Zephan: What is Evidence?

Zephan appears to be following a well established lawyerly tactic: when the evidence is against you, obfuscate. He began by ignoring questions, and moved on to introducing irrelevancies. He clearly knows that where juries are concerned, confusion trumps rational arugments.There are a myriad of other available obfuscative techniques that Zephan can employ, and this discussion can not and will not progress as long as engaging the discussion would be counter to his interests. For the time being, clarity does not serve Zephan's goals.In a court of law the judge is the guardian at the gate deciding which evidence and arguments are admitted and which are not. In debates here, board administration usually avoids trying to play this role, but at present much space is being devoted across many threads to unsupported and/or nonsensical arguments that don't seem worth responding to.--Percy

Well, of course I do not believe everything I see on tv. I merely mentioned that sadly, my only experience with courtroom procedings comes from watching Perry Mason. I specifically mention this to avoid being mistaken for any kind of legal authority.I'm not sure that testimonial evidence can be equated with the peer-reviewed journaling process. I think it is better to equate that with a jury (of one's peers, right?). A scientist, trying to argue a certain hypothesis, presents a description of his experiments, their results, field observations he may have made, etc. and then attempts to construct a conclusion that explains this data. The "peer-review" process means that when his article is published, other interested scientists in the same field compare his observations with theirs, perform the same experiments under similar conditions, and basically try to establish the replicatability of his data. Then they may accept his conclusions, or construct their own to explain the data.If the experiments can't be successfully repeated (as was the case in the famous cold fusion hoax), then the scientist's conclusion in called into question, and generally rejected by the scientific community.In science, testimony is simply another kind of physical evidence. An individuals testimony can be recorded to demonstrate to other scientists. But one testimony is not enough to construct conclusions or support a hypothesis. Many, many such testimonies are required. With these, you could begin to construct a hypothesis such as "Humans under the age of 16 believe in the tooth fairy." Note that you could not support a hypothesis of "there is a tooth fairy" with this data. That would require actual physical observation or evidence of such a fairy. Similarly, eyewtiness testimony of the comission of a murder proves nothing without independant evidence of such a murder happening - like, a dead body, a murder weapon, etc.As for relavant evidence for evolution, that would be any evidence that was related to living things on this planet. Not just evidence relevant to organisms evolving, but the total evidence from all living things (remains/fossils, genetic data about heredity, population studies, etc). Scientists do not only consider data that they think will support their hypothesis. Such a scientist would be instantly discredited. Scientists must consider all data at all relevant to their hypothesis. Sometimes scientists argue about what data is and is not relevant (and they must support their positions when they do). Objections that scientists are considering data only in support of evolution to the exlusion of other relevant data are false, because no scientist in any field could get away with that. The peer-review process ensures that scientists must consider all relevant data for and against their hypothesis. In fact they must specifically state what kind of evidence could disprove their hypothesis when they form it. This is called "falsifiability" and involves constructing the "null hypothesis", which is the term for the data that would disprove the orignial hypothesis. The job of the scientist then is to argue that the null hypothesis is unsupported by the data, which would lead to a confirmation of his original hypothesis.In the case of evolution, one of many null hypotheses could be "characteristics of organisms can never be inherited by their offspring" or "in populations of organisms, all organisms have an equal chance of surviving to procreate." Both of these null hypotheses can be rejected because we observe data contrary to them. Another such hypothesis would be "the fossil record does not show gradual change in organisms over the history of life." Again, we reject this hypothesis because we have data that does in fact suggest that over time, organisms change.So to disprove evolution, you have to start by providing a better explanation for the data that is contrary to the null hypotheses that I've outlined (as well as a host of other, more specific ones.) Then you have to find data to confirm these null hypotheses. In order to prove creation you would have to provide hypotheses, construct falsifiable nulls, and then find data to reject those nulls. That none have ever been able to do so is telling.I'm hoping this helps convince you that all science (even evolution) is conducted within a general methodology that has been supported for 200 or so years simply because it's really good at getting the most accurate results possible (within the constraints of avaliable data). I don't think the same can be said for the legal system, unfortunately, which has to work under significant constraints of time, manpower, and a certain bias towards the accused (innocent until proven guilty is a kind of research bias that would not be accepted in scientific literature).------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Isn't 'evidence' simply data which bears relevence to
a particular question or questions?

The data in Taz post 57 provides evidence that Zephan has been slapped silly in this thread...beyond a reasonable doubt

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?

Zephan has been a lawyer for too long, methinks. He thinks legitimate debate = him cross examining you. This is probably why we can't get an "operational definition" of evidence out of him. It's not his job to answer questions, you see. I've been trying to eke out a definition since last year so as we can discuss evidence of evolution. What is the point of trying to debate someone who refuses to define their terms? It's frustrating, but then their position has zero merit if they are not prepared to do so.Good luck all.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"Thank youuu,...Thank you very muuuch"
Elvis has now LEFT the building ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

I don't think I'll be hiring Zephan

A reply to message #33, please, Zephan/sai/toast.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

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

---

And now you know why? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.

take it easy john.I'm just testing whether your proffered definition of scientific evidence is valid, credible, reliable, relevant, and generally accepted within the scientific community.I'm getting the feeling that you believe any definition offered by yourself is impervious to cross-examination.Do you think inferences, opinions, assumptions, presumptions, and deductions are directly perceivable to the five senses?Surely, you wouldn't bootstrap any of the above concepts onto what you would later like to qualify as competent scientific evidence?

why don't you disclose your profession peter?same goes for the rest of you.It just doesn't seem fair you should have all the fun disparaging your opponents line of work!

certainly not. I am flattered that you can't stop thinking about me though.however, i would like for you to demonstrate you really know what it is you are asking.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.BUt what kind of jurisdiction are you talking about?Want some help? Read Pennoyer v. Neff and get back to me.

quote:

---

And what, pray tell, would the "proper logical predicate" be when inferring intent?

---

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The bias you demonstrate in being hopelessly committed to your microbe to man belief is indeed beautiful!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.And use any definition you want.Btw, what is your profession or lack thereof Pamboli? It just doesn't fseem fair you should get to have all the fun!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. I guess I'm just more sensitive to those concepts given the fact they are inextricably intertwined with my profession. What was your profession again?[This message has been edited by Zephan, 04-04-2003]