Zephan: What is Evidence?

Zephan, I'm afraid you show little indication of being an expert in evidence. Perhaps you are a public defender?In particular, you seem to have little grasp of the significance of differing rules of evidence under different legal administrations.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.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.This does not suggest to me that you have the expertise in handling evidence which you affect.Remember also that the law judges with a very coarse granularity - varying as to the juridiction, of course. Guilty, not proven and not guilty are assessments in the criminal jurisdiction which are far too coarse for science. For example, scientists may well consider the theories of evolution and relativity to be true, along with the kinetic molecular theory of matter, the Big Bang theory and string theory. But they would not likely hold them all to be proven to the same degree.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? You seem to have forgotten the first issue that any legal action must address - what is the relevant jurisdiction?You appear to exemplify the old adage "When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail." You are perhaps as expert with a hammer as you claim, but you clearly have not tools in your box suitable for working with science.Science is not a legal process. Similarly, legal processes are not scientific processes. I haven't heard of a court ordering a man to marry again, in order to observe whether he kills his second wife too.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-30-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

This rather clearly demonstrates how weak is your grasp of the workings of science. You seem to expect science to be a neatly defined body of theory and rules - but it is no such thing.No journal can "establish the objective framework for analyizing alleged scientific evidence." How could it?However there are journals, papers, books and lectures which work towards such frameworks, propose them, review them, knock them down and rebuild them. Science is a process not a fixed body of rules and regulations.For example, there are no boundaries to what is "scientific." There is considerable debate as to whether the study of ESP may be science, whether psychoanalysis is science, whether some aspects of quantum theory are science.Perhaps, as you claim to have a legal background, you could think of it as being like the practice of constitutional law - you seem to be seeking a written constitution of science. There is no such thing, but that does not mean that there is no constitutional law.BTW, if you would like to read a peer reviewed journal which discusses the nature of evidence in science I would recommend the excellent "Philosophy of Science" from the University of Chicago Press. From only a small selection of its editions you will find the following:1995
ON THE EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE QUANTUM NO-SIGNALLING PROOFS, J. B. KENNEDY
BEYOND BOOTSTRAPPING: A NEW ACCOUNT OF EVIDENTIAL RELEVANCE, MADISON CULLER1996
LOG [P(h/eb)/P(h/b)] IS THE ONE TRUE MEASURE OF CONFIRMATION, PETER MILNE 21
INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION: IS IT REALLY DIFFERENT FROM MILL'S METHODS?, STEVEN RAPPAPORT 65
CONTENT, CAUSAL POWERS, AND CONTEXTS, KEITH BUTLER1997
Inductive Skepticism and the Probability Calculus I: Popper and Jeffreys on Induction and the Probability of Law-Like Universal Generalizations KEN GEMES
Old Evidence and New Explanation CARL G. WAGNER
etc ...From this short selection alone, even you should be able to see that the nature of scientific evidence is continuously evolving, tentative by nature, and open to review and reinterpretation.This is science. It works.

quote:

---

Btw, public defenders are lawyers too!

---

So I hear, although I don't hear anyone here in the US voicing much respect for them.

quote:

---

Same rules of evidence, different burdens of proof.

---

Different burdens of proof? Example, please.

quote:

---

Never heard of the balance of probabilities, however. Did you mean preponderance of the evidence? No standard of proof requires probabilities, it requires evidence,

---

No - I meant "balance of probabilities." Scots Law, English Law, Irish Law, etc. BTW, there are interesting debates on both sides of the Atlantic at present, concerning the utility of Bayesian reasoning in directing juries.

quote:

---

(evidence), which, at present, is a concept that is eluding you.

---

Not quite. So far we haven't even reached evidential burden, never mind probative burden. But we'll get there, no doubt. So far the concept of jurisdiction seems to be eluding you - as I said, when all you have is a hammer ...

quote:

---

Do you even have a clue what evidence is?

---

I am making no claims for my knowledge. You are making claims for yours. I will leave the others on the board (within their own jurisdictions, of course ) to decide for themselves which of us has the appropiate knowledge, based on what we write here about evidence, not what we claim about ourselves.

quote:

---

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.

---

I think the lack of organization in science is its great strength - no big brother telling us what to believe. Hugely diverse views, indeed totally incompatible views, can be published in peer reviewed journals - which is refreshing, fun and conducive to fertile, free research. Any attempt to legislate the progress of science would be a disaster.But let us return to our sheep ... The exercise here is to discover "What is evidence." You seem to be tak1ing a legalistic approach, which I think inappropriate, but in the spirit of good fun I'm taking you at your word.The evidential burden, probative burden and standards of proof all differ depending on jurisdiction. These differences exist because the nature of the issues raised in different jurisdictions require it - for example in civil courts, criminal courts, courts martial, the Lyon Court in Scotland, maritime courts etc. So the first question must be "What is the appropriate jurisdiction?" From there, and not before, we can start to answer the question "What is evidence" in terms appropriate to the jurisdiction.Given your apparent inability to grasp this, I pray God you are not a public defender.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-31-2003][This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-31-2003]

quote:

---

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

​

Zephan: Bias

---

And how would this bias be detected or identified? ESP?

