Standards of Evidence

It seems to me that the crux of the creationist argument relies on wilfully ignoring this incredibly obvious conclusion.

Comment presupposes your opinion as a legitimate (silent) authority while exempting yourself from refutation by other authorities. This is the epitome of subjective thinking.Objective persons have sources for their views or they are unsupported and subjective. We know evolutionists routinely rely on the "appeal to authority" card because they cannot produce a source for their assertions and they want their subjective preconceptions to be regarded as evidence, fact or objective truth.I have indeed made an assertion: "All evidence requires interpretation."It is an axiomatic truth that is accepted by all scholars blindly. I do not need to support that the Earth is round.Appearance of design, according to your special pleading, needs interpretation. I say it means what it indicates at face value (invisible Designer, that is my interpretation). But in your hypothetical scenario, the measurement evidence, requires no interpretation. You need to be consistent.Ray

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 required or possible in relation to the theory in question.Either the theory is verified or it is not.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.

No, Ray, it needs to be tested. If something that appears to be designed is found to not actually be designed, then that disproves the design inference for that object(s). Yes, Ray, that is your interpretation and you can hold onto it all you want, but your interpretation is NOT evidence. A superficial prima facie appearance of design is NOT evidence for design. We are not simply interpretating the appearance of design as not designed just for the hell of it. Testing of the idea (or hypothesis, but I'm sure you have your own definition for that word, too) reveals natural processes behind the appearance of design. You are the only one doing the interpreting here. No, Ray, YOU are asserting that we are interpreting the appearance of design as not designed in the same manner that you interpret it as being designed (at face value). That is simply not true. Straggler is only being inconsistent in your head because you are projecting your made-up ideas about the way science works onto the rest of us.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

We are talking a cross purposes by confusing each other with different definitions of physical evidence.I have been using the term 'physical evidence' to mean physical evidence FOR the theory in question. In the hypothetical example this physical evidence is the existence of the predicted particle.You have been meaning the pure physical evidence on which the result is based. The detection of the particle and the measurements for charge, mass, spin etc. etc. The raw physical data.In the latter case it is absolutely and indisputably true that the physical data needs to interpreted in order to infer the particle's existence and attributes as we cannot 'see' the particle directly in any sense whatsoever.In this sense your "axiom" regards interpretation of the raw physical data is indisputably and undoubtably true.However once the existence of the particle has been accepted beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of interpreting the raw physical data there is no further physical data to interpret.The existence of the particle is now physical evidence only in relation to the predicting theory that it supports.
No other interpretation of the particles existence is necessary or indeed possible in this context.So we are both correct based on our different meanings of the term 'physical evidence' in this context.
If anything you have been using the term in the more accepted manner although the physical data is not directly relevant in the scenario outlined.I apologise for being so unclear and for taking so long to appreciate the basis of this confusion.Do you agree with the above analysis????????????????????????If so can we accept that all "axioms" have been met?
Can we then accept that the particle in our hypothetical scenario exists and that in itself it requires no interpretation beyond acting as firm evidence in support of the theory that predicted it?I really did not anticipate that reaching agreement regards a predicted result supporting a theory would be quite so difficult.
It would seem to be a very obvious conclusionEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Poorly stated, but I'll agree that there is an interior to the Pyramid and that it has been relatively stable in form since the creation of the Pyramid.This could be construed as "physical evidence". It could be evidence for "how the Pyramid was created", it could be evidence for "how much material is contained in the Pyramid", it could be evidence for "the technological skill of the builders". This, however, fails miserably as evidence.
1st - you would have to list the "claims". Simply saying "well known claims" doesn't cut it. (I'll demonstrate - "There are well known quotes in the Bible that prove that God doesn't exist".)2nd - you would have to demonstrate that the "claims" which exist in a current version of the Bible ALSO exist in an early version of the Bible (that means translation from different languages). Much like Nostrodamus' "predictions" of 9/11 which were written by people on 9/12 - these "claims" in the Bible can't be something that someone came up with recently if you want them to be taken seriously.3rd - you would have to prove that the people who wrote the Bible COULD NOT have known about the passages when the Bible was written. It's not exactly magic for someone to simply write down something which is common knowledge at the time.4th - you would have to prove that the people who build the pyramids COULD NOT have known about the claims in the Bible when the pyramids were built. While the Lincoln Memorial is an impressive building, it would have been even more impressive if they had build it 100 years before his birth. Did they? Knowing the timeline is important.5th - you would have to demonstrate HOW the passages in the pyramid "matches" the claims in the Bible. If your "well known" passage in the Bible is "a man soweth three rows of barley and three of rye" you better be able to explain EXACTLY why that is a measurement for a 15degree incline within the pyramid and why NO OTHER interpretation will fit.Once doing ALL of that you would start to approach the point where people could take a look at this "evidence" and start to evaluate it.For the record - (and, clearly, this is something you have been struggling with)Something is not evidence just because you say it is.

