What is Evidence?

[RestlessSoul]

"We" do. Our brains receive all of the information generated by our senses. However, the conscious process which most people only identify as, only receives an interpretation of this direct information.

For example colors don't actually exist. They are an interpretation of a small spectrum of wave energy.

Two problems recent science identifies with the existence of an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading. We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Two problems recent science identifies with an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading. We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

@Nakosis

The problem is further that if your mind is caused by objective reality, then you have to know if objective reality is epistemologcally fair, for you, Nakosis, to know what objective reality is in the metaphysical sense as you claim you know.

 

[Nakosis]

Two problems recent science identifies with the existence of an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

That's not true.

Yes I know that some of you are thinking of the double slit experiment. You make a screen with two slits, shine light through and get an interference pattern. Put a detector at one slit, attach a dial to the detector, and have a scientist watching the dial so they can see which slit the photon went through, and the interference pattern disappears. Perhaps, thought some of the early scientists, consciousness causes the quantum wave function to collapse, the universe doesn't like us knowing which slit the photon goes through.

However, lets do a few more experiments. Repeat the previous one, except that the scientist is sleeping in front of the dial. No interference pattern. Turn the dial to face the wall, remove the scientist entirely. Still no interference pattern. Unplug the dial from the detector, so electrical impulses run up the wire and then can't go anywhere. Again, no interference. Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness.
Quantum Mechanics, Nothing to do with Consciousness — LessWrong

It turns out that the collapse of the wave function is relatively easy. Not by conscious observation but by the presence of the physical detector. The detector doesn't even have to be turned on.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading.

This part I agree with but I'll assume for different reasons. The conscious process creates an "illusionary" interface to help us consciously make sense of the world.

We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

Yes we are part of reality. We can even affect that reality through physical processes.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, the problem is that you believe you know something about reality. And you assume I also know something about reality. I don't, since I am a strong skeptic.

Yes I can test reality to verify my knowledge of it. So can you. However that doesn't mean you can't willfully deny the results. I don't think you are a strong skeptic, I think you are an absolute skeptic. IOW, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is nothing admirable about this position.

You really don't understand that sicence as an epistemological system is axiomatic and what that means.

No I don't. Because it is not practical to understand science in terms of philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it like you never answers questions. It only asks them.

 

[Nakosis]

It’s a reasonable assumption that conscious experience is dependent on physical correlates in the material world. It may also be that the reverse is equally true. There is as yet no empirical evidence to confirm or deny either proposition, not may either be upheld by logic alone.

Ok, then, how does this non-physical process work. What are the mechanics of it and how can you test for it?
Every experience is explainable in physical terms. Where is the non-physical explanation?

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, I'll be away for a few hours. I got to go do some nuclear testing. I assure you, an entirely physical process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I can test reality to verify my knowledge of it. So can you. However that doesn't mean you can't willfully deny the results. I don't think you are a strong skeptic, I think you are an absolute skeptic. IOW, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is nothing admirable about this position.



No I don't. Because it is not practical to understand science in terms of philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it like you never answers questions. It only asks them.

Well. I don't care for your subjective feelings as these are not science, not with evicence and only meausreble based on how you feel.

As for the second part you are all humans and therefore you decide for all humans with science and evidence, right?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok, then, how does this non-physical process work. What are the mechanics of it and how can you test for it?
Every experience is explainable in physical terms. Where is the non-physical explanation?

How can you physically measure or evaluate non physical phenomena? You can’t, obviously. You cannot weigh a thought. Which might explain why, given all the progress medicine had made in the last century, there remains no biological test which can diagnose mental illness.

But you’re missing the point; even where clear correlates exist between mental processes and electro magnetic activity in the brain, there is no evidence to show which is fundamental and which is emergent. In other words, which is cause and which is effect. Neuroplasticity is the term used to describe the effect that activity in the mind can have on the structure of the brain, clearly indicating that in some instances the mind has priority over the body.

Nor can it ever make sense to argue that you can reduce conscious experience to physical phenomena without something vital being lost - you are not just a flurry of electro chemical impulses occurring in the brain, you are a self-aware, living entity having a conscious experience.

 

[Nakosis]

Well. I don't care for your subjective feelings as these are not science, not with evicence and only meausreble based on how you feel.

That's ok, it is really not necessary for you to care about my subjective feelings. Just worry about your own. I promise I won't feel bad.

As for the second part you are all humans and therefore you decide for all humans with science and evidence, right?

The second part is for you to provide an argument to support your position. Something more than just doubt. I mean if it wouldn't offend your position as a skeptic.

 

[1213]

If we used the Bible we would surely predict that the world has not had time enough to produce reservoirs of crude oil.

Oil can be formed relatively fast.

"Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour"

Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour

Researchers believe they have figured out a way to make a promising biofuel that is cheap enough to compete with gasoline

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Nakosis]

Oil can be formed relatively fast.

"Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour"

Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour

Researchers believe they have figured out a way to make a promising biofuel that is cheap enough to compete with gasoline

www.smithsonianmag.com

Yes crude oil does not come from dinosaurs. However it still took millions of years to form naturally.
Over the course of millions of years, “members of these massive colonies died off” and “sank to the bottom of the sea and were gradually covered by accumulating sediment,” writes Strauss. "Over millions of years, these layers of sediment grew heavier and heavier until the dead bacteria trapped below were ‘cooked’ by the pressure and temperature into a stew of liquid hydrocarbons.”
Sorry, folks, oil does not come from dinosaurs

Great though if we can speed up the process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think Bible could be used as well to predict where oil should be.

