Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Standards of Evidence
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 77 (413207)
07-29-2007 7:08 PM


Why do the scientifically minded amongst us degenerate into a seething, spluttering mass of apoplectic indignation when our reasoned and physical evidentially supported arguments are dismissed as obviously and trivially refuted with reference to biblical passages by creationists??
Why does the creationist shrug their shoulders with indifference at yet another atheistically inspired interpretation of evidence when a specific measurable prediction derived from theory is experimentally verified??
Are the two camps talking the same language in terms of reliability of evidence?
It would appear not.
Yet objectively defining what is, and what is not, good evidence really should not be dependant on the point of view being expressed.
Agreement should, in theory, be possible if objective criteria are being applied.
So what are the characteristics of good reliable evidence??
What are the characteristics of poor unreliable evidence??
Do the characteristics of evidence you have chosen apply outside the EvC debate (e.g. in the courtroom, when solving a mechanical problem or when applied to the social sciences)?
Whilst specific examples are inevitable and perfectly valid in any such discussions I want this to be about WHY particular FORMS of evidence are better or worse than other kinds of evidence NOT exclusively about one or two specific examples.
Simply defining evidence in such a way as to suit your particular argument, whether creationist or evolutionist, is not what this thread is intended to be about.
Reasoned argument as to why one form of evidence should be considered a superior indicator of objective truth than another form of evidence IS the intended aim of this thread.
This topic has been prompted by the recent thread “Most convincing evidence for creation theory” where the validity of the evidence presented was repeatedly called into question.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-29-2007 7:19 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-29-2007 7:37 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 07-29-2007 10:56 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2007 10:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 77 (413271)
07-30-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
07-29-2007 7:37 PM


Re: Not a "Coffee House" type topic
Apologies. That was indeed my intention but once misposted I did not know how to get this changed.
Thanks for picking up on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-29-2007 7:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 77 (413311)
07-30-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object
07-29-2007 7:19 PM


Agreed. But the evolutionist almost always asserts that his special pleading is not as such, but objective. So idealistically your blue box statement is a goal that requires specifics.
Feel free to come up with some specific objective criteria by which to evaluate evidence. That is the aim of this thread.
Objective criteria is subjective in the Creation-Evolution debate since Creationist presuppositions are pro-supernaturalistic and Evolution presuppositions are pro-materialistic
This relates to the conclusions. Not the evidence itself.
The argument for the superiority of a particular form of evidence should not be dependant on the conclusions of a specific case.
With this said what do you propose?
If you want specifics I'll ask a specific question with a specific example that is relevant to the EvC debate.
Would you agree that the experimental or observational verification of a result, initially predicted by and derived from theory, is the single most compelling means of vindicating a scientific theory?
Ideally here I refer to a measurable quantity the value of which can be derived initially from theory which is subsequently vindicated by practical verification of predicted results.
An example of this would be the detection and measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation which is considered to have overwhelmingly verified the Big Bang theory.
Remember that this about forms of evidence NOT a debate solely about the validity of BB theory itself. This is just one example of prediction in action.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-29-2007 7:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 77 (413318)
07-30-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
07-29-2007 10:56 PM


Does this sound like an introduction that a real scientist would write?
No, I agree, it does not. The aim of science is to be as objective as possible.
The less interpretation required the better the evidence in question.
This is why verification by prediction is so powerful.
It is easy to interpret new evidence to fit an existing theory but impossible to make new data fit specific predeclared predictions unless either the theory is correct or the results themselves fabricated.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 07-29-2007 10:56 PM Taz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 77 (413326)
07-30-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
07-29-2007 10:56 PM


Re: What is "objective"?
I think everything you have said applies against written records in particular.
Only if corroborated by independant sources or external physical evidence should we consider human written records as any sort of reliable evidence at all.
Obviously in the context of this debate this includes the bible but any historical text should be subject to the same level of rigour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 07-29-2007 10:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 12 of 77 (413332)
07-30-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
07-30-2007 4:58 AM


