Zephan: What is Evidence?

Circumstantial or Direct Evidence?Thanks,Zephan

Evidence is an exclusionary rule.It would help if you first advised what you think evidence is, then I will take it from there. Perhaps you could provide a factual example of what you believe constitutes competent evidence and your reasons for reaching such a conclusion?Alternatively, if the challenge above is too difficult, tell me what you think is NOT evidence and why.You must be somewhat familiar with the concept.

quote:

---

I'm just after a definition, that's all, what I think evidence is, is irrelevant to what you think evidence is

---

So tell me what evidence is NOT then.If you truly believe my definition of evidence would be irrelevant, why would you even ask the question?Further, you appear to believe evidence is subjective and, although not surprising considering your belief in evolution, I can't help you under these circumstances.All that would occur is an argument based on your subjective beliefs.Sorry, mate. I'm not into arguing about your subjective beliefs.But at least you got two parts of the evidence definition to chew on for a while:1. It is an exclusionary rule
2. It is objective

Percy,SLPx tends to disagree with you about a legal definition of evidence being different from an alleged, but non-existent, "scientific" definition of evidence. Both of you are in gross error.In fact, the entire legal community is laughing their arses off right now at SLPx's last post, although nobody really expects the layperson to understand the little things like relevance, conditional relevance, elements, predicates, burdens of proof, demonstrative evidence, testimonial evidence, expert testimony, authentication, etc, ad naseum. I wish he would show us all how Daubert facilitates the introduction of the mountains of "evidence" that a Trilobyte or a Banana and myself have a common anscestor. I guess SLPx believes mere opinions are also evidence...*sigh*Nevertheless, I find your definition of "scientific" evidence unsatisfying:

quote:

---

In science, evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses.

---

Well, if that is the case Percy, I find no scientific evidence that you are really thinking about the import of what constitutes real, reliable, evidence, "scientific" or not. Indeed, I cannot smell, taste, hear, feel, or see your thoughts, so, under your tortured definition of "scientific" evidence, there is NO evidence that you are thinking about the issue. What you are really describing, however, is the foundational requirements for eye-witness testimony, which is just the tip of the iceburg of evidence.Could you provide a reference please for a peer reviewed resource agreeing on the terms of what constitutes "scientific" evidence as it is relevant to ToE? Or must we assume there is no agreed upon "scientific" definition of evidence relevant to ToE, and evolutinists just make up definitions depending on the circumstances? Because if researchers are permitted to make up definitions of "evidence" as it fits their pleasure, it makes the meaning of evidence meaningless. Just like the ToE.Yet I maintain there is a thing called evidence which absorbs science, and it is not of the subjective nature you describe.Mark,If you can't tell me what evidence is NOT, how would you know what evidence IS when you "see" it? Hmmmm.And how are we ever going to agree to terms if you truly believe what I think of evidence is irrelevant?I have little interest in engaging a discussion with you as it is clear you have little interest in engaging a discussion with me.But have a pleasant day anyway. I have no doubt you will continue to believe there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in spite of the fact you admit you couldn't advise what is NOT evidence. I guess it's all good?

quote:

---

Why is the burden of proof on me to define evidence & not you? In point of fact, YOU started claiming that you knew what evidence was coz you're a big shot lawyer, not I, the burden of proof is therefore on YOU to define it.

---

Wrong. Very simply: If you can't articulate the meaning of a word you consistently utilize in furthering your arguments, drop the word from your vocabulary. That word is "evidence". And it is still your burden to demonstrate a working knowledge of the concept.

quote:

---

You asked a question of me, that doesn't place the burden of proof on me, right? If I had made as superior a claim as you regarding evidence, then I would reasonably be expected to back up my blather. But I'm not claiming I have a special understanding of evidence that science somehow has passed all of science by, you are. The burden of proof is therefore with the claimant, & it's you, Zephan, not I.

---

This site is called Evolution v. Creation. You are the party claiming evidence of evolution. I'm holding you to your burden of proof, that is, back up the claim of having tons of evidence for evolution after you define the word. Still your entire burden, and the defense has to prove nothing. Evidence 101.I am convinced you cannot grasp the concepts of either evidence or burdens of proof.

quote:

