Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Hi goldenratio, As a side note, have you ever seen a statue of a chinese lion?Chinese guardian lions - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Interestingly, the lion is not indigenous to China; however Asiatic lions were once quite common in neighboring India. These Asiatic lions[3] found in nearby India are the ones depicted in Chinese culture. As Buddhism was spread in China by traveling Buddhist priests and monks from India, they brought with them stories about stone Asiatic or Indian lions guarding the entries to Indian Buddhist temples & monasteries and the palaces of Indian Kings. Chinese sculptors modeled lion statues after native dogs (compare the Chow Chow, Pekingese, Shi Tzu, Shar-Pei, Pug, etc., and closely related dog breeds originating in ancient China called Foo Dogs) for use outside their temples and palaces, as nobody in ancient China had ever seen a real lion before.

---

The epitome of a subjective lion in the forest eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Xongsmith, Exactly, and Straggler's (and Rahvin's) insistence at discussing implausible subjective evidence doesn't make the plausible subjective evidence less compelling. It's the fallacy of the part for the whole: dreams are implausible, therefore all subjective experience is implausible. Hence your policeman must turn into a mind that can have no sensations.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

(objective evidence) + (logic) + (subjectivity) = (conclusion)The methods of science are specifically designed to maximise the objective evidence component and minimise the subjective evidence component in order to achieve conclusions that are as reliable as is humanly possible. Observation, prediction, testing, repetition of experiment, independent corroboration of results, peer review etc. etc. etc. are all applied with the sole intention of promoting the objective at the expense of the subjective.The reason that the mathematical sciences are so adept at formulating exceptionally successful predictions and theories from the bare minimum of objective evidence is because maths is as close to the application of pure logic that we inherently subjective humans can hope to achieve. Thus the subjective component of the above is minimised to the greatest degree when conducting this form of investigation. It is this minimisation of the subjective component and the large scale removal of human bias and wishful thinking that makes this form of investigation so uniquely powerful.It is this minimisation of the subjective component that makes it theoretically possible for one man to sit in a room alone and from two partially evidenced postulates derive a large portion of now verified modern cosmological theory without himself taking a single observation or conducting a single experiment.Those conclusions where the subjectivity component is high and the objective evidence component is low include such minimally objectively evidenced concepts as ghosts, goblins, fairies, Bigfoot, poltergeists, the Loch Ness Monster, psychic abilities, various forms of spirituality, alien visitation and a near endless list of other refuted or fringe lunatic phenomenon most of which are more likely to be found in an episode of the X Files than studied at respected academic institutions.Where there is no objective evidence component (whether this is actually known to the person making the conclusion or not) the wholly subjective component comprising preference, bias, wishful thinking, irrational thoughts, feelings, emotion, dreams, hallucinations etc. etc. etc. is able to run riot. In most spheres of human endeavour such capacity for near unhindered creation is a blessing and is in fact, I would argue, what makes us uniquely human rather than ghastly automatons. However when determining the truth of reality this inherent human subjectivity is more of a curse than a blessing. Unchecked by any objective evidence conclusions borne wholly, or almost wholly, from subjectivity will tell us more about the desires and needs of the individual making the conclusion than anything at all about a common, shared or objective reality. Personal gods, and other deities are the obvious examples of such wholly subjectively evidenced phenomenon. I honestly cannot think of any other example of something that people are willing to claim a genuine belief in on the basis of absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever.Now in reality of course any conclusion is a complicated and interweaving mix of all three terms of my overly simplistic equation. Nobody here is claiming that the human brain is so compartmentalised. However the very fact that science seeks to maximise the objective at the expense of the subjective is testament to the incredible and inherent unreliability of the subjective. If the subjective were a benefit rather than a hindrance to reliably investigating the truths of nature the methods of science would be designed to maximise both the subjective and the objective together.The fact that scientific conclusions seek to minimise the subjective rather than maximise it, the fact that scientific conclusions are so much more powerful than any other conclusions as a result of this and the fact that the mathematical sciences in particular are so uniquely powerful as a result of negating the subjective to the highest degree proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the notion of subjective evidence (as opposed and distinct from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) is as flawed as the day is long.To deny these facts is simply to ignore the evidence available in order to cling onto a world view that is rationally unjustifiable.