The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

Can you give an example of some evidence that is not conclusive?My understanding is that "data" may or may not be conclusive.
But "evidence" is always conclusive based on it's very definition: Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.When data is conclusive, we call such data "evidence" for that conclusion.
How can facts indicate a proposition is true... but not be conclusive?Everything is "evidence" of something (at the very least, it will be evidence of it's own existence).
But once you start talking about a specific idea, everything is "data" and only a few things will be "evidence" for that conclusion.
If it "may or may not" lead to the idea being correct... then it's not evidence for that idea. It could still be evidence for something else... but who cares? Everything is evidence for it's own existence, and probably a few other irrelevant details.When talking about evidence, it is implied that you are speaking about the *relevant details*. And this relevancy changes depending on the idea and context being discussed. Anything else becomes:-not really understanding what the word 'evidence' means
-creating a strawman in order to push a different agenda
-intentionally confusing the situation in order to push a different agendaSo you can see how easily it is to mistake someone who simply doesn't understand the word 'evidence' as someone who does understand the term, and it purposefully using it incorrectly for their own intentions.It's fairly easy to play around with the term 'evidence' and get confused if you mess up what idea or context you're discussing.
Science takes a lot of time, patience and honesty to make sure they get things right.
The more you use the term correctly (and understand the corrections that other's make for the term's use...) the more you understand the subtleties.

Of course they're evidence. Everything is evidence of something, remember?
The are conclusive for some things and not for others. Therefore, they are evidence for some things, and not for others.For example, my fingerprints are evidence that I was at home at some point in the recent past.
My fingerprints are data that is conclusive to the idea that I was at home at some point in the recent past.However, my fingerprints are not evidence that I am an expert at flying kites.
However, my fingerprints are data that is not conclusive to the idea that I am an expert at flying kites. I don't think you're getting the point.The point is: Are they conclusive for what????They will be conclusive for some things... for those things, they are evidence.
They will not be conclusive for other things... for those things they are not evidence.There is nothing that exists that "is evidence" in some absolute sense.
Even a "smoking gun" is only evidence that a gun was shot. It's not evidence that a rabbit makes it's home in the woods.If you do not think this is true, please accept the challenge yourself. Can you describe something that is evidence that is not conclusive?

A scientific theory is an over-arching idea that summarizes many, many varying other ideas.
When talking about things like this, again you have to be careful what you're talking about.The evidence involved will certainly be conclusive for some specific idea.If most of those ideas can have evidence supporting them (making their individual conclusions certain) then you can create a scientific theory generalizing an even larger idea.This is the best kind of scientific theory... one that has many conclusive ideas behind it... but a few non-conclusive ideas.
Those non-conclusive ideas are what will validate (or in-validate) the theory given further testing and the finding of further evidence. Only if they abuse the word "evidence."Evidence = conclusive for a specific idea.
You're talking about ideas that are very large and incorporate many different smaller ideas. Ideas like "does God exist?" or "does evolution explain all life we see around us?" Such ideas incorporate many, many different smaller ideas like "God created people" or "without God, love would not exist" and other such smaller ideas.What you mean to say is that obviously people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Which is true.But people can't look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. That's impossible and re-defines the word "evidence" to mean something it doesn't mean.Again, if you don't believe me, please just name one piece of "evidence" that is "not conclusive" and I'll show you how you're wrong.

Allow me to parse this out: No, it's not. Nothing is "evidence" in an absolute sense. Things are only evidence "for something (specific)."
They are, however, "data." Correct.
Idea: Earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around the Earth.
Data: Sun rises in East, sets in West, and moon/stars rotate around, and the Earth is stationary (I added this, but this was "the data" when such ideas were around for your example).
This data is conclusive that the Earth is the centre and everything revolves around the Earth.
There is no other interpretation.Therefore, this "data" is now "evidence" for this idea.
This data is still not evidence that I will be born in 1978. But it is evidence for this idea. Incorrect.
The evidence was conclusive, it was just wrong.
It was wrong because the data was wrong.
1. The earth is not stationary.
2. There is much more data about gravity and space that is missing.When 1 and 2 were discovered... the idea changed and this "data" all became "evidence" for the currently-prevalent conclusion we have today about pretty much all of space moving around.Is it correct? Is it still wrong? No one knows because we don't know everything.
All we know is that the evidence is conclusive... what we know shows us that this is the way it is. Exactly.The evidence was conclusive.
The conclusion was wrong.
Because the data was wrong and incomplete.More data or corrected data = update your conclusion to match.And, voila! You just discovered science!