---

you can't even get Daubert

---

Wrong again, Mark. Daubert does NOT DEFINE EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise. It is a rule of procedure for the admission of scientific evidence, which itself (if admissible at all) is not impervious to cross-examination. I am certain I can find my own expert to refute your expert. But the experts don't define what evidence is, Mark. Daubert goes to mere admissibility rather than the weight of the evidence. Again, Evidence 101. Would you like to define what an expert is? Hint: It wouldn't hinge on whether the expert believed in evolution.Don't confuse a mere opinion with evidence. A laboratory procedure being generally accepted within the scientific community is also not tantamount to what evidence is given the issues of relevance, conditional relevance, probative values, and other points of inquiry concerning admissibility. Procedures for ascertaining a result from a legitimate scientific experiment was at issue in Daubert. The procedure itself, including its assumptions, are squarely within the scope of cross examination for the opposing party. And the opposing party is still permitted to present their own expert to refute your expert. That's called a rebuttal.Unrebuttable presumptions aren't permitted. Sorry to burst your bubble.Would you like to discuss a specific scientific procedure you think gives the world the holy grail of evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt?Please lay the proper predicate first, i.e. the proper evidentary foundation. Such begins with abiogenesis and the scientific procedures giving rise to your conclusion that was how life was created. Or skip that part and begin with the first population which is responsible for the microbe to man process.

quote:

---

The Federal Rules of Evidence state clearly in the scope statement that the rules apply only to US courts, & nowhere else

---

That would be called a housekeeping provision and it is no way relevant to the definition of evidence you are trying to weasel yourself out of addressing. Jurisdiction 101.But guess what Mark? If you can prove to me with evidence that evolution be true, I will believe it. Guaranteed. That's why it is important for you to give us a working definition of the concept which up until know has eluded you.And you still have the entire burden of proof. If that burden is too much for you, stop arguing on behalf of the evolutionists you admire so much. It's that simple.

quote:

---

I have never seen much resembling legal documents in a science journal.

---

Maybe you were looking in the wrong place? Anyway, it's doubtful you've actually read all the scientific journals.I, however, have seen much reference to science journals in "legal documents". DNA analysis is new, and actually got some people off death row. I'm sure you'll hear of it sooner or later.I'd also be happy to continue to enlighten you about the utility of scientific evidence in a court room, if you could be so kind to define scientific evidence for us.Don't forget to cite the appropriate scientific journal where you will get your definition.

Be happy to address your non-issue.First, cite the relevant scientific journal which validates your alleged issue, to wit: anything perceivable to the five senses is, in fact, objective evidence (might I add, evidence of precisely what? -- it really sounds like the description of the logical foundation for eyewitness testimony, which most everyone is aware is subject to a multitude of interpretations). Or was it "anything perceivable to the five senses is science?" (you said that too)I just don't buy the assertion that the scientific community blindly accepts these subjective definitions. Prove me wrong. Cite the peer reviewed journals.After that, we'll discuss the little things like whether what is perceivable to the five senses is even relevant to the proposition you wish to establish.Let me restate in very simple terms: I'm not convinced the definition of evidence proffered here is generally accepted within the scientific community. You can prove me wrong. Just cite the appropriate journal I can referance which establishes the objective framework for analyizing alleged scientific evidence.Also, consider non-sequitur.A definition of "science" is clearly not tantamount to a definition of "evidence."Get with the program. And accuse all you want, such is the modus operandi of evos; burdens of proof are indeed difficult concepts to embrace. Just ask Pimboli... (he's next, although his rebuke will have to wait until tomorrow).I'm going to predict he won't get it either.

Sweeping statements are unflattering to credibility.Nevertheless, I insist upon a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up the claim that "what is perceivable to the fives senses is evidence" since such a definition is not specific to time, place, or manner and is meaningless if it could reasonably be construed as saying that everything is evidence; it describes the foundational requirements for ascertaining what may or not be a fact rather than evidence. Evidence must be first and foremost relevant. Who gets to decide that? The requirement of citing peer reviewed journals is constantly being required of the parties herein. This issue is no different in importance.I'm not very persuaded by self-serving subjective appeals to authority by anonymous posters on the internet. Nor am I likely to be persuaded by reading a treatise on the metaphysics or philosophy of science. I was looking for something more objective and concrete.Perhaps if you could direct your thoughts to the substance of the issue rather than the content of my character you could earn a more meaningful exchange of ideas regarding the virtues of objective evidence.Or maybe you don't really care about what constitutes real evidence.Have it your way.

The individual impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and I addressed that already.Thanks for playing.

quote:

---

Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five senses.

