Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Standards of Evidence
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 77 (413640)
07-31-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 6:15 PM


Still Wrong
Darwinism says God is not involved in reality ...
Still wrong, obviously, or theist scientists wouldn't accept evolution, which they do.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 77 (413642)
07-31-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:56 PM


I assume your assertion true, the issue is, what does the fact or data mean?
In the example given? That the theory has been tested and one of its predictions has been confirmed.
This is not a matter of opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not 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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 35 of 77 (413743)
08-01-2007 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 2:44 PM


CFO logic seriously flawed
Genesis CLAIMS that God created the world and its contents on purpose. Since the world contains the overwhelming appearance of design the same corroborates and corresponds to the work of the Genesis Creator. Therefore the logical meaning of design corresponding to Designer is confirmed objective truth
You've made a HUGE mistake here, Ray.
You are saying that SOURCE #1 (The Bible) makes CLAIM X. CLAIM X is apparently true, therefore SOURCE #1 is true.
However, SOURCE #2 (Navajo Creation Myth) is equally true.
As is SOURCE #3 (Norse Creation), Source #4 (Babylonia Creation), etc. etc. etc.
With an enormous set of source material, all of which is equally valid yet contradictory (The Bible and Norse Mythology can't both be 100% correct) how do you determine which of these is correct?
Given that the only DATA you can collect is that the world "appears to be designed", this can not help rule in or out any of the myths so long as the myths presuppose some super natural force.
Further, since you are not testing the "appearance" of design you have no way of ruling in or out any of the potential data.
If I throw 1000 pennies into the air, they should fall randomly. Possibly three of them are touching in a straight line. It "appears" as though I planned that. Is that evidence that I am God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 2:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 77 (413744)
08-01-2007 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:56 PM


Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
the issue is, what does the fact or data mean?
Given the scenario he outlined, there is no reason to address conclusions at all.
In fact, it sounds like you are making the logical fallacy: "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief"
If you need to think about "what the data will mean" in order to determine if the results are valid, you are prejudicing that data.
What the results mean does not matter at all. The results simply are.
If you can not seperate your predetermined prejudices about the data, then you have no hope of presenting any evidence which is at all valid.
In fact, these suggestions demonstrate very clearly which side of the initial flow chat you are operating on.
Try collecting you data, then discovering what the data is telling you rather than collecting your conclusions and going out looking for data. It's called science.

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 38 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 8:15 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 40 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 11:58 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 37 of 77 (413746)
08-01-2007 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 6:15 PM


Um, where does it say that?
Darwinism says God is not involved in reality
Oh really? Where exactly does it say that?
Here's an example of one VALID interpritation of Darwinism. See if you can find a scientist willing to go against it.
God, in his infinite wisdom, set down the spark of life upon the Earth. What started as simple self-replicating proteins became gradually more complex over time, as God intended. And, as he predicted, eventually evolved into us. He set up the entire system of random mutation and natural selection. He's had no need to "tweek" it along the way. The process of evolution works exactly as he intended.
Hardly anti-God, and totally valid (if completely unprovable/disprovable).
Many scientists believe they are studying God's handy work.
Stop trying to tell them what they do or do not believe.

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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 39 of 77 (413784)
08-01-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
08-01-2007 3:05 AM


The evidence is the observation of the predicted particle. There is NO INTERPRETATION just accurate measurement.
Whether true or false I have already agreed to agree that we have a fact. Now, what does the fact or evidence MEAN?
What does the fact mean to, let's say, the Theory of Evolution?
In other words, I am asking you to interpret the fact into a paradigm, or theory, or what have you?
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.
Where has this happened and why is it a secret? How do we know the prediction is a consequence of the unnamed theory? Why don't you tell us what theory so we can see whether we agree with your interpretation of the fact/evidence?
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.
Agreed.
Assume nothing. I want to know if YOU think that theory X has been vindicated or not in the scenario detailed.
Since you have not told us what theory X is I cannot answer the question and neither can anyone else.
Is theory X vindicated by the verification of the predicted result or not?
How would anyone know unless theory X is unveiled?
Why is it sooo hard for you to acknowledge that some forms of evidence are superior and less subject to interpretation than others?
In general I agree that some forms of evidence are superior to other types. For example: the interior passage system of the Great Pyramid cannot be changed. It is visual and it is widely available to see by anyone on the Internet. The passage system, once explained, matches major Biblical claims, thus confirming those claims. The strength of THIS evidence is: the unalterable visual evidence of the interior AND well known major Bible claims. Mutual correspondence is superior evidence because the interior cannot be changed and it is available for anyone to SEE and major Bible claims are widely known and undisputed.
So yes there is superior evidence. Compared to evolutionary extrapolation based on scant evidence in hand, the Great Pyramid/Bible evidence is vastly superior.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 3:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2007 2:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 4:33 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 51 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2007 6:16 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 40 of 77 (413790)
08-01-2007 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
08-01-2007 5:52 AM


What the results mean does not matter at all. The results simply are.
I have already agreed (for the sake of argument) with the results. The issue is interpretation of those results into a paradigm or theory. Straggler, apparently, cannot grasp the next and very important step, which is what this topic is about.
Physical evidence (in and by itself) needs more interpretation than textual evidence. On this basis alone textual evidence is superior standard of evidence. But if your worldview denies textual evidence to be evidence in the first place then that is a subjective judgement.
If you can not seperate your predetermined prejudices about the data, then you have no hope of presenting any evidence which is at all valid.
Agreed.
Try collecting you data, then discovering what the data is telling you rather than collecting your conclusions and going out looking for data. It's called science.
You have described an ideal that does not exist. All discovery and collection is done with a preset theory in mind.
Ray

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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 41 of 77 (413792)
08-01-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
08-01-2007 8:15 AM


Re: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
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
Correct, EXCEPT: the Creationist interpretation is a scientific explanation, as is Evolution. Your subjective bias was showing.
Now I know that this is nonsense.
Since you are an evolutionist we are not surprised.
I am trying to show CFO that interpretation and evidence are neither the same nor equal.
You do not know what you are talking about. All evidence requires interpretation. I am sure that the evolutionary heirarchy on this board would agree with me.
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.
Completely false. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 8:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminNosy, posted 08-01-2007 12:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 4:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 42 of 77 (413799)
08-01-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object
08-01-2007 12:07 PM


Caution
Completely false. Again, you do not know what you are talking about.
While I think that it may indeed be false depending on what one means by interpretation, it is not clear that it is completely false and the following sentence is not necessary. In fact, more like it will earn you a suspension again.
I want to remind all participants that a "he said/she said" kind of thing is not very productive.
Saying something is ridiculous or false without offering the reasons for that accomplishes nothing. Let's get back to working on what evidence is, how it should be used and, perhaps, what we mean when we say "interpretation"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 08-01-2007 12:07 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 77 (413829)
08-01-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Cold Foreign Object
08-01-2007 11:45 AM


Whether true or false I have already agreed to agree that we have a fact. Now, what does the fact or evidence MEAN?
What does the fact mean to, let's say, the Theory of Evolution?
If we are testing a theory, the fact either is or is not in line with the predictions of the theory. If it is in line with the predictions, that means that the theory has passed another test, and our confidence in the theory should be strengthened; if not, the theory has been falsified.
You notice how it is not necessary to interpret the fact, merely to compare it with the predictions of the theory.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2007 4:55 PM Dr Adequate has not 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