If you allow the data to form your ideas... then yes, this flows very naturally.However, this takes A LOT of honesty and practice working with 'data' and following 'where it leads.'
But, as long as you do that... your data will always be your evidence for whatever-idea-it-leads-you-to. We even have evidence for such an idea

Take this example statement: He owns a car... this is evidence that he has a license.
This would be a very simple "common knowledge" statement most people-on-the-street would accept as using the terms correctly.Although, it's quite possible to own a car and not have a license: License may be revoked. Maybe he's rich and eccentric and "collects cars" but has a chauffeur take him around everywhere.Therefore, by my definition... owning a car is not evidence that someone has a license.So, if we went up to some random person on the street and asked:

quote:

---

"Do you think the following is a fair statement: If someone owns a car, this is evidence that they have a license?"

---

I think most people would say "yes, fair statement" - making my judgment for the definition of the terms incorrect.However, if we went up to some random person on the street and said the following:

quote:

---

"Hi there, you are aware that lots of people own cars but do not have licenses, correct? That is, some people have had their licenses revoked while still owning their vehicle and others are rich and eccentric and collect cars and have drivers so they do not require licenses themselves."

​

"Yes, I know those things are very possible."

​

"Do you think the following is a fair statement: If someone owns a car, this is evidence that they have a license?"

​

"Well, no... because of all the reasons we just talked about a few seconds ago..."

---

I think this discussion proves the point I'm trying to make."Data" is not some always-accessible-pool-of-information. It's not something we can all draw from indefinitely at all times. We're people, we forget things, our minds get occupied with other things... we simply cannot hold "all data" for everything for perfect retrieval at all times."Evidence" is always for something... taking data and making a conclusion about a specific idea.
This doesn't mean it's always right. The data may be incomplete, maybe missing something, maybe flat wrong. But there's only 1 conclusion, and it cannot be "interpreted differently."Keeping this in mind, I'm going to walk through my discussion one more time:First person we go up to again and ask:

quote:

---

"Do you think the following is a fair statement: If someone owns a car, this is evidence that they have a license?"

---

Data the "general person" probably has at their immediate disposal:-They own a car, they have a license.
-All their friends own cars, they all have licenses.
-Their family owns cars, they all have licenses.
-Licences are mandatory to drive, driving requires a car, you buy a car because you need to drive places (work/entertainment...).From this data (without adding more data)... there's only one conclusion: If you own a car -> you have a license.
No other "interpretations" possible.Because we're talking to a person on-the-spot, they're "pool of data" is not perfectly complete, and they think it is... and they then say that yes, this sounds like a fair use of the term "evidence."Now, we do it again with more data:

quote:

---

"Hi there, you are aware that lots of people own cars but do not have licenses, correct? That is, some people have had their licenses revoked while still owning their vehicle and others are rich and eccentric and collect cars and have drivers so they do not require licenses themselves."

​

"Yes, I know those things are very possible."

​

"Do you think the following is a fair statement: If someone owns a car, this is evidence that they have a license?"

​

"Well, no... because of all the reasons we just talked about a few seconds ago..."

---

We remind the person of all the data, so that the "pool of data" being used for this idea is more complete.. and again, there's only 1 "interpretation" of the data... that using the term "evidence" here is not right. Because it's not conclusive from the data.I hope that walking through this tough-example goes to show the idea about "evidence" and "must be conclusive" that I'm trying to talk about.It's easy to get mixed up about using the term correctly (person #1)... but given the proper data set, and looking at it honestly... there's still always only 1 conclusion for the term "evidence." There is never "multiple interpretations of the same evidence." This means that either the data is simply inconclusive (it's not 'evidence' and someone's mis-using the term) or someone understands what's going on and is purposefully muddy-ing the waters for who-knows-what reason.Edited by Stile, : Submitted early... completed post.Edited by Stile, : Fixing tags