Child like innocence
I think people keep trying to educate the creationists here in the knowledge that it doesnt matter what we say to them they are not going to change their minds on anything, but we know that 99% of their counter 'arguments' are so silly that it just reinforces lurkers' impressions of creationists.
Probably true - but getting creationists to confront the poor nature of their own "evidence" in objective terms seemed like a fun thing to do
Regarding history, these guys have no idea how to construct an historical hypothesis, they have never heard of the historio-scientific method (or any other I dare say), and as long as info comes from a Christian 'scholar', and satisfies an immediate problem, then they accept it.
I am interested in keeping this thread about the nature of evidence itself rather than getting caught up on typical EvC specific examples.
If you have time I would therefore be interested to hear of an example of the "historio-scientific method" in action and the means by which the evidence obtained was judged as reliable as this is slightly outside my usual area of participation and I may well learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 07-30-2007 4:58 AM Brian has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 77 (413385)
07-30-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object
07-30-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Child like innocence
Creationists disagree with evolutionary interpretations, explanations and conclusions of scientific data
Indeed they do.
But the point of this thread is to find out what methods of evaluating evidence are the most and least reliable in objective terms.
Simply disagreeing with interpretations, explanations and conclusions is all very well but what is the basis for this agreement if it is not dogma alone?
Is a written text inferior, superior or equal as evidence to a measurable verified observed prediction of the sort that all but eliminates any interpretation of the evidence? What is the reasoning behind your answer??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-30-2007 11:56 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 2:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 77 (413582)
07-31-2007 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 2:44 PM


God or No God
Evidence is evaluated by presuppositions; the same determines its interpretation.
In summary you are saying that evidence is evaluated and interpreted either with the assumption that God definitely does exist, or with the assumption that he definitely does not exist.
Is that correct?
The point is that presuppositions and worldviews supplant the ideal of what is objective.
Therefore the aim of science should be to limit interpretation to increase objectivity. Right?
I put to you, once again, the case of specific measurable predicted results (which you have thus far evaded)
Here no interpretation of the evidence is required as any interpretation has been inherent in the theory itself.
If the predictions are verified then they verify the interpretation within the theory.
The evidence itself requires no interpretation whatsoever.
Only accurate measurement.
BB theory is a fine example of this in action.
Do you agree that specific measurable predictions are the best means of evaluating any scientific theory?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 2:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 4:43 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 27 of 77 (413614)
07-31-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 4:52 PM


Re: God or No God
You really are evading actually answering the question......
"Here" means what?
Here = The case of specific measurable predicted results
Lets take a non-controversial general example of principle.
E.g Theory X predicts the existence of a new and extremely difficult to detect particle with specific mass A and specific charge B.
This particle has never before been detected.
This particle has never before been suspected to exist.
The sole reason for thinking that this particle may exist is theory X.
Detection methods improve with new technology.
A particle with mass A and charge B is sought and indeed detected.
In YOUR eyes has this theory be vindicated?
What BETTER evidence could there be for the veracity of theory X?
In your subjective viewpoint. Objectively, evidence always requires interpretation.
In this example what interpretation is required of the EVIDENCE?
All that is required is accuracy of measurement. No?
Idealistically, objectivity is always the goal
Thus specific measurable predicted results are the BEST form of evidence for a theory as they require no post result interpretation whatsoever.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 4:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 77 (413617)
07-31-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 4:43 PM


Re: God or No God
Surely in the name of objectivity God should neither be assumed to exist or not to exist?
That is how science actually works. Whether you believe it or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 4:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 6:15 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 77 (413726)
08-01-2007 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:56 PM


As to what the fact or evidence means.
The evidence is the observation of the predicted particle. There is NO INTERPRETATION just accurate measurement.
Theory X has already stated the assumptions on which the theory is based (that is after all what a theory is). The existence of the predicted particle is a direct consequence of the theory itself.
The EVIDENCE in the form of the predicted particle either vindicates the theory and the assumptions on which that theory is based or it does not.
I assume your assertion true
,
Assume nothing. I want to know if YOU think that theory X has been vindicated or not in the scenario detailed.
the issue is, what does the fact or data mean?
The data means that theory X is either correct or that it is not.
Any other meaning is inherent in the theory itself.
Is theory X vindicated by the verification of the predicted result or not?
Why is it sooo hard for you to acknowledge that some forms of evidence are superior and less subject to interpretation than others?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 11:45 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 77 (413731)
08-01-2007 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 6:15 PM


Re: "Neutral" (quote marks required)
Darwinism says God is not involved in reality; you have misunderstood the "neutral" claim, which only seeks to conceal the Atheist agenda (presupposition that God is not involved in reality).
So anyone seeking objectivity by not presupposing God is following a subjective and atheist agenda.
Hilarious.
Darwinism says God is not involved in reality
Evolution has shown that there is no NEED for God to explain the variety of life.
In the same way that Newton showed that there is no NEED for God to explain the orbits of the planets.
The only way to achieve any objectivity is to presuppose nothing.
Determine the best and most objective forms of evidence and evaluate theories and evidence on those terms.
So lets get back to forms of evidence and which are superior........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 6:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 77 (413750)
08-01-2007 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
08-01-2007 5:52 AM


