Zephan: What is Evidence?

Zephan, please refer to the earlier post where I linked you to sites which will help you in the definition, both legal and scientific, of what constitutes legal evidence of acceptable science (legally at least) as well as defining why your question is not really a good one, the proper question is what constitues good science and what IS science.
Post 57, evidence------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-04-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-04-2003]

Hi Zephan, Rules 1 and 2 of the Forum Guidelines are intended to keep debate moving along productively:

1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
   ​
2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

The topic of this thread is your definition of evidence, and though this thread now has more than 70 messages you have yet to offer one. You are under no requirement to do so, but if you have no intention of doing so then please stop posting messages to this thread. Activity on the thread will cease and in a week or so I'll close it.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Admin, I offered him a combination legal/scientific definition (as applicable) complete with a reference to the peer reviewed journal for defining what science is back in post 57. If he can either accept or provide REASONS for rejecting it maybe we can move this forward.PS, I can not find directions to link to a specific numbered post. Is that possible? I thought that it was.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Let's say you're looking at the message you want to link to. The URL address of that message is in the "Address" window at the top of your browser. For instance, the URL address of your message looks like this: If the number at the end is missing or is for a different message then just change it.If you want your message to instead appear as Message 78 then enter this: ------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Thanks, I knew how to write in the code so that it would not appear as the full address but I was unaware that I could just attatch the post number and it would act as a direct adddress. Cool ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

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.

---

ah... but this doesn't count, Zephan. You've discounted eye-witness testimony back in Post #36 and, in fact, again right here, as you call such witness "hot air". It appears that you are happy with eye-witness testimony when making your case, but object when scientists "eye-witness" the results of experiment, or the layers of rock on the side of a hill, or ... whatever. Which is it? If your example of eye-witness testimony is valid as evidence then your whole whine about objective evidence is crap.

quote:

---

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".

---

But it is you who just presented such opinion as evidence... Care to read your own post?The rest of your post is really just diversionary.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-04-2003][This message has been edited by John, 04-04-2003][This message has been edited by John, 04-04-2003][This message has been edited by John, 04-04-2003]

quote:

---

I'm just testing whether your proffered definition of scientific evidence is valid, credible, reliable, relevant, and generally accepted within the scientific community.

---

Yes. And your criticism of scientific evidence in Post #36 is utterly absurd because it reduces everything to the same state of unreliability. You can't even make your own arguments without calling upon this invalid evidence. You criticise the perceptions of xcientists as being like eye-witness testimony, yet hasten to call in eye-witnesses as evidence. It would be funny if not so frighteningly sad. It is this one point that I am driving at, and it is this one point that you avoid. You cannot use the criticism of science listed in Post #36. It is insane.

quote:

---

I'm getting the feeling that you believe any definition offered by yourself is impervious to cross-examination.

---

BS. You aren't cross-examining, you are obfuscating.

quote:

---

Do you think inferences, opinions, assumptions, presumptions, and deductions are directly perceivable to the five senses?

---

No, these things are not directly percievable to the senses. But then, that isn't the point. More obfuscation. The point is that you equated observation via the five sense with eye-witness testimony and thereby attempted to discredit it. Shall I quote you? Why not... And after having used eye-witness testimony to discredit observation via the senses, you post eye-witness testimony as an alternative to 'unreliable' sensory data. Like I said, it would be funny if it were not so frightening.Of what you post, inferences and deductions are blatantly subservient to observation. Opinions I'd call weak inferences and/or sloppy deductions and so are arguably subservient to observation as well. And assumptions and presumption....? You present these as evidence? These are alternatives to observation? [quote]Surely, you wouldn't bootstrap any of the above concepts onto what you would later like to qualify as competent scientific evidence?[quote] Science isn't immune to any of the problems associated with these things, but the scientific method is designed to minimize those problems. Which is why I say that pretty much anything can be raw data, but what gets filtered through the scientific method becomes evidence. Inferences and deductions are based on that evidence and the cycle restarts. That must have been one of my posts you ignored.You, on the other hand, appear to be attempting to maximize the influence of opinion, presumption, bias, etc.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

You are crazy.Zeppletoast seems obsesses with abiogenesis, and can't comprehend the fact that evolution is not dependant upon it.Common creationist illogic.

quote:

---

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

---

Nobody knows what Zeppletoasts true profession is. All we have is the claim of an anonymous iinternet instigator and one-trick pony.Any stooge can claim to be something on the internet when they are anonymous.Nothing from Zephan/Ten-sai/Appletoast/etc. has demonstrated to me that it is any sort of 'expert' on evidence or even is a lawyer of any sort.So, as far as I am concerned, Zeppledork is some teenager with a sociological disorder.