That's a nice claim you have there. I notice you didn't back it up with anything.What is the other explanation for my fingerprints being in my house?
Are you saying that maybe my fingerprints were planted there?Then... this isn't "my fingerprints being in the house" this is "a copy of my fingerprints are in the house"... an error in the data.
If you had something else in mind, please enlighten us beyond your mere say-so. If you could show how this statement is true rather than just claim it as true... that might make it a bit less ridiculous. Otherwise, you're just rambling without making a point. No.Change "evidence" to "data" and you're right.If it doesn't mandate a position... then it isn't evidence. It's just data that's consistent with a position.
If what you say here is true... then my fingerprints in the house *are* evidence that I am an expert kite flyer... because it "favours that position" (whatever that means) without mandating it.If there's no difference between the words "evidence" and "information"... then why have two different words?I have shown you that the definition of "evidence" includes mandating it is conclusive.
I have shown you that every-day-usage of the word "evidence" includes mandating it is conclusive. (All honest confusion is simply a mis-understanding of the data-pool used to make the judgment call). When something is knowingly inconclusive... nobody calls it "evidence" for anything anymore. Doing so is just weird, confusing and a misuse of the term.The entire point of using the word evidence is to indicate an objective conclusion of a certain idea. That's why the definition says such a thing, and that's how people use the word.if you still simply want to claim otherwise, without a single example that stands up to the least amount of scrutiny, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to be honest about acknowledging the evidence.

You come on, jar.
If being conclusive isn't required to be evidence... then my fingerprints at the house are evidence that I am a master kite flyer.
Really? You're agreeing to that?I think what you mean is that different levels of confidence can be assigned to data and interpretations. "Evidence" is the answer to the question "why is it conclusive." Because of this.... "evidence."It is conclusive that it is my house? Why?Because of the paperwork, because of my mortgage payments... which are all evidence of it being my house.
They are not evidence of me being a master kite flyer. Although if you insist that evidence need not be conclusive... then they are? So, do you still think evidence doesn't have to be conclusive?
What does evidence "have" to be, then?Are my fingerprints evidence that I am a master kite flyer?
Are my mortgage payments and ownership paperwork evidence that I am a master kite flyer?if not... why not?I can answer that question, you don't seem to be able to. NN doesn't seem to be able to.
Yet you both seem to insist that your interpretation is correct and I'm just messing with you.Stop assuming. Stop insisting.
Show your work.
Explain your reasoning.I've done mine, I've explained my reasoning based on the definition as well as common-usage.
What have you done other than say "Come on... agree with me... I'll be your friend..."Why are my fingerprints not evidence that I am a master kite flyer?How much does something have to "lead towards" an idea to make it evidence in your eyes?
How can you measure this "how much?"It seems to me that you're taking colloquial speech (as I described in my car owner -> driver's license example) and muddying the waters in an attempt to get people to agree that my fingerprints are evidence that I am a master kite flyer?Of course I agree that if we add to the data-pool, then what we previously thought of as evidence may no longer be so.
But what you need to see is that something called evidence using a limited data-pool may no longer be considered evidence when you take into account more data.This doesn't mean the word "evidence" sticks and can be used to talk about things that are non conclusive.
What this means is that the word "evidence" is dependent on the data-pool and a certain item may very well be evidence in one data-pool and not another.

Yes, I understand you're avoiding the discussion. Why I'm not sure.But let's use your own example, then, if you don't want to use kite flying: I now agree with you that my fingerprints are not conclusive that I have ever been in my house.
Because you have expanded the data-pool to include a lot of data that indicates my fingerprints could be in the house and not represent me being present in the house recently.Taking this into account: With all these indications that my fingerprints don't mean I was in the house recently, are you still claiming that my fingerprints are evidence that I was in the house recently?I am saying that no, taking this all into account, my fingerprints are no longer evidence that I was in the house recently.
The data-pool has grown and we can see that this is no longer conclusive, therefore, my fingerprints are no longer evidence that I was in the house recently.You're saying that with all these reasons why fingerprints do not indicate I was in the house... my fingerprints are still evidence that I was in the house recently...?And you wonder why I keep asking you to explain your position?