It's probably not a good idea to get into the Pyramidology here.Try this thread if you need to see the painful details. Suffice to say that Ray was soundly refuted. Again and again and again.

WHAT THEORY?Forum rules state that we are not to repeat the same point over and over. I have violated the rule and so has Straggler.Now I ask that a Moderator to please take the time to address the cause of violating the rule.Straggler has identified a fact or a piece of evidence. This evidence is measured result. I have plainly, for the sake of argument, accepted the fact or evidence. But Straggler THEN says or asks how the fact (or evidence) does not support the theory? In response I have repeatedly asked "What theory?" He has never once stated the theory that the fact allegedly supports. Around and around we go. Straggler demands that I accept the fact as supporting an unnamed theory and I demand to know what theory he (or she) is talking about?Is it too much to ask that a Moderator require Straggler to name the theory he is talking about? Please remember, I have accepted his fact of "specific measured result" but do not know what theory it allegedly supports?I will not ride on the Straggler merry-go-round any longer.Ray

You are reading an extra word into Straggler's mouth. 'The' is not included in the sentence Straggler has written.

quote:

---

Please explain to me how an observed specific measured result predicted by the theory can be interpreted in ANY way other than to support that {same} theory?

---

If you and Straggler are unable to reach an agreement on what is trying to be communicated then I do suggest one of you take the initiative in exiting the merry-go-round since they have a tendency to bog down threads. I think Straggler has done well at trying to phrase it in different ways to help communication, and I urge him to try different ways of saying it, perhaps going into further detail otherwise step off the merry-go-round. As for you, Ray, I urge you to try reading Straggler's posts from a different angle - if you aren't able to discern an alternative meaning to what he is trying to say, then step off.Also, Ray, I think you should read Message 50 wherein Straggler concedes your points, acknowledges the confusion, and explains why the concession does not detract from his point.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---

I'm going to take a stab at this. Perhaps a second wording of it will clarify Stragglers position.The crux of his position is that is does not matter what the theory is.Theory X predicts that you will see result Y if you perform experiment Z. Hence, at some time after theory X is defined somebody performs experiment Z and gets Y as a result then theory X is vindicated. This by no means an absolute 'proof' that theory X is 100% correct but it indicates that X does indeed appear to be a good theory explaining what the experiment will return.All these letters are probably confusing to some of our readers, so I'm going to substitute a trivial example that will hopefully show how experiements can vindicate and refute a theory.Theory: If the air temperature exceeds 30 degrees Celsius and the relative humidity is 100% it will by raining.Experiment: This is easy. Look outside whenever the temperature exceeds 30 degrees and the humidity is 100%.Results: Lets say you perform this experiment 100 times and every time you do it, it is indeed raining. This is a pretty good vindication of your theory. Does it prove it? Absolutely not! But it certainly 'supports' the theory, which is all that Straggler is saying. As soon as you perform that 101st experiment where it is not raining, it refutes the theory and you have to either toss it out wholesale, or modify it so that ALL of the collected evidence still matches the predicted results.This process (albeit a whole heck of a lot complicated then I just laid out) is how the scientific process works. Theory X predicts Y if experiment Z is performed. Test. Repeat. Test. Repeat. It really does not matter what X is.