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Good. Then can you tell me exactly how it is that what you are calling "subjective evidence" in a courtroom is in fact not just one person relating their subjective interpretation of objective evidence to others?Thus making the term "subjetive evidence" a misnomer in such situations. Rather it is the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence". Exactly as I have been saying all along.And just to be clear - If one has a waking "vision" in the presence of others that none of those others can see I assume that this too counts as "internal" evidence and is thus invalid by the terms you have cited above? Yes? Just to be absolutely clear. Well lets see. If everything you have been describing as "subjective evidence" is actually just people recounting to each other what they have seen, heard, felt, smelt etc. etc. then we are actually ultimately talking about here is empirical evidence and nothing more. Albeit from secondhand sources.Perhaps we should use the term "secondhand empirical evidence" from now on? Something else if you prefer but lets do away with "subjective evidence" as this is just misleading given that we have now eliminated all forms of "internal only" experience as being included as evidence.That is correct yes? We have eliminated ALL forms of wholly internal experience as evidence?Now who does not include empirical evidence? Obviously empirical evidence recounted to us by someone else is significantly less convincing than directly experiencing that empirical evidence oneself. Obviously a claim of empirical evidence that cannot be corroborated or verified in any way at all is also significantly less convincing. Obviously a claim of empirical evidence that sounds fantastical as compared to ones own empirical experience of reality is also significantly less convincing. Obviously a claim of empirical evidence that sounds fantastical with regard to the wider agreed and shared consensus of what constitutes empirical reality is also significantly less convincing.But ultimately, all that aside, what we are talking about here is empirical evidence alone yes?Our wider debate simply comes down to whether or not the empirical evidence (including secondhand accounts of that empirical evidence) in favour of such things as alien visitation or the existence of deities is inferior or superior to the empirical evidence that suggests such experiences, whilst they might have seemed real, are in fact more likely to have been very personally convincing visions.Do you agree?AbE - By the way if you are claiming that the evidence in favour of deities is actually empirical in nature then I am delighted to concede that the IPU is a wholly unjustified argument. The whole point of the IPU is that it is Immaterial and thus wholly non-empirical by it's inherent nature. I thought that this was obvious. No?But I have to ask why didn't you just tell us that the sort of deistic beliefs in question were founded on empirical experience and save us all a lot of time in the IPU thread?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which means that when you tell somebody about something that you saw this is actually derived from some sort of objective evidence.Thus your use of the term "subjective evidence" is in fact a misnomer.The whole thing would be better described as "second hand objective evidence" which nobody here disputes as valid in certain (non-scientific) situations.Although on it's own without any similar objective experience of your own (e.g. knowing what a son is as opposed to not knowing what a googlesplat is) it is particularly poor evidence.If we are just saying that the various phenomenon mentioned by RAZD are exceptionally poorly evidenced in ultimately objective terms then I agree totally and completely.Why the need for this ridiculous and misleading term "subjective evidence"?If we mean ultimately things that are not empirical then this needs to made clear. I think RAZD does mean this. But we'll see.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I actually like the term "subjective evidence," but maybe it needs to be given a clear definition. I like to think of a scale that runs from subjective to objective. Any single individual's observations are subjective, but the degree to which his observations can be shared by others increases its objectivity. An observation can only be made with the five senses, and that includes observations made with the assistance of technology, such as microscopes, thermometers and Large Hadron Colliders.Now let's say you have a dream about a googlesplat, and then someone else has a dream about a googlesplat, and then another and another. Is this an example of a set of observations growing in objectivity?I would argue no because the observations were not made with the senses. They're just an assessment of internal experience, and while exchanging information about dreams can bring about feelings of shared experience, there's no objective foundation for considering such feelings as indications of having observed the same thing.But one can see how easily one can get into long discussions about whether dreams are objective evidence of anything. It could be argued that the description of the dream is itself evidence, and as more and more people give descriptions of similar dreams that they become evidence that these dreams are themselves actual evidence of something true about reality.To me this is information about human psychology, which is certainly part of reality, but not about any natural phenomenon outside the realm of the human mind. But RAZD doesn't see it that way, and I don't see how one could ever convince him otherwise.--Percy

