What qualifies as evidence?

[dad]

Posting evidence for you is completely useless.
If you dislike what is presented you dismiss it out of hand and claim it is not evidence.
You have done exactly that for the last three years.

that you present YOUR idea of what is science as though you think it is MY idea of what is science does not help you.
I mean, it is not like you are fooling anyone who has paid even the remotest attention to your posts.

And thus far you have completely failed with your attempts at deep AND clever.....

So now you seem to allude to having some sort of evidence but somehow you can't quite post it. Seriously? Ha

 

[McBell]

So now you seem to allude to having some sort of evidence but somehow you can't quite post it. Seriously? Ha

Another deep and clever fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your math seems to be in your head as well as whatever evidence you think you know about.

No, I use valid sources for both. You unfortunately only have a book of myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you seem to allude to having some sort of evidence but somehow you can't quite post it. Seriously? Ha

He did not say that. He too recognizes that you do not understand the concept of evidence and refuse to learn.

 

[Augustus]

But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

All kinds of stuff counts as evidence, but then again sometimes the evidence is the absence of stuff. Sometimes stuff is present, but the evidence is that it's the wrong kind of stuff.

Sufficient? Depends entirely on what the issue is, how important it is, how much you can verify yourself, what the costs of being wrong are.

Well I was sort of alluding to the 2020 election. It was....interesting to watch the fallout, let’s just say

In things where the signal to noise ratio is bad (amount of true information compared to false information) and you have little means of independently verifying, usually best to be patient and time will tell.

The faster the news, the more likely it is to be wrong.

 

[SomeRandom]

All kinds of stuff counts as evidence, but then again sometimes the evidence is the absence of stuff. Sometimes stuff is present, but the evidence is that it's the wrong kind of stuff.

Sufficient? Depends entirely on what the issue is, how important it is, how much you can verify yourself, what the costs of being wrong are.

Hmm. I do try to evaluate the evidence on certain things. But I find it hard since I tend to like things that are more “abstract.” Literature, political theory that sort of thing. I’m probably not educated enough to “get it” all the time. And I have been very wrong about things. But being wrong is just a learning opportunity or whatever, right?

In things where the signal to noise ratio is bad (amount of true information compared to false information) and you have little means of independently verifying, usually best to be patient and time will tell.

The faster the news, the more likely it is to be wrong.

I wonder just how powerful echo chambers are these days. With the internet and algorithms, you could hypothetically shut out all contrary information for one’s pet theory. I find myself rolling my eyes at conspiracy theorists, but I mean I also kind of empathise with them to a certain degree. Technology can filter information for you if you’re not careful

 

[Audie]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

To paraphrase Mark Twain a bit-

It depends on what the evidence is for.

If its for a miracle, any sort of evidence will serve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, this may or may not be inspired by what I’ve been witnessing. I’ll leave it at that.
But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you? What standards do you hold evidence to?
Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?
Debate, discuss as you like.

The case for why some conclusion is true - or likely to be true - will generally rely on a number of premises.

Empirical facts that establish that these premises are true are evidence.

... though often, we reserve the term "evidence" for things that don't support other mutually exclusive claims.

For instance, the fact that the sky is blue is a necessary premise for the conclusion "the sky is blue because pixies painted it their favourite colour" and "the sky is blue because of the refraction of air," but it would be weird to say that the fact that the sky being blue is evidence that pixies painted it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those that wonder how we know that the deaths from Covid19 are underreported I submit this article:

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

Tableau Public

Well shoot, I cannot post the graphic. Perhaps I should download it. At any rate the second link is to an interactive graph. The gold line is the predicted deaths based upon previous averages. You can see that we are far above that since the pandemic. If you subtract off known Covid19 cases from the graphs there are still far more deaths than average.

One more link This breaks down excess deaths by states. Texas is the hardest hit:

Tableau Public

 

[Augustus]

Well shoot, I cannot post the graphic. Perhaps I should download it. At any rate the second link is to an interactive graph. The gold line is the predicted deaths based upon previous averages. You can see that we are far above that since the pandemic. If you subtract off known Covid19 cases from the graphs there are still far more deaths than average.

 

[Valjean]

Evidence is anything that seems to confirm one's beliefs.

No, that's not what scientists or intellectuals mean by evidence

In science they believe there was no creation and therefore all things need to be explained by the natural world we live in.

Science believes no such thing, and, it believes this has a natural explanation.

Anything they find here that reinforces that belief is considered evidence.

Only by theologists, never by scientists or intellectuals.

If they see some process that could be interpreted as (if given enough time) maybe being responsible for life or things we see, that is evidence that it basically created it's little self. If people love abortions and Satanic lifestyles and various evils, they would support a party that stood for those values. If election fraud evidence was seen, they would not consider that evidence.

Clearly you don't understand science, which is always trying to disprove its own hypotheses. Science accepts nothing without hard evidence. It's opinions follow the evidence, not personal beliefs.
What abortion and "Satanic lifestyles" have to do with this I have no idea.

Only what supports their beliefs can be evidence.

No! You've got it backwards. Scientists are skeptical. Part of the scientific method involves testing, and trying to disprove personal beliefs.

If some people experience a miracle, they consider that evidence of God's word. If others hear of that evidence they would dismiss it because they have no way to confirm or deny it. While there can be evidence for theories in the here and now real world, in most cases, evidence is just a word people like to use to make their beliefs seem true.

If someone experiences a miracle, that is personal evidence only. Science holds a hither standard, that the phenomenon be reproducible, observable and testable.

You're confusing science with faith. It's faith that accepts whatever fits a preconceived belief. It's faith that doesn't test. Science is exactly the opposite. That's what makes it the gold standard, and the most reliable guide to reality ever invented.

 

[Secret Chief]

- "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true"

But I’m wondering, what qualifies as sufficient evidence to you?

Depends on what the topic/field is. eg science, religion, law, politics...As a generalisation I think evidence is best restricted to science and law; the word is more robustly used in those fields. I find it less pertinent in religious matters. The text of a holy book is a reason to believe something is "true", for some people, clearly. Often on this forum and elsewhere it seems to me people are talking past each other, basically because they have significantly different ideas about what constitutes "evidence." "Reasons to believe" are not necessarily or always the same in courts, labs or temples.
As the above definition shows, the word has a broad meaning..

What standards do you hold evidence to?

Because of my comment above, it depends.

Do you think there are people who hold differing standards? And why do you think that happens?

Yes. Because we are all different in our take on what constitutes "sufficient evidence" and because of what I've said above.

Debate, discuss as you like.

I still don't get this distinction on this forum. Is a debate meant to produce a "winner" and a "loser" ? If so... who decides? Is there a vote? How can a discussion not involve an element of debate (ie difference of opinion)?