It is the EVIDENCE that test the model (hypothesis or theory), not the other way around.

Those two are the likely outcomes for a falsifiable hypothesis. And only with point one #1, that the hypothesis could be a candidate to becoming a “scientific theory” (but only if presented to Peer Review).

Without evidence, any concepts or models you can think of, are not considered science or scientific.

Well, for the everyday world all human behaviour can't be done only using science as a method.
I am in the process of learning what to use science. What its limits are and when I am not using science.
So it is rather simple. Use science when it works and do something else, when it doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

While mathematical equations (proofs) are useful tools used in science and engineering, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE of anything, nor are equations superior than evidence.

...

How do you know with evidence what is superior or not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is funny how you still don't understand what sciences are, and what evidence are.

...

I need you to come through to me. I need evidence that it is funny. If you don't have evidence as evidence is reality, it is not reality, that it is funny. I need evidence or you are not in reality. Don't let me down!