Well actually I now understand RAZD's position to be that he is in fact talking about empirical evidence as he has unequivocably discounted anything that is "wholly internal" as being evidence. At least that is my understanding now. See Message 109But if RAZ is discounting the wholly internal and still not talking about empirical evidence (albeit as recounted by others) then I am absolutely lost as to what the hell is is talking about.If you think I have misunderstood him please let me know before I get accused of misrepresentation again.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

See message Message 108 for my entire position on the nature of evidence.See message Message 109 for my response to the fact that when you guys are all talking about "subjective evidence" you are in fact all talking about "secondhand empirical evidence" (clumsy term I know but this seems more descriptive of exactly what you seem to mean) or even just "the subjective interpretation of objective evidence"My insistence on considering "wholly subjective evidence" was borne from a previous discussion with RAZD regarding deities and the IPU. If he had simply said that the "subjective evidence" he was including in that discussion was merely the relayed account of empirical experience he could have saved a lot of time and effort on the parts of all those who took part in that discussion. See here for that thread:http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->http://EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument< !--UE-->For the record I do indeed accept that the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" is valid and have actually repeatedly and relentlessly said so. But no claim operates in vacuum of evidence and the claimed sighting of a cat on my street would be totally different to the same claim made for a lion. Why? Because of all of the other objective evidence that surrounds such claims.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZD's position can only be maintained by ambiguity, so I'd be surprised to see an unamibiguous statement from him. For instance, he says, "I am not interested in dreams and unconscious experiences, I am interested in experiences that occur while conscious and aware." He's say "experiences" instead of observations, so what does this even mean? Ambiguous statements like this are what forced you to ask, "If one has a waking 'vision' in the presence of others that none of those others can see I assume that this too counts as 'internal' evidence and is thus invalid by the terms you have cited above? Yes? Just to be absolutely clear."Until RAZD puts it unequivocally in terms of observations of natural phenomenon made with the five senses, we'll never know what he's really talking about. In order to maintain his position and not appear too unreasonable, RAZD is forced to keep his options open. It's not in his interest to nail things down unambiguously, and so I would be very surprised if he does. That's why so much of what he says is irrelevant or rhetorical, like "Perhaps the theory of Natural Selection just fell in Darwin's lap eh?" or "Tell me again: why was the fudge factor introduced? for fun and giggles?" What's he really mean? Who knows? Expressing your personality is fine, but not at the expense of clarity. It definitely feels like he's crafting his approach to these kinds of questions in a way designed to give him the answers he wants.If the term "subjective evidence" isn't a good one for this discussion, maybe we could instead assign observations a degree of confidence, with a single observation by a single individual having the lowest degree of confidence, and many observations by many individuals having the highest degree of confidence.If that's okay then the question becomes what is the observation and what is its degree of confidence? I think the question you posed in the opening post contrasting the relative validity of hypotheses about alien life and an intelligent designer is approached by asking what observations are involved. In the case of alien life, the hypothesis is valid because we've observed actual life. Just like we conclude from the fact that our world has a moon that other worlds might have a moon, we conclude that because our world has life that other worlds might have life.But the same reasoning cannot be applied to an intelligent designer. All claimed evidence is negative (i.e., "We don't know how this happened naturally, therefore an intelligent designer did it.") or completely circumstantial (i.e., "People design complex things, life is complex, therefore it must be designed."), plus there's the inevitable infinite regression that can only terminate in the supernatural or the unexplained, and so the intelligent designer is itself a supernatural explanation or, like simply giving something a label and calling it a solution, not an explanation at all.--Percy