Ok Zephram, I am a scientist (Biochemist by training although I have done everything from Biochemical Engineering to Cell Biology) and I am a Director of Process Development in the Biotechnology industry.Now, you claim to be a lawyer; what field or speciality? And please be specific.By the way, you are trying to argue semantics about science and scientific definitions with people who truly understand science (which you do not); that may explain why you are getting your rear end lopped off, roasted and handed back to you. My brother, who truly is a lawyer, is at least smart enough to know better, at least with me. 'Course, I am not stupid enough to argue the fine points of law with him so it evens out .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

If you really believe a lawyer is intimidated by cross-examining an alleged expert, you are sadly mistaken. Perhaps one day when you become a more valuable asset to your field, you will be called upon to partake in the pleasure. Doubtful, however, as it would require you to stick to the issues and provide a rational basis for your conclusions.That you continue to embellish yourself as the gatekeeper of esoteric knowledge has been wildly entertaining. I'm even sure your brother would get a kick out of it.As to your link to a cite alleging to hold the tenets of the philosophy of science, including a valid definition of scientific evidence, I will simply say this: if you are unable to articulate its import in plain language on this board, one may assume you've yet to comprehend the concepts yourself. Why not cite Google in furtherance of your argument?Buy yourself a clue: there is no generally accepted valid, reliable, and credible definition of scientific evidence; there are no rules of scientific evidence in existence. We were trying to work on one by utilizing the Socratic Method.In closing, if you are under the impression that the only people who understand "science" are evolutionists, it would do you well to explain why. Evolution is useless to science and quite a joke; it has contributed absolutely nothing to any meaningful advancement of mankind in any scientific field of inquiry. Indeed, true science wouldn't miss evolution one bit as it has clearly helped no one. That is a patently obvious thorn in your side.Damn, 86 posts and still no valid definition of what constitutes reliable, credible, and relevant scientific evidence. A mere observation is perhaps the most impotent definition of evidence I've ever seen. That you would acquiesce and embrace the same indicates how deep your bias runs for holding on to the belief that molten rocks have the capacity to create life (given enough time of course!).If I were only so lucky to have an opposing party call you as an expert witness, I would surely demonstrate at your expense for all to see the manifestation of "getting your rear end lopped off, roasted, and handed back to you."Some argument your making. Go back to the lab and do what you do best. Leave the art of argumentation for the real experts.

Hi Zephan,In Message 77 I requested that you address the topic of the thread or refrain from posting. Since you've decided to do neither, please accept an indefinite suspension of posting privileges. If at any time you can point to your productive participation in discussion at another board you may apply here for restoration of your posting privileges by email to Admin.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

On the off-chance that Z is still listening I wasn't disparaging your line of work, only commenting on
the evidence of lack of ability to do the job.

quote:

---

If you really believe a lawyer is intimidated by cross-examining an alleged expert, you are sadly mistaken.

---

Another very poor attempt at misdirection, everyone who has read this knows that I did not say this. I stated that my brother, the lawyer, did not debate science (or philosophy for that matter), with me because he knows better. Just as I do not debate law with him. We recognize the level of ability of the other in their area of expertise.

quote:

---

That you continue to embellish yourself as the gatekeeper of esoteric knowledge has been wildly entertaining. I'm even sure your brother would get a kick out of it.

---

Another poor attempt Zephan, I never characterized myself as such as you well know, I just saif that I understand it better than YOU. And actually my brother does call me for advice concerning biotech.

quote:

---

I will simply say this: if you are unable to articulate its import in plain language on this board, one may assume you've yet to comprehend the concepts yourself.

---

Who said that I couldn't, you were the one who asked for peer reviewed journals. First off, you have been told repeatedly that your question was actually the first error in a long string of errors. You actually seem to understand this in part.

quote:

---

there is no generally accepted valid, reliable, and credible definition of scientific evidence; there are no rules of scientific evidence in existence.

---

The problem is it is not so much what is scientific evidence as what is science and what constitutes data in science. Now, as to the first part and my description, drawn in part from people who work in the area and submit to your required peer reviewed journal.Science first assumes that all is not Maya, ie illusion, and that what we see, hear, ect is real. Whether or not it is merely a partial representation of a larger reality is actually immaterial as we need to measure ALL of reality in a fashion fit for our senses. What is science is generally a question meant as what gathering, determination and anlysis of the data fits within the scientific method. And the general definition of that is widely dabated but generally falls within blend of different methods, including inductive, popperian, kuhnian, ect all of which constitute a partial description of "science". These include falsification, allowing the data to lead you to a better definition of reality, and recognizing the role of social constructs in the selection and interpretation of the data. These are the components of science, and make up what you have erroenously been refering to as "scientific evidence", in fact they are the basic components of the definition of the scientific method and therefor fall under the legal definition of what a court calls scientific evidence, as I refered you to in post 57.

quote:

---

In closing, if you are under the impression that the only people who understand "science" are evolutionists, it would do you well to explain why.

---

Another strawman, although this one may be a little better than many others, but only a little. While is is important to an understanding of biology and life it is not to cosmology, although I am not sure that you see the difference.

quote:

---

Evolution is useless to science and quite a joke; it has contributed absolutely nothing to any meaningful advancement of mankind in any scientific field of inquiry.

---

Gross error or a lie, your choice. The advancement of most areas of biology derive directly from the theories that underlie an understanding of evolution. But then you would need to understand biology to understand that and from these posts and others I do not see that understanding in your statements.

quote:

---

If I were only so lucky to have an opposing party call you as an expert witness, I would surely demonstrate at your expense for all to see the manifestation of "getting your rear end lopped off, roasted, and handed back to you."

---

Like you have on this board? Sorry child, go back and try again.