You can think whatever you like.

SHOW it.

Show me a drilling company hiring people who use the bible to tell them where to drill instead of modern geology.
Go ahead. Don't just claim it. Show it.

 

[1213]

Yes crude oil does not come from dinosaurs. However it still took millions of years to form naturally.

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe so, especially when it can be done in very short time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe so, especially when it can be done in very short time.

It seems that everybody that needs to put their money where their mouth is (like oil drilling companies) seem to have very good reason to believe so.

It's all very easy to merely make these empty claims when nothing in your life actually depends on it being true or not.
But the second millions, nay - billions, of dollars are involved... not so much it seems.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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?

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?

Any self-proclamation by a text that it is the final truth is obviously not acceptable. The question is what then would be the test? One possibility is to rely on the spiritual perception of the sages. But this also is not workable because the sages of different religions at different times have different perceptions, so they can be in conflict. In my understanding the only touchstone of the truth of a Scripture is whether it has provided succour to a large number of people. If a text actually reflects the Word of God, then people should get benefit from that word. So, on that ground alone, it is possible in my opinion, to decide whether a text is spiritually valid or not.

whether this confirms God's existence is a separate issue which we need not get into here at this point. Thank you.

 

[danieldemol]

the only touchstone of the truth of a Scripture is whether it has provided succour to a large number of people.

Sounds like an ad-populum fallacy to me in my view.

 

[Audie]

Any self-proclamation by a text that it is the final truth is obviously not acceptable. The question is what then would be the test? One possibility is to rely on the spiritual perception of the sages. But this also is not workable because the sages of different religions at different times have different perceptions, so they can be in conflict. In my understanding the only touchstone of the truth of a Scripture is whether it has provided succour to a large number of people. If a text actually reflects the Word of God, then people should get benefit from that word. So, on that ground alone, it is possible in my opinion, to decide whether a text is spiritually valid or not.

whether this confirms God's existence is a separate issue which we need not get into here at this point. Thank you.

" spiritually valid"

 

[Hawkins]

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?

Do you have the evidence on whether Trump or Biden won the 2020 votes?

Humans don't rely on evidence to get to truths. To be more specific, only eyewitnesses have the evidence, the rest need faith to approach a truth. You don't have the evidence of any majority votes of any US presidents in history. What you have is the faith on who is the legit president.

This applies to all kinds of truth, even science. Scientists are the eyewitnesses for the rest of human kind (99.99% humans overall) to believe with faith. That's what the core of science is to humans.

As for the OT Bible, you need to compare it with another equivalent piece of history from an equivalent ethnicity. History is about what believed (by a historian) to be valid human testimonies. It says that if God is true (let's assume so for the sake of argument), there's not a better way for this truth to convey other than what have been conveyed by the Jews.

 

[Audie]

Do you have the evidence on whether Trump or Biden won the 2020 votes?

Humans don't rely on evidence to get to truths. To be more specific, only eyewitnesses have the evidence, the rest need faith to approach a truth. You don't have the evidence of any majority votes of any US presidents in history. What you have is the faith on who is the legit president.

This applies to all kinds of truth, even science. Scientists are the eyewitnesses for the rest of human kind (99.99% humans overall) to believe with faith. That's what the core of science is to humans.

As for the OT Bible, you need to compare it with another equivalent piece of history from an equivalent ethnicity. History is about what believed (by a historian) to be valid human testimonies. It says that if God is true (let's assume so for the sake of argument), there's not a better way for this truth to convey other than what have been conveyed by the Jews.

You dont speak for others.


If you rely on emotions to get you to
" truths", so much the worse for you.

For one, said " truths" will not be found.

For the other, basing actions / beliefs on
how you just happen to feel is self
indulgence, which I hold to be the root of all evil.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any self-proclamation by a text that it is the final truth is obviously not acceptable.

Christians believe that the Bible is the Only truth, which is final. I do not believe that. I believe that more truth from God has been revealed since the Bible was canonized. I believe that the verses that say not to add to the Bible mean not to add to the Bible after the Bible had been canonized. Those verses do not mean that no further truth from God could ever be revealed by God after the Bible was canonized.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

The question is what then would be the test? One possibility is to rely on the spiritual perception of the sages. But this also is not workable because the sages of different religions at different times have different perceptions, so they can be in conflict.

Messengers of God (Prophets), and the religions that were established after their coming, contained ‘different’ messages because the needs of the people were different in the different ages in which those Messengers appeared. Sometimes these messages appear to be in conflict when in reality they are just a ‘new message’ that was an addition to the previous message.

In my understanding the only touchstone of the truth of a Scripture is whether it has provided succour to a large number of people. If a text actually reflects the Word of God, then people should get benefit from that word. So, on that ground alone, it is possible in my opinion, to decide whether a text is spiritually valid or not.

I agree with that, as expressed in the following passage:

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

whether this confirms God's existence is a separate issue which we need not get into here at this point. Thank you.

Yes, that is a separate issue.