Well call me mad but I intend to keep trying.Unfortunately because of this vagueness I am now the one that looks like an idiot as I have been lulled into looking like I am denying courtroom testimony as vald at all.........By trying to seperate what RAZD actually means by "subjective evidence" from any sort of "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" I have ended up incurring the wrath and ridicule of numerous other members.Oh well. I'll live. I think it is the whole "vacuum of evidence" thing again.We don't need 10 people to independently corroborate a particular instance of a cat crossing the road because there is a long and evidenced history of the mundanity of this occurrance.It is effectively evidenced by past but seperate observations of the phenomenon in question.But if something otherwise unevidenced occurs then of course the more people that witness that particular event the better evidenced it is.

Leaving aside any practical considerations of funding and time constraints and so on, observations of natural phenomena can be infinitely replicated. Observations of one-time events cannot be replicated, but they must be held to the same standards of replication as observations of natural phenomena. Many witnesses helps, but scores of mass sightings of UFOs and similar things tell us that isn't much help. Your average person isn't much of a witness.For one-time events you have to rely on upon the evidence left behind by the event, and that evidence can be observed and those observations replicated. Much can be learned of events like the Tunguska meteorite (no eyewitnesses) just by analysis of that data.Observations using the five senses are at the core of all objective analysis. At one point you mentioned empirical evidence not gathered by us first hand but recounted to us by someone else, and you seemed to imply that this represents a sliding scale of evidence, but I don't think we should even be talking of second-hand evidence. The original observation is evidence, and anything else is a game of telephone.Also, and this is an obvious point but I'll make it anyway, just like a million copies of the Bible is no more evidence than one Bible, a million people repeating what they'd been told about an observation made by a single individual is still just a single observation.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify last para.

