Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Direct and indirect evidence in science
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 1 of 41 (614039)
04-30-2011 10:58 AM


Hi, couldn't find a place to post these questions so decided to try and start a new topic:
What is the definition of direct evidence and indirect evidence and could you please provide examples of each? In relation to evolution, would the fossil record be an example of direct or indirect evidence of evolution?
Also, could you explain why indirect evidence is "good enough" evidence to support scientific theories, or provide examples of commonly accepted scientific theories, where supporting evidence is wholely, or mostly indirect? I know atoms are at least one such theory (source: Questions and Answers - What is one example of indirect evidence that scientists use to study an atom?)
Currently debating a creationist and he's been nagging me about evolution only being supported by indirect evidence while every other scientific theory is apparently supported by direct evidence...didn't want to state any falsehoods which is why I'm asking

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 04-30-2011 11:34 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2011 1:01 AM Medis has replied
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 05-01-2011 1:44 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2011 3:06 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 05-01-2011 6:02 AM Medis has not replied
 Message 14 by Robert Byers, posted 05-04-2011 1:44 AM Medis has not replied

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 8 of 41 (614075)
05-01-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
05-01-2011 1:01 AM


Thanks a lot for the replies.
Direct evidence for a conclusion are facts that establish the conclusion without any need for drawing inferences. In the strict sense, the only direct evidence is eye witness testimony of the conclusion. Maybe a video recording can be considered direct evidence.
You say that a video recording could be considered direct evidence. A video recording is not a "direct observation" though, in the sense that you are observing using a tool (in this case a camera) and not observing with the "naked" eye.
My question is this, if a video recording is considered direct evidence, what about an SEM of a chromosome? Would that be considered direct evidence of DNA? How about an electron microscopy of a cell, would that be considered direct evidence of a cell? Would an emission spectrum be considered direct evidence of atoms?
Even using a video camera, wouldn't you have to draw inference as to how the camera works?
It's actually far easier to come up with examples theories based on indirect evidence than it is to come up with theories based on direct evidence. Perhaps a good debating tactic would be to discuss and debunk claims that other branches of science use direct evidence.
I was in the process of doing exactly that when I realised that it is quite hard to do without definitions of direct and indirect evidence.
For example I stated that we don't have direct evidence of magnetism. Then he showed the well known example of iron filings on a piece of paper showing the magnetic lines of force.
Now I would call that indirect evidence, because we can't actually see the magnetic force itself, rather we're looking at the iron filings and infer that they align themselves because of magnetism.
I would say the same is true for an SEM of a chromosome being indirect evidence of DNA. We're not seeing the chromosome with our own eyes, rather we're using an electron microscope.
Dr Adequate writes:
Perhaps you should make the creationist define what are, after all, his terms.
If he can't or won't, then he might as well be talking about flubnar and non-flubnar evidence.
I've tried, he ignores it and responds with examples of what he considers direct evidence, e.g. emission spectrum as direct evidence of atoms.
I think I'll explain to him what direct and indirect evidence is, refute his wrong examples, assert that we don't have direct evidence of atoms, explain why there is nothing wrong with indirect evidence and finally ask him if somebody was found lying on the ground with several stab wounds and no weapon in sight if he would rule out murder because nobody saw it happen?
Edited by Malangyar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2011 1:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 05-01-2011 12:49 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2011 5:42 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 11 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-01-2011 6:44 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2011 12:12 AM Medis has not replied

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 13 of 41 (614164)
05-02-2011 12:52 PM


Thanks guys, much appreciated.
I realise how silly these questions about direct and indirect evidence come across btw, thanks for taking the time to "state the obvious".