Are you avoiding me Zephan? It would have taken an expert in evidence only a minute to clarify my direct question about "different burdens of proof."But let's have a look at your latest ramble along the less-trodden byways of thought ...

quote:

---

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.

---

And what, pray tell, would the "proper logical predicate" be when inferring intent?If the proposition is "The scientist intended to deceive" then we are predicating "intention to deceive" of the scientist.To say that the inference the observer makes is correct or not, assuming the "proper" logical predicate is present, appears to be equivalent to saying The inference "The scientist intended to deceive" is correct if the predication to the scientist of "intention to deceive" is "proper."Clearly this tautological and not worth saying. If I have this wrong, please do correct my understanding of predicate logic.To see what a mess you are getting yourself into, let's look at an exchange between yourself and John. John calls out the problem nicely in another post, but it's worthwhile making it absolutely clear what is going on ...J: Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five sensesZ: BiasJ: Bias is acceptable evidence? That's idiotic.Z: Evidence of bias would indicate the proponent's credibility to be lackingSee how we have slipped from Bias as evidence to "evidence of Bias" in a discussion of what constitutes evidence. I can only speak for myself, but to me this does not read like Zephan is experienced in reasoned arguement, the nature of evidence or predicate logic. What do others think?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-01-2003]

It looks rather as if Zephan has failed to turn up for the latest hearing in "Arrogant Claptrap v Commonwealth of Knowledge"Should we adjourn for a couple of days? Or shall we just appoint a public defender for his claptrap and conduct an ex parte hearing in his absence?Brad, could you represent Zephan?

Nice to hear from you Zephan.

quote:

---

Take your irrelevant and tangental rant about jurisdiction, bearing in mind we were discussing the alleged generally accepted, credible, reliable, and relevant definition of "scientific" evidence.

---

That you think it is tangential is revealing. That you think the Pennoyer v Neff decision, concerning the acquistion of geographical jurisdiction, is relevant, is also revealing. It is becoming quite apparent from your posts that any understanding you may have of legal issues is actually very narrow and blinkered. You are probably not aware of the word jurisdiction being used in the sense of "judicial authority over a cause or class of causes; as, certain suits or actions, or the cognizance of certain crimes, are within the jurisdiction of a particular court, that is, within the limits of its authority or commission."As differing jurisdictions (in this sense as well as the geographical sense you seem limited to) can have differing rules of evidence, we have to decide the jurisdiction first.Come on, Zephan. You're the one who wants to play legal games with science. Don't complain too much if we take you at your word.BTW, you still have not answered my question about burden of proof in different jurisdictions.

quote:

---

What is the proper logical predicate for inferring abiogenesis, the logical foundation of evolution? Please give me the "scientific" evidence for it.

​

What is the proper logical predicate for inferring molten rocks have the capacity to give rise to abiogenesis? Again, cite the relevant "scientific" evidence.

---

It is quite clear you have no idea what a logical predicate is. Let's try a definition, as you seem to need your hand held: "That part of a proposition that is affirmed or denied about the subject."Now, with the term clarified, perhaps you could explain what you mean by a "proper logical predicate for inferring x" ...Also, perhaps you would like to explain what you mean by "abiogenesis, the logical foundation" - I am puzzled, as I can establish no necessary relationship between the two.

quote:

---

Btw, what is your profession or lack thereof Pamboli?

---

Depends on whether I remember to take my medication or not. Recently I have been Attorney General of British Columbia, a minor member of the Belgian royal family, and only yesterday the Coptic Pope. However, as this is the internet, we stand or fall by the quality of what we post, not who or what we claim to be.

quote:

---

PS. Although it is really not my style to point out the misspelling of words, it is quite annoying to see someone misspell argument when attempting to make one. Judgment is another word often misspelled.

---

That "fseems" a bit odd, and a little "tangental." On an internet forum one sees spelling errors "ad naseum". When we are discussing "evolutinists" and theories of descent from a common "anscestor" it might be a good idea to spell those terms properly, too. But this is only the tip of the "iceburg." If your spent some time "analyizing" a "referance" from Taz or "Pimboli" rather than "jsut" arguing from pretended authority we might get somewhere. As it is, pointing out spelling errors in casual internet posts seems to be the best you can do.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-04-2003]