Hi Percy,I agree. This is why I've drawn the distinction between conscious and unconscious subjective experiences. Or that all existence is a dream. But I don't see any such discussions as being useful in discussing the objective verification of reality, as it is difficult to consider how you would test for the objective reality of the dreamed googlesplat, other than attempting to prove a negative.However, the spectrum of conscious experience from single subjective experience to multiple validated experiences can at least start with the assumption that there was something valid about the sensed experience, no matter how unusual it appears to be. The problem, of course, being that the more unusual an experience is, the less it is a shared experience, by the definition of "usual" and "unusual".The other problem is that what is "unusual" to you may be "usual" to me, so the relative merit of the subjective experience will be rated differently based on our personal, subjective, worldview rather than on the basis of the experience on it's own. It's always amusing to be told what you think eh? No, the problem I have, is with the assumption that one can discern if a subjective experience of a conscious person is actually sensed or not from the single experience alone. Straggler draws a distinction between "subjective experience of objective reality" and "wholly subjective experience" but if we take it as given that the experience occurred to a conscious and aware person who is convince of the reality of the experience, then how can we tell one from the other?Can you conceive of a way to tell one from the other?To me it is an irrelevant distinction, provided that what you do with the information from the subjective experience is treat it as a possible indication of reality, and then test it for validity by the methods of science, methods, as Straggler says that maximize objective results and minimize subjective interpretations.Thus, if it is a valid rational approach to say(objective evidence) + (logic) = (conjecture)where we can test that conjecture by the methodology of science, then it should equally apply to say(subjective evidence) + {logic) = (conjecture)where we can test that conjecture by the methodology of science. This becomes rather obvious when you replace "objective" with your "scale that runs from subjective to objective" and begin with agreed objective evidence and step increasing along the scale to subjective: there is no place to stop and say "whoa, folks it don't work no more" that I can discern.Now one can err on the side of being skeptical of evidence, and deem some evidence to be unworthy of investing time on. Certainly as experiences are more unusual and rare this can be the case.Or on can err on the side of being skeptical of our knowledge of reality, and deem evidence to be worthy of investing time on. For every individual there will be a balance between these directions. I don't think it is so much about human psychology as it is about the inability of a sensory apparatus coupled to an organic mind to be an objective recording machine. Any intelligent species will run into the same problem of separating "subjective experience of objective reality" and "wholly subjective experience" ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I agree in scientific terms this is absolutely true. Simply saying that you have seen something is not enough to qualify as any sort of evidence at all.But when it comes to courtroom situations and everyday situations such testimony is taken as evidence. BUT only as long as it is corroborated with the actual objective evidence available past and present. No claim operates in a vacuum of all other objective evidence.I have stated as well as I can my position regarding evidence in general in Message 108.To get this back on topic I would suggest that any scientifically valid hypothesis (by which I mean simply an untested conclusion not a wider explanatory framework) must be both derived from objective evidence and that the conclusion must be in principle testable.Thus the existence of a supernatural designer is in itself an unscientific hypothesis.The hypothesis that nature exhibits indications of intentional design by an unspecified intelligent designer of some sort is however valid as we can examine and test this claim (Which all in this thread I think would agree has been refuted).The hypothesis that extraterrestrial life has arisen and evolved in similar conditions to that in which life has arisen and evolved here is objectively evidenced by the indisputable fact of life on this planet and is in principle testable (even if exceptionally difficult to test in practise). Thus this is also valid.As for the various wacko claims of various X files style phenomenon I guess it depends. In most cases the objective evidence is incredibly weak. The testability depends on what exactly is being claimed.Bigfoot might be considered a valid even if incredibly implausible hypothesis but inherently empirically undetectable entities of any sort would not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do we agree that if an experience is in fact wholly subjective it is not actually of any value as evidence of anything?Lets ignore the inherent difficulties in actually discerning between the two for one moment. I want to know what you answer is in principle.

Hi Straggler, That is one end of the spectrum, what you are ignoring is the other end of the spectrum where it is not so clear. Have you said yet whether you think the original experience at Loch Ness was a "subjective experience of objective reality" or a "wholly subjective experience" and how you can tell the difference? I seem to have missed it if you have.child: "mom, I saw a black cat last night" - mother: "that's nice dear, eat your wheaties"child: "mom, I saw a shooting star last night" - mother: "that's nice dear, eat your wheaties"child: "mom, I saw a flying dinosaur last night" - mother: "that's nice dear, eat your wheaties" If you can't define where one ends and the other begins, then your distinction is artificially imposed and irrelevant.Of course, we could assume that all conscious subjective experiences are "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" and thus, you would (I hope) agree, worthy of further scientific investigation to validate what that objective reality involved.In this case we would start with the assumption that the initial observation of a crime was a "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" and then use that to determine our best guess of what that objective reality involved.(evidence) + (logic) = (conjecture)In this case we would start with the assumption that the initial observation at Loch Ness was a "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" and then use that to determine our best guess of what that objective reality involved.(evidence) + (logic) = (conjecture)In this case we would start with the assumption that the initial observation at UFO experiences were "subjective interpretations of objective evidence" and then use that to determine our best guess of what that objective reality involved.(evidence) + (logic) = (conjecture)In each case we end up with a conjecture that can be tested. In a court of law, it is tested by the defense and by how much it convinces the judge and jury. In the case of science, it is tested by whether the conjectures can be falsified.Of course, this would mean that your distinction between "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" and "wholly subjective experience" and that your distinction between "objective evidence" and "subjective evidence" are unnecessary and irrelevant.This doesn't assume that subjective evidence is real or valid, just that some of it is, and that you can't tell what is from what isn't without testing it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •