What is Evidence?

[GoodAttention]

If it's great to find relatives, that means the tests do what they claim to do. These tests use the very same DNA analysis that is accepted in every court of law.

Agree, familial matches are made from the sex chromosomes which would go by certain percentages depending on relation.

I've seen tests that then extrapolate ethnicity, which is in my opinion wrong and, quite frankly, dangerous.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah cool, I think that's faith, your personal beliefs and your beliefs can have its own evidence

Ok,but I am also pointing out that for both Moses and Jesus many did not accept them as coming from God. It does say that both had visible evidences (miraculous occurrences) but even then then they were not necessarily accepted by many as evidence of God's power. Yes, those are my personal beliefs based on what the Bible says.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How you feel about something can not be measured?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about the effectiveness of current public transportation in your city?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how concerned are you about climate change and its impact on the environment?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with the quality of healthcare services you receive?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to you that your workplace supports remote working options?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So far I'm following you.

Here I have to disagree. Your conclusion that the world is illusion is unwarranted. The fact that reality includes randomness and chaos does not in any way indicate that it is illusion.

A common misconception can occur when using the word illusion in this context. To say that material world as we experience it is a web of illusion, is not to say that there’s nothing there; that no material world exists. Simply that objective reality is not what it appears to us to be. After all, how can it be? Our senses and our brains, wonderful though they are, are far too limited to perceive more than a fraction of the kaleidoscope of material processes of which we ourselves are part. And we are subjective beings. No matter how hard we strive for objectivity, it must of necessity always elude us, for every view is a view from somewhere. Acknowledging this is the key to the humility required to learn anything about the world and our place in it. The only possible objective view is a God’s eye view.

 

[Madsaac]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel about the effectiveness of current public transportation in your city?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how concerned are you about climate change and its impact on the environment?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with the quality of healthcare services you receive?

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it to you that your workplace supports remote working options?

Yes, I suppose everything can be measured in a way but its just my opinion and that can hardly be called evidence.

Its about the type of evidence presented. If you you asked an expert in the relevant fields, then it would hold more credence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A common misconception can occur when using the word illusion in this context. To say that material world as we experience it is a web of illusion, is not to say that there’s nothing there; that no material world exists.

Okay, if you are not using the word illusion to indicate it's not real (as Hindus do) then we don't really have a problem.

Simply that objective reality is not what it appears to us to be.

Oh, that's absolutely for certain. Science has pretty much proven this.

After all, how can it be? Our senses and our brains, wonderful though they are, are far too limited to perceive more than a fraction of the kaleidoscope of material processes of which we ourselves are part. And we are subjective beings. No matter how hard we strive for objectivity, it must of necessity always elude us, for every view is a view from somewhere. Acknowledging this is the key to the humility required to learn anything about the world and our place in it.

I wouldn't put the blame on our senses, but on our mind's difficulty in interpreting the data. However, it is also true that we have developed scientific method, which has radically increased our understanding of the universe, INCLUDING the limitations of our perceptions.

The only possible objective view is a God’s eye view.

Complete objectivity is impossible. But we can certainly approach objectivity.

 

[Madsaac]

A common misconception can occur when using the word illusion in this context. To say that material world as we experience it is a web of illusion, is not to say that there’s nothing there; that no material world exists. Simply that objective reality is not what it appears to us to be. After all, how can it be? Our senses and our brains, wonderful though they are, are far too limited to perceive more than a fraction of the kaleidoscope of material processes of which we ourselves are part. And we are subjective beings. No matter how hard we strive for objectivity, it must of necessity always elude us, for every view is a view from somewhere. Acknowledging this is the key to the humility required to learn anything about the world and our place in it. The only possible objective view is a God’s eye view.

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real)

For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective? I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available.

Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, I suppose everything can be measured in a way but its just my opinion and that can hardly be called evidence.

Why do you think such inventories are not evidence?

Its about the type of evidence presented. If you you asked an expert in the relevant fields, then it would hold more credence.

The whole point of being an "expert" is having the education and skill set that is recognized by other experts. It means having the knowledge and ability so far above the typical person, that one can speak with authority. However, individual statements, even by experts, are not evidence. An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authorities do not agree. It is the consensus of scholars that carries weight.

