The God That Paul Marketed Over Time.

Nonsense, GDR.Your dueling dictionary definitions only obfuscate the real and important distinctions between the philosophies.For the purposes of this discussion the word evidence is used as code for evidence-based conclusions; conclusions that are based upon the best available evidence known at the time, the opinion of conclusive or not, notwithstanding. The point drawn here is that as the evidence changes the conclusions also change. Belief, on the other hand, is used in this discussion as meaning an idea that, though it may have originally formed from initial evidence, remains even as the evidence changes conclusively and compellingly so.Geocentrism is an excellent example. Before Aristarchus, the best evidence in the human experience held that the world was stationary and the universe revolved around the earth. The church, in keeping with the view that god created this special place for man, embraced the concept as a proof of their faith. Along comes Copernicus and Kepler, evidence of heliocentrism arises, but the church held to their geocentric belief as a matter of faith regardless of the mounting evidence to the contrary even to the point of intellectual embarrassment.Ringo is correct. If there is evidence, there is no need for belief. The philosophical underpinnings of the two views, as used in this discussion, are opposite. Obfuscating the definitions does not further the discussion. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

That is correct and that is called confirmation bias. It is the reason peer review exists as part of the process; to make sure, as much as possible, that only logical deduction is used to flow from evidence-to-conclusion instead of having the intermediate step of belief in the way.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What does this even mean?A piece of evidence is never conclusive. How one treats all of the evidence in total CAN be conclusive. In science that treatment is through logical deduction devoid, as much as possible, of personal bias, belief, emotion. Without such a treatment one can conclude anything from any evidence.The sun rises in the east. The sun sets in the west. The moon and the stars rotate across the sky. Therefore, yellow polka-dotted pink elephants exist and they all wear digital watches.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I can understand Stile's point given the popular vernacular definitions but I will contend that in most applications in science the evidence is the data. How one treats the evidence is key. If one analyses the evidence logically, tied step-by-step in a chain of demonstrable cause and effect, one can arrive at a logically defensible conclusion in which other peers in the discipline can agree.Yes, that wonderfully logical treatment of the evidence, that so clearly evidenced conclusion, may be wrong. Or we may say this body of evidence, these facts in aggregate, may be indicative but are not conclusive (meaning that the causal chain between the body of evidence and any conclusion cannot be sustained). That happens a lot when the best evidence, data, information, presently available is, unknowingly yet, incomplete. This is one of the philosophical underpinnings of science; not matter how confident we are in our conclusions they are only tentative pending further evidence. Find me a neutrino that travels through the Italian mountains at faster-than-light speed. The evidence changes - the conclusion changes.And that points up this sub-topic. Belief is static, inflexible and insistent to the point of absurdity and beyond.The track record of scientific conclusions going from wrong to right is well known. The track record of belief going from wrong to still wrong to the point of a sword is also well known. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.