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 20 of 41 (614702)
05-06-2011 6:27 AM


Update
Just thought I'd update people on what happened. It has come to light that the creationist is in fact a flat Earth believer and also believes that human beings were at one point 90 ft tall.
I have thus concluded that it is impossible to reason with him and that he is quite possibly crazy.
If he won't accept that the Earth is round, no evidence of Evolution will ever be good enough for him.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2011 10:02 AM Medis has replied

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 24 of 41 (614746)
05-06-2011 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-06-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Update
NoNukes writes:
Malangyar writes:
Just thought I'd update people on what happened. It has come to light that the creationist is in fact a flat Earth believer and also believes that human beings were at one point 90 ft tall.
Got any evidence that Byers is a flat earth believer? I did a quick Internet search that turned up a bunch of goofy Robert Byers posts in the same vein as his stuff here, but no flat earth assertions.
lol, sorry NN, I don't have any evidence linking Byers to FE.
Although I've noticed similarties between his responses and the creationist I was "debating".
They both respond selectively to posts and ignore uncomfortable points. They both make unsubstantiated claims of what is and isn't science and ignore calls for evidence and sources for their claims.
In addition, the guy I was debating jumped from subject to subject, often repeating the same objections to evolution I had just refuted a few pages back. In a sense he wasn't really reading my posts, rather he was fighting a monster he had himself set up.
The final straw came when it came to my attention that he was a FE believer. If people won't accept evidence that the Earth is round (e.g. The Blue Marble photo) then IMO they can't be reasoned with and will never accept any evidence you bring forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2011 10:02 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 05-06-2011 1:19 PM Medis has not replied
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2011 2:18 AM Medis has replied

  
Medis
Member (Idle past 3891 days)
Posts: 34
Joined: 10-16-2007


Message 30 of 41 (614836)
05-07-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by dwise1
05-07-2011 2:18 AM


Re: Update
dwise1 writes:
I remember an article by the late Robert Schadewald, former president of the NCSE and tireless writer on the subject of pseudoscience, including creationism and flat-earthism. According to his Wikipedia article, he drew many parallels in the mental processes of creationists and flat-earthists. He also became friends with the leading flat-earthist and his wife.
In this article, he reported a conversation with his flat-earthist friend. At one point, he showed his friend a photo taken of the earth from space. His friend's expression hardened as he said to Schadewald (remembered from over a decade ago), "I see that you are part of the conspiracy."
That guy (now departed) truly believed in flat-earthism. His reason for that belief was the Bible. He believed that if the earth is actually not flat, then the Bible is not true. In order to defend the truth of the Bible, no evidence of a round earth could ever possibly be admitted to be true, or even credible. No doubt in the truth of the Bible can ever be allowed.
The vast majority of creationists believe that the truth of the Bible depends on creationism being true, or at the very least that evolution is false. In other words, if the evidence is true and the world really is as it is, then the Bible is false and everything they believe in is not true. So they must do absolutely everything they can to deny the evidence, to deny the truth. I do not envy them in the least; they have firmly committed themselves to a losing and indefensible position and they feel that they must hold it no matter what. So their standing operating procedure (SOP) regarding the evidence is that they must deny it. Or else watch their entire faith structure crumble away. I most definitely do not envy them in the least.
Reading the experiences of creationism opponents talking with their creationist opponents off the record, they are surprised to learn that these guys actually believe that stuff! We know that creationism is all lies and deception, but the creationists actually believe that stuff! When a creationist hits you with a flamingly blatant falsehood, you still have a hard time being able to say that that creationist had lied. Even their top-level liars you can't definitely say that they know that they are lying. I've spotted only a few definite cases of lying (eg, Walter Brown about his rattlesnake protein claim and a local pathological liar creationist about the ozone layer), but even then we don't know for sure that they haven't rationalized it completely away, regardless of how impossible that may seem to us.
Of course, in Robert Byers' case, he is so totally clueless about everything that I am truly surprised that he can achieve even minimal functionality on a daily basis.
Thanks for introducing me to Robert Schadewald, dwise1. I've been reading a few of his articles and they're actually very interesting in addition to being funny as hell.
I agree completely that the reason creationists deny any and all evidence is that if they accepted the evidence their whole world view would come crashing down. You are right, most of them probably aren't lying. They truly believe that evolution didn't happen.
But still, I'm amazed some of them don't cave in when faced with such overwhelming evidence of, say, the Earth being round. It's fascinating.
I will try and find more articles by Schadewald. According to Wikipedia a book has been released containing many of his writings, I might try and get hold of it...
By the way, why did Schadewald pass away at such an early age?
Edited by Malangyar, : question

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2011 2:18 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 05-09-2011 1:36 PM Medis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024