To me, there are only two forms of valid evidence: the results of scientific method, and perfectly logical arguments. Scientific method bases its conclusions on things that can be measured. Thus, an inventory that asks you to rate your feelings on a scale of 1-10 is very much part of science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person.

With the exception of people whose senses are malfunctioning, such as those who are psychotic or deaf, we all pretty much sense the same reality. Only our perception (meaning our interpretation of what we sense) is different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real)

For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective? I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available.

Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

In the strong sense of objective as having reality independent of the mind, that is unknowable. Rather in practice for all humans objective means something which is experienced by humans, but can't be control by humans based solely on how they think/feel.

In other words objective is a certain relationship between humans and some aspects of the experience of the world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real)

For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective? I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available.

Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

Each individual perceives reality, and experiences the world, in a manner unique to him or herself, sure. That’s why our capacity for empathy is so important; we can try to see the world as others see it, and in this at we are able to connect with our fellow travelers in the journey of life. But there’s more. We should always be wary of claiming that we see reality as it truly is, for from this unjustifiable claim comes the equally unjustifiable assumption that anyone who doesn’t share our perception and understanding, is deluded, misguided, or just plain wrong; such hubris serves no one well.

So much for subjective experience. What of objective reality itself? Can we observe some aspect of reality passively, as it would be were we not there watching it? No, we can’t; quantum contextuality and the measurement problem rule this out. The act of observation is an interaction, and any interaction with a system necessarily changes it.
“There is no way to define a reality that is independent of the way we choose to look at it.”
- Chris Ferrie, “Where Did the Universe Come From?” Ferrie and Lewis

Measurement problem - Wikipedia

 

[wellwisher]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

There are two types of evidence in science. One type is connected to the black box of chance and the other is connected to logic and reason. In the black box evidence approach, the phenomena in question is placed in a black box, never to be directly seen. So far so good when it comes to common experience of God. What we do instead is inferred what is inside the black box by the input and outputs. In the case of God in the black box, the Bible has God predicting invasions, wars and Israel being scattered to the wind, with that output occurring. If that is good enough for black box science, it is good enough for me. The black box needs faith and a group willing to accept black box evidence while shielding the phenomena from direct view.

The problem is most of these "is God real topics", tries to place God under the higher standard of rational evidence, where there no black box or hiding the phenomena, so empirical evidence alone can become good enough. But it will not apply that higher standard to all of science. Too much of science still uses the black box approach, where theory can miss the target and still get to linger, since the box has to stay closed Critics need to lead from the front and not the back and use consistent criticism for all.

 

[Audie]

Is it fair to say that what one person sees as an objective reality is different from the next person. And there are only a handful of objective truths like maths and physics? Everything else is on a 'scale' of some sort? (100% to 0% real)

For example, I might see an object and say the object is an objective reality (99% real) whereas someone else may say its still subjective? I say its an objective reality because the evidence to me is near absolute. (99% real)

I agree we are subjective beings and what we believe is from a subjective viewpoint however at what level depends on the evidence available.

Evidence allows individuals to move along the 'scale' from more of a subjective belief towards an objective belief (Rarely getting there). So in other words evidence is critical for a belief to be more 'real'.

It seems to me trivially obvious that
1. People perceive things differently
( blind men and elephant)

2. Pure objectivity is impossible.

What to do with this information may be the
heart of divide between the " spiritual" and the
rational.

Science and engineering require that those involved
do their honest utmost to be objective.

There's plenty of feedback there from colleagues,
test results, and of course potential disasters and or disgrace.

It's not perfect- nothing is- but it works very well.

Theists- pretty much the opposite.

And disasters like utterly false religions
concocted by loonies and conmen are a common
if not universal result.

There's other issues of course.

 

[Madsaac]

Why do you think such inventories are not evidence?

Yes, misunderstanding, you're right my thoughts can be recorded. My point was if you asked an expert to put a rating on these questions, they would be more 'meaningful'

The whole point of being an "expert" is having the education and skill set that is recognized by other experts. It means having the knowledge and ability so far above the typical person, that one can speak with authority. However, individual statements, even by experts, are not evidence. An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authorities do not agree. It is the consensus of scholars that carries weight.