With all due respect (not to be interpreted as per Woody Allen's "Broadway Danny Rose"), please pull your head out and engage your brain.Straggler was trying to arrive at general principles by presenting a general case which was based on a hypothetical theory. He chose to use a hypothetical theory in order to make this general case as neutral as possible."Hypothetical" means something that you make up and assume to exist purely for the sake of examining its logical consequences. Listen very carefully now: Theory X does not actually exist. Is it starting to sink in yet? You keep asking that Straggler identify Theory X and he keeps trying to tell you that it doesn't exist. What part of "Theory X is hypothetical and does not actually exist" do you not understand?I apologize for the tone, but I just got fed up with the pathetic spectacle of you flailing about completely lost and clueless, unable to comprehend the simplest things being told you but which were totally obvious to the rest of us. Is that one of the effects that creation science has on the brain, to blind the victim to the obvious?Please, get a clue! And stop asking that idiotic question: "WHAT THEORY?"If you still don't understand, then please state precisely what part of "Theory X is hypothetical and does not actually exist" you do not understand.-------------------------------
"And you're worried about what drugs do to your children's brains. Why, if they actually taught creation science in the schools, you could run your children's brains through a strainer and not find any lumps."
(Orson Scott Card, Secular Humanist Revival Meeting)

Yeah, not wanting to get into pyramids - just using his example to explain why simply saying "Pyramids are evidence" is not sufficient

I suspect that any leaving of 'merry go rounds' has more to do with your unwillingness to discuss competing forms of evidence than anything else.You seem to be cornering yourself into the slightly ludicrous position of stating that a verified predicted result provides no support for the theory that predicted that result, unless the theory under consideration meets your approval.How utterly ridiculous and how utterly typical of the creationist position.As you are evidently incapable of discussing an abstract example in order to determine generic principles in the name of objectivity lets take a real, specific and wholly relevant example.Lets discuss Big Bang theory and how this was verified by prediction.Firstly I propose that theories verified by prediction are superior for the following reasons -1) Specific measurable predictions are almost impossible to achieve by chance alone. Thus providing a highly rigorous and reliable form of verification.
2) Predicted results seperate the interpretation of raw physical data from any interpretation made by the theory under consideration. Hard physical evidence need only be interpreted in so far as the prediction is either verified or it is not. Any interpretation as to what the result actually MEANS is inherent in the theory being tested and thus subject to the same test as the theory itself. Therefore predicted results give the single MOST OBJECTIVE method of evaluating theories.BIG BANG
Now I am sure you are familiar with the Big Bang theory and how this was verified by the prediction of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.
If not I am sure the details will come out in any subsequent discussion anyway.Three questions that you need to answer relating to the specific example of BB theory -1)Are you seriously claiming that the verified detection of CMB does not support Big Bang theory?
2) Are you claiming to have a superior or equal theory that interprets the same evidence as BB theory?
3) If you are claiming that there is an equal or superior theory to BB on what basis should this theory be considered equal or superior rather than inferior to BB theory?Now that you have a real, specific and widely known theory to consider hopefully you can stop hiding behind the facade of indignation, come out from behind the coattails of (attempted) moderator intervention and actually address the fact that prediction is the gold standard of scientific objectivity. Edited by Straggler, : Spelling structure etc. etc.

Excellent. Then you should not have called anything "Theory X" since all you are talking about is a standard prediction. In other words, Straggler was stating things so badly. All he had to do was say that he was talking about the standard scientific method of prediction and experiment.Standard experimental methodology.Make prediction.Conduct experiment.Prediction is either confirmed or falsified (or inconclusive).If prediction is confirmed, then others should be able to duplicate and confirm. If so, we have a scientific fact established by this well known method.It is a self-evidently solid method; again, what is the point?Ray

The point is that prediction is the most objective and rigorous test a theory can be subjected to.The point is that theories verified by prediction are more objective and rigorously tested, and are therefore superior to theories that merely interpret existing physical data.The point is that no creationist theory has predicted ANY natural physical phenomenon or detail EVER.The point is that creationist theories are inherently inferior theories because they rely on wholly subjective interpretation of physical data.You requested that a specific theory be raised as an example.
I have done so.
BB Theory and it's verification by the detection and measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.What is the creationist alternative to the Big Bang, on what evidence is this based and which of the thories (BB or the creationist alternative) is the most reliable, objective and rigorously tested?
Which theory (BB or the creationist alternative) is the superior theory in objective terms?These issues have all been raised and explained in Message 58 but you have avoided addressing any of them.When are you going end these constant evasion tactics and actually address the issue of evaluating forms of evidence in terms of how objective they are???Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.