Standards of Evidence

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Specifically which 'other methods'?
On what criteria are you determining that they are 'equally objective'? Just opinion? No. Reasoned argument? Yes.In message 58 I wrote If you are claiming other forms of evidence to be equal to verification by prediction then you need to explicitly name these forms of evidence and explain on what basis they are equally objective and equally rigorous as tests of theory.That is kind of the whole point of this thread.Sweeping assertions aside can you defend your claims?Your ongoing failure to put any counter arguments forwards has been noted and is frankly beginning to look like a major weakness in your position. You tell me?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am in the course of establishing with CFO that verification by prediction is THE most rigorous and objective form of evidence for a scientific theory.
He is so far refusing to acknowledge this but has as yet presented no argument as to why he believes this not to be true or presented any alternative forms of evidence as equal or superior.As evolution is effectively a theory that describes retrospective events the use of prediction as a verification tool is in practice more difficult than it is in many other branches of science.Do you have any examples of prediction as verifictation of theory for the theory of evolution?The obvious example would seem to be the 'tree of life' relationships originally derived from fossil evidence being verified by genetics.What more detailed examples of 'predictive evidence' for evolution are there that can be used in this debate?

I think it is broadly on topic and am happy to digress slightly in the name of educating myself anyway.
I am perfectly open to the idea if you are willing to explain briefly?I guess my thinking was that in other areas of science you actually have the opportunity to create experiments that replicate the situation under consideration. You can therefore make direct predictions on the outcome of specific directly relevant experiments.Dealing with a theory that largely relates to the formation of various life forms over millions of years ago will obviously lead to the examination of events that are not directly reproducable in the lab.For this reason it would seem more difficult to apply verification of predicted results as a tool for evaluating the theory of evolution. Directly and without additional interpretation at least.In that respect evolution and cosmology would seem to be in much the same boat.In terms of the EvC debate I think it is very relevant indeed.CFO has already agreed that the whole basis of his creationist argument is founded on the notion that evolution and creation are equally valid interpretations of the same scientific data.If it can be shown that evolution is verified by prediction, as well as sheer explanatory power, then it pretty much blows his whole argument out of the water.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I do partly agree.However the discussion I have been having with CFO (who seems to have dissappeared) was about degrees of objectivity.It strikes me that there is more interpretation required of real world observational evidence and that this interpretation is driven by the context of the theory under consideration.Imagine a lab experiment where a particular measurement has been predicted. If the prediction is verified it will have major implications for a far reaching and socially contentious theory.It is quite possible for a team of scientists to be given the task of making that measurement as accurately as possible without ever knowing of the theory in question or the implications of it's veracity.The verification of the theory and any interpretation of what the theory implies can be totally seperated.Can the same be said of, for example, of fossil evidence for evolution?
Or does this need to be analysed with knowldge of and in the context of the theory in question?I find myself in the bizzarre position of doing CFO's job for him...

Do observations require more interpretation than, for example, measurements?Is that not partly why creationists are able to still even pretend that they have a case regards evolution?See reply to nosy above for more detail on observations vs measurements.

If they want to claim a theory which should actually be considered to be a genuine rival to evolution they will need more than positive evidence.They will need positive evidence that is equivelent or better than the evidence for evolution.To be considered comparable I would argue that they would need to demonstrate theories verified by prediction rather than a bunch of ad-hoc and dispirate 'plausible' explanations.

What you have done is take evolution in it's broadest sense -i.e. And rightly state that the sheer amount of real life observational evidence more than amply supports this broad view.However the trouble with this sweeping brush approach is that it does leave the door open for other broad "interpretations" in a way that a specific measurable predicted quantity (for example) does not.Because of this creationists have the opportunity to come up with their own version of events that they can “convincingly” then claim is an equally valid interpretation of the physical evidence (involving floods and whatnot).It then requires intelligent analysis of the physical data (of which most people do not have access) to determine which theory better explains the data, giving yet more opportunity for disagreement and even deception.The obvious separation of what the observational or experimental data IS and what that experimental/observational data actually MEANS that predictive evidence usually allows has to some degree been lost.Evo is supported by a huge wealth of data most of which is predicted broadly by theoryBUT the fact that a huge amounts of such evidence are required to support the theory does, in itself, suggest that each individual evidence is inferior in nature than to a single argument clinching specific measurable predicted result (e.g. the detection of the CMBR)In terms of “standards of evidence”
If there were a hierarchy of forms of evidence I do think the sort of measurable specific prediction most often found in physics would lie above the sort of predictive evidence that is being put forwards for evolution.

Me too!! Without the creationist element taking part I find myself splitting hairs with people I essentially agree with.