Re: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Nuggin (and any other non-creationists taking part in this discussion)
The whole creationist argument seems to rely on the following -
1) We all have access to the same evidence
2) Theories are just different interpretations of evidence
3) The creationist interpretation is therefore just as valid as the scientific one as it based on the same evidence but with different implicit assumptions
Now I know that this is nonsense.
I know that you know that this is nonsense.
BUT demonstrating why it is nonsense to someone determined that the above is true is more difficult.
I am trying to show CFO that interpretation and evidence are neither the same nor equal.
I am trying to demonstrate that some forms of evidence effectively require no interpretation at all as any assumptions are implicit in the theory being tested.
I am trying to show that some forms of evidence are inherently superior to others.
I am trying to get CFO to acknowledge that some theories are indeed superior to others on the basis of the evidence on which they are evaluated.
Specific measurable predictive results are the purest form of scientific vindication.
So I thought I would start with this form of evidence as the benchmark.
Feel free to chip in on that basis but don't let CFO derail it by attempting to define what Darwinism is and is not or any other evasive tactic.
We can come back to evolution and the forms of evidence for evolution once we have established the important step that not all evidence is equal and not all theories are mere interpretations of existing evidence.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 08-01-2007 5:52 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 12:07 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 44 of 77 (413863)
08-01-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
08-01-2007 11:45 AM


Generic Principle
Since you have not told us what theory X is I cannot answer the question and neither can anyone else.
CFO this is not a trick question.
There is no real theory X that I am trying to trick you into agreeing to.
We have all agreed that objectivity is an ideal.
I am trying to take a step back from the typical EvC subject matter.
I am trying to discuss evidence and it's forms by considering an example theory that is objective in the sense that it has no direct bearing on the EvC debate.
Theory X is fictional but typical of the type of situation regularly found in physics.
Whether true or false I have already agreed to agree that we have a fact. Now, what does the fact or evidence MEAN?
I am obviously expecting too much of you in terms of imagination. So lets keep things simple and find out exactly where it is you disagree.
1) In order to achieve as much objectivity as possible we should subject our theories to the most rigorous tests possible.
Do you agree?
2) It is much easier to construct a theory or interpretation based on existing evidence than it is to make new facts fit existing interpretations or theories
Do you agree?
3) In the case of a specific measurable quantity it is inconceivably unlikely that a theory will predict an accurate result by chance alone
Do you agree?
4) Therefore the single most difficult test that a a theory can be subjected to is to accurately predict a measurable quantity regarding a new phenomenon for which there exists no prior knowledge or theory
Do you agree?
5) The evidence required to verify the theory from 4) above is the observation and accurate measurement of the predicted phenomenon
Do you agree
6) If the observed phenomenon is indeed observed and the predicted measurement verified (assuming accurate and correct measurement) then the theory should be considered to be verified with no further interpretation of the evidence required
Do you agree?
Forget Darwinism, forget pyramids etc.etc.etc.
Just for a minute TRY and consider evidence as a concept in itself.
TRY and be objective.
Edited by Straggler, : Rewrite to break things down to the bare basics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 11:45 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 77 (413865)
08-01-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
08-01-2007 12:07 PM


Re: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
All evidence requires interpretation. I am sure that the evolutionary heirarchy on this board would agree with me.
I don't care who they agree with. You have made an assertion with no attempt to even support it except a vague appeal to authority.
All evidence requires interpretation.
IF theories equate to interpretations
AND statements of prediction can be used to verify or refute theories
THEN verified predictions are evidence for the theory/interpretation in question.
THUS the evidence in itself requires no interpretation in such a case as it either verifies the theory or it does not.
ALL interpretation (of what the theory, and therefore the evidence, means) is inherent in the theory making the prediction. Not in the physical measurement (i.e. the physical evidence) itself.
The physical evidence requires ONLY accurate measurement to verify or refute the theory in question.
Completely false. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
Please explain to me how an observed specific measured result predicted by theory can be interpreted in ANY way other than to support that theory?
There is no other interpretation of the physical EVIDENCE possible.
Unles YOU can explain how it could conceivably be otherwise rather than just asserting it to be so?
I look forward to your explanation.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 12:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 8:21 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024