To me, there are only two forms of valid evidence: the results of scientific method, and perfectly logical arguments. Scientific method bases its conclusions on things that can be measured. Thus, an inventory that asks you to rate your feelings on a scale of 1-10 is very much part of science.

No you're right individual statements are not evidence. That's like having ten priest say god exists.

However, I'm more then willing to listen what a priest says about the existence of god over Joe Blo.

 

[Madsaac]

In the strong sense of objective as having reality independent of the mind, that is unknowable. Rather in practice for all humans objective means something which is experienced by humans, but can't be control by humans based solely on how they think/feel.

In other words objective is a certain relationship between humans and some aspects of the experience of the world.

Okay, are you saying everything is independent of the mind? Objective reality doesn't exist?

I think a objective reality & truths exists in science. How can these large complex systems of the universe work without it? Evidence is indisputable.

I think this is a very good 'balanced' article discussing Objective Reality

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

Objective reality exists, but what can you know about it that isn't subjective. According to some neuroscientists, not much.

bigthink.com

 

[Madsaac]

We should always be wary of claiming that we see reality as it truly is, for from this unjustifiable claim comes the equally unjustifiable assumption that anyone who doesn’t share our perception and understanding, is deluded, misguided, or just plain wrong; such hubris serves no one well.

Yes, you're right

So much for subjective experience. What of objective reality itself? Can we observe some aspect of reality passively, as it would be were we not there watching it? No, we can’t; quantum contextuality and the measurement problem rule this out. The act of observation is an interaction, and any interaction with a system necessarily changes it.

What of the large complex systems within the realms of science.

Science can observe them without changing the objective reality. No matter what subjective thoughts. Evidence is indisputable.

I think this is a very good 'balanced' article discussing Objective Reality

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

Objective reality exists, but what can you know about it that isn't subjective. According to some neuroscientists, not much.

bigthink.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, are you saying everything is independent of the mind? Objective reality doesn't exist?

I think a objective reality & truths exists in science. How can these large complex systems of the universe work without it? Evidence is indisputable.

I think this is a very good 'balanced' article discussing Objective Reality

You don't see objective reality objectively: neuroscience catches up to philosophy

Objective reality exists, but what can you know about it that isn't subjective. According to some neuroscientists, not much.

bigthink.com

I am not say objective reality doesn't exist. You can test if there is an objective reality or not, but that is not the same as what you can know about it.
And no, everything is not independent of the mind. The mind and how it works is not independent of the mind.

Again, there is a reason science is based on methodological naturalism. But whether objective reality is real as you perceive it or it is an Boltzmann Brain universe of some variant, is unknowable.

 

[AppieB]

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

So, yes, the Bible is evidence of the existence of god, but on its own not very convincing.
Similarly, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone" is evidence that Harry Potter exists, but we know that he is an invention by J K Rowling.

Is the Bible evidence for the existence of God? How?
People claim it to be evidence for God, because they belief in God and find this to be evidence.
What if I claimed that God doesn't exist and was invented by people who wrote the Bible? The evidence for that is the Bible.

So the Bible is evidence for the existence of God and is evidence for the non-existence of God? How does this work?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is the Bible evidence for the existence of God? How?
People claim it to be evidence for God, because they belief in God and find this to be evidence.
What if I claimed that God doesn't exist and was invented by people who wrote the Bible? The evidence for that is the Bible.

So the Bible is evidence for the existence of God and is evidence for the non-existence of God? How does this work?

That is because the concept of evidence is not a thing. It is a set of cognitive rules for how to interpret different experiences and there are different version of it (different sets).
But that is philosophy in practice and not science.

 

[AppieB]

I find that dictionary definition to be lacking. It doesn't say that the evidence must support only the proposition.
If evidence can support a position as well as its opposite, it isn't much of evidence. (I'm willing to argue that the Bible is evidence that god doesn't exist.)
Also, evidence may point to a conclusion and a different set of facts may point away from it. So only the body of all the facts should be considered as evidence.

And it is difficult to be precise in one's thinking. As @Spice has pointed out, the Bible is evidence that people have believed in gods for a long time - which is not the same as saying that it is evidence for the existence of gods.

A good measurement for the value of evidence is the comparison to similar cases. Are the Upanishads evidence for the Hindu gods? Is Starwars evidence for the truth of Jediism?

Just started reading through this thread and my point was already made.