---

Bias

P:
Zephan, I'm afraid you show little indication of being an expert in evidence. Perhaps you are a public defender?Z:
Don't fear me. Btw, public defenders are lawyers too!P:
In particular, you seem to have little grasp of the significance of differing rules of evidence under different legal administrations.Z:
Same rules of evidence, different burdens of proof. So what's your point?P:
For example, there may be different standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. The standard required in criminal cases is that the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case on balance of probabilities.Z:
There is also a clear and convincing standard of proof. Never heard of the balance of probabilities, however. Did you mean preponderance of the evidence? No standard of proof requires probabilities, it requires evidence, which, at present, is a concept that is eluding you.P:
It is interesting that you ask for discussion of "a specific scientific procedure you think gives the world the holy grail of evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt?"Why choose the criminal administration rather than civil. If anything, science is much more like civil law, in that it's conclusions are open to be revisited - unlike, say, a death sentence which cannot be reversed. There are reasons for the differing approaches to evidence under different legal jurisdictions, yet you show no grasp of this at all, and try to fit scientific evidence into a jurisdiction of your choosing. First, however, you must justify considering it under that jurisdiction.Z:
Mark stated he had evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair enough, let's see it. Define evidence first though. And cite the peer reviewed journal.P:
This does not suggest to me that you have the expertise in handling evidence which you affect.Z:
How would you know? Do you even have a clue what evidence is?P:
Science, not having an administration, has no body of rules comparable to the jurisdictions of justice. How then would one establish a rule of evidence?Z:
Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? Better organize yourselves a little better would be my advice. Nevertheless, the exercise here is to attempt to establish rules of scientific evidence. Too difficult for you I guess.P:
Science is not a legal process. Similarly, legal processes are not scientific processesZ:
And this has what relevance to deciphering the framework for the establishment of the rules of scientific evidence?

Evidence of bias would indicate the proponent's credibility to be lacking and would provide reasonable doubt as to whether one should take the assertions seriously.Maybe you haven't heard of researcher bias?Perhayps you are not as up to speed with how science works as you think.Bias would be negative evidence since, obviously, not all evidence is relevant or positive.Here's another one for you, Your Honor:Motive.

Not just yet, got another one for you:Intent.Much like microbe to man, it can be inferred from the circumstances and the observer may be correct or not, assuming the proper logical predicate is present. But, ultimately, it is guesswork since bias, intent, and motive are not directly perceivable to the five senses just like the content of all other thought processes. Honestly, I thought you were asking for direct observations rather than wanting to play games with the cumulation of an untold number of indirect observations to reach a conclusion that you had sufficient evidence of something not directly perceivable to the five senses.You're the one dancing John. You asked what would constitute evidence not perceivable via one or more of the five senses. I submitted to you the above thought processes which cannot be directly observed. Can they or can't they be directly observed? Of course they can be inferred and indirectly guessed at; one may make a tenuous conclusion based on the circumstances, but the conclusion would not itself constitute a fact, or as Crashfrog suggested, actual evidence. So, who gets to decide what is evidence? Should we be concerned about their conclusions if bias, motive, and/or intent to defraud were present?If facts could speak for themselves, we wouldn't have this problem. But they don't. Somebody has to speak for them, an advocate if you will.Meanwhile, I don't equate conclusions with evidence as someone suggested, although conclusions can be tantamount to evidence under certain circumstances. For example, if someone were make an freely, knowingly, and intelligent admission of being biased, it would be relatively safe to rely on that admission of bias as actual evidence. Of course, the individual could be lying and then we could argue "what is truth"?You cannot directly observe the content of a thought process, nor can it be absolutely ascertained based on indirect observations of the thoughts. That was my point. We can move on now to discuss whether evidence perceivable to one of the five senses is always relevant to evolution as suggested, or continue to fantasize about various thought processes and the indirect methods of reaching conclusions. Your call.PS to Crashfrog,It is unwise to believe everything you see on T.V. There is both tangible and intangible evidence, the former comprising items placed into evidence while the latter consists mainly of testimonial evidence (much like peer reviewed journals). And yes, it is always a matter of relevant evidence for evolution, among other things.

exactly mark.as you recall, i merely asked you for a definition of evidence, which so far you've found wanting.still waiting for a generally accepted definition of reliable, credible, and relevant "scientific" evidence.i'll take a recess and return at a later time to see if anyone will make an attempt at substance.

quote:

---

I bet if one wished to show bias in court, one would bring in STUFF, and stuff is as we know PERCIEVABLE

---

er... quite wrong again, John. Don't bet your life on your mere beliefs.a witness would be asked to testify, most of which would likely be opinionated hot-air we are all so used to seeing on this board.as such, i can clearly see why you would swallow hook line and sinker someone's unfounded opinion as perceivable "stuff", er.. I mean "evidence".I've been quite interested for some time in seeing all this perceivable stuff, nay evidence, of abiogenesis and its progeny, the first population giving rise to microbe to man. I'm jsut one of those people who are interested in logical foundations. Call me crazy.So, preach it to me brother! (but don't forget the perceivable stuff)More important, I would like to see the evidence giving rise to the conclusion that molten rocks create life. You do believe that when the earth first formed, it was a molten rock, correct? And you hold this molten rock in the chain of custody of your beliefs shortly giving rise to another belief of yours: abiogenesis?If I'm inaccurate here, so state. I'm just intrigued as to the perceivable mechanism transforming molten rocks to life.