Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Big foot may exist somewhere in the Northern hemisphere. Since there is adequate terrain and food sources to sustain such a creature and since every conceivable place such a creature could exist has not been simultaneously searched. It seems logical to assume that a homonid bipedal type creature yet undiscovered could exist in the remote regions of un-explored forest. Irregardless of all physical evidence being debunked.Is this a plausible hypothesis? Or is it ludicrous to make such a assumption without any evidence that has not as of now been refuted.Can a hypothesis stand on plausibility. If other creatures are continualy being discovered and some animals thought to be extinct are still in existance then how far of a stretch is it to hypothesize Big Foot exist? Or Megladon, or any other Leviathan.

Straggler writes:

quote:

---

Do you believe that in the absence of any objective evidence whatsoever something can still be considered to be evidenced?

​

If so how? What forms does this evidence take?

---

If 100 people tell me there is a lion in the forest, I will either accept they're subjectives statements as true or not.Whether or not the subjective evidence can be verified without going into the woods myself does not matter. I can formulate my own "educated guess" based on they're statements, descriptions, whether the statements match up. What is the mental status of the witnesses. How reputable are they etc.Police use subjective evidence all the time.
Doctors use subjective evidence all the time.Even though I do believe empirical evidence is better does not mean it is the only way to postulate, or form a hypothesis. Your thoughts? Edited by 1.61803, : add funny pic.

Hello Rahvin

quote:

---

The assertion that there is a lion in the forest is not solely based on subjective evidence.

---

Yes it is. If I am sitting at home eating a moon pie and I get a knock on the door and 100 people are standing out in my yard telling me there is a lion in the forest. What objective evidence other than what evidence they are producing could be anything other than subjective.
Take it a step further and suppose I am a hermit who has had no contact with the outside world ever. I am told by these people there is a lion in the forest. What objective evidence would I rely on now?

Hi Straggler,

quote:

---

(objective evidence) + (logic) + (subjectivity) = (conclusion)

---

I think you are getting at the fact that we depend on our objective senses and logic to validate or invalidate data. Yes, this is reasonable and I agree. But my whole point was to try and come up with a instance where subjective evidence in the absence of objective evidence could serve to form a hypothesis. The crux of the whole point depends on whether or not one thinks subjective evidence even exist. You seem to not think those two words belong together. If I remember my philosophy correctly it was the British Empiricist who began this we can never really know anything we can't experience. Is it anywonder you live in London. Hume would be proud.

The Hermit knows what a lion is by subjective statements from the villager who are telling him there is a lion in the forest.The village idiot tells him a spooglewat is in the forest as well but this is not cooberated by the other 99 people.

Hi Rahvin,
You said:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, that simply reinforces my point. Without the objective evidence supporting what a lion or a forest are and that they exist, the observations of the 100 are open to interpretation. The "lion" could in fact be a jaguar, or a fairy. The "forest" could be a city, or a tent. The observation of the 100 could simply be mass hysteria. Their claim is not evidence that there is a lion in a forest at all if we do not have objective evidence that lions and forests exist.

---

The hermit is relying on the subjective statements of the villagers and is ignorant of what a lion is or what a forest is. Upon further query of the witnesses he can establish through they're combined information that he should not go in the forest. Not based on His objective evidence but based on they're subjective statements. Yes they are using OBJECTIVE evidence since they are the ones that saw the lion in the forest. But the hermit has no knowledge of any of it other than what he is told. He can still surmise that there is a large predatory cat in the forest and he had better beware.
I agree with you that the villagers are basing they're subjective statements on objective evidence. But it is the subjective evidence that is the basis of the hermits decision to keep clear of the forest or not.We all in my opinion conduct arguments from authority when you get right down to it. We do not physically check every fact of every scientific paper, or do the math....we hear a report or read the information and make our conclusions based on the source. We evaluate the sources credibility and make our decisions based on this. I am simply trying to have the empiricist concede that subjective evidence regardless of being based on objective evidence exist. Just because it is partially based on objective evidence does not mean it is not subjective evidence. It may not be the best evidence, but it is evidence. Maybe? Edited by 1.61803, : bad spelling.

Hello Staggler, nice for you to straggle back.
You witness in your thought experiment is no witness. It is impossible for him to be a witness if he has no means to witness anything. Yes I am sure your gloating by now at your cleverness.I agree, you can not have a witness without the means to witness.
And yes if you wish to negate such a thing as subjective evidence with the statement that it is invalid without any objective evidence to cooberate it. Again I agree.But that is where we differ in opinion. Nothing more. I think that subjective evidence is used all the time. Albeit not the best means to gather information but we do seek out others opinions and subjective statements and feelings and emotions all the time to give light to our objective world.

Straggler writes:If someone is in a coma. And then awakens years later with knowlege of events that occured in the room or around them.If a Doctor asks his patient, "Tell me about how you feel" And bases his treatment on these statements.A man has a dream about a snake eating itself. The next day he is inspired to write out the molecular shape of benzene.The problem with trying to desribe the subjective is that the moment you do it becomes objective. Bahhhwahawwah!!

I thought I might throw this into the fray. Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I am still of the opinion that the quality of the evidence in question depends on the rationality of the question or belief as well as the the rationality of those who employ it.If subjective evidence is dismissed outright as not being a acceptable means to find truth then we are at the mercy of our senses and can not convey truth by any other means than empirically. I just do not accept this is so.Instincts, are they non-objective? Do they not serve to direct our minds and bodies to react to the physical world.Feelings, nothing more than electromagnatism eh? These types of discussion always seem to end up in a argument about dualism and monism, Or epistemologyI have a feeling that the final word on what we can know will be the final word.