Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Evidence?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 51 (538221)
12-04-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
12-04-2009 12:15 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
Evidence only means anything in the context of a theory for which it is being considered as evidence.
Then you will need to define evidence, which is what the OP was trying to get at. Most folk would disagree, insisting that evidence is something which leads to only certain conclusions. For example, to such folk, 'leaves are green' would not be a possible conclusion from the evidence 'paper'. Afterall, the paper could just as easily evidence that 'the sky is green and sun purple' if we are allowing it to evidence any and all things, including those with which it has no (or a limited) relationship.
I once proposed the following explanation for evidence:
Iff X then E
X=thing that creates evidence
E=evidence resulting from X
Is this inadequate? Incorrect? I am no longer sure if it is a proper explanation anymoreit fails to capture the notion of things that do not emit evidence, for example. One possible way to ask this question: does evidence have to be something sensible (capable of being sensed)? (Note: knowledge is sensible in that we can be aware of its existence.)
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2009 12:15 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 3:29 PM Jon has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 4:58 AM Jon has replied

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


Message 17 of 51 (538222)
12-04-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
12-04-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
Evidence is that which allows us to reliably distinguish truth from falsehood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 12-04-2009 3:21 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 12-04-2009 11:17 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 51 (538264)
12-04-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
12-04-2009 3:29 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
Evidence is that which allows us to reliably distinguish truth from falsehood.
It is too vague a definition with too many subjective constituents. What is reliability? What is truth? What is falseness? At what degree do we declare distinction?
If evidence is only something that "allows us to [XYZ]", does that mean that for something to be evidence a human must sense it? And if this is the case, then is evidence merely a human construct? If so, in what way is evidence connected with the Reality? Or, is it not?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 3:29 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2009 5:37 AM Jon has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 51 (538279)
12-05-2009 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
12-04-2009 11:17 PM


an organization of facts
Hi Jon, try this:
Evidence is an organization of facts, such that a logical conclusion can be derived, that follows from the facts used.
Maps are flat, therefore the earth is flat.
The flat maps are the evidence for the flat earth conclusion.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 12-04-2009 11:17 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 12-05-2009 12:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 20 of 51 (538304)
12-05-2009 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jon
12-04-2009 11:26 AM


Minor Modification
Jon writes:
Oops... looks like your description creates a nesting error that can never end. Not sure how you could refer to that logical pong game as 'objective'. Try again, Joe.
You are correct, I messed it up a bit. Here, I'll fix it for you:
Fact - An objective record of reality.
Evidence - A fact that supports one or more possible conclusions.
Possible Conclusion - A guess at something that is not known that is supported by all the available facts.
So we end up with:
Evidence - An objective record of reality that supports one or more guesses at something that is not known that is supported by all the available objective records of reality.
Thanks for helping in the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 12-04-2009 11:26 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 51 (538305)
12-05-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
12-05-2009 5:37 AM


Re: an organization of facts
Evidence is an organization of facts, such that a logical conclusion can be derived, that follows from the facts used.
So, can one thing by itself constitute evidence? I would almost think it could be evidence, if of nothing else, of its own existence. Or is it that we must also contain additional evidence to conclude such, for example, the knowledge that things we sense exist?
Maps are flat, therefore the earth is flat.
The flat maps are the evidence for the flat earth conclusion.
Exactly.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : dern punchuation

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2009 5:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2009 6:53 PM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 51 (538332)
12-05-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jon
12-05-2009 12:39 PM


Re: an organization of facts
Hi Jon,
Exactly.
Notice that the evidence set is not necessarily a complete one, nor that the conclusion is necessarily valid - validation comes through further evidence ... and a lack of contradictory evidence.
The earth seen from space is evidence that the earth is roundish (an oblate spheroid), which contradicts and invalidates the flat earth conclusion.
In turn we see that assuming a flat plane for the surface portion covered by the map is a good approximation of the surface due to the size of the earth and the large radius of curvature compared to the scale of the map. Surveyors still approximate the surface as relative to a flat plane due to the small error introduced at normal survey scales and the additional difficulty of using spherical geometry.
So, can one thing by itself constitute evidence? I would almost think it could be evidence, if of nothing else, of its own existence.
It certainly is evidence of a possibility if nothing more, usable until more evidence comes along.
Or is it that we must also contain additional evidence to conclude such, for example, the knowledge that things we sense exist?
Additional evidence serves to make the conclusion stronger ... if it doesn't invalidate the conclusion.
You can form conclusions on subsets of information - cherry picking is common - but the validity is tested against all the available evidence.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jon, posted 12-05-2009 12:39 PM Jon has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 23 of 51 (538345)
12-05-2009 9:52 PM


Evidence is what we say it is. Good evidence speaks for itself imo. Was Foxy Knoxy was railroaded?

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 24 of 51 (538442)
12-07-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
12-04-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
Iff X then E
X=thing that creates evidence
E=evidence resulting from X
Under this definition almost nothing is evidence. It is astonishingly rare (if even possible) for a piece of evidence to be unique to a single possible theory. I cannot think of a single example, can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 12-04-2009 3:21 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 11:47 AM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 12-08-2009 11:15 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 51 (538467)
12-07-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
12-07-2009 4:58 AM


Re: Scenario A.1
It is astonishingly rare (if even possible) for a piece of evidence to be unique to a single possible theory. I cannot think of a single example, can you?
When you use evidence in this sense, it sounds like you are equating it to material things. Is this reading of your understanding true?
Jon

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 4:58 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 11:53 AM Jon has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 26 of 51 (538468)
12-07-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jon
12-07-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Scenario A.1
I have no idea what you mean by "equating it to material things".
According to your definition "iff X then E", E is evidence only when X is the only possible explaination of E. I cannot think of a single example of a piece of evidence for any theory ever that meets this requirement. Can you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 11:47 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 1:50 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 51 (538485)
12-07-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dr Jack
12-07-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Scenario A.1
I cannot think of a single example of a piece of evidence for any theory ever that meets this requirement. Can you?
Depends on how we define evidence. Are you equating evidence to material things? Is one material/physical thing equal to one unit of evidence?

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 11:53 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 3:18 PM Jon has replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2009 8:55 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 28 of 51 (538501)
12-07-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
12-07-2009 1:50 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
Depends on how we define evidence.
Anyway you like. Can you now?
Are you equating evidence to material things?
No. Evidence could be a material thing, or it could not be. A piece of evidence could be one thing, or it could be a trillion. A 'piece of evidence' is whatever you want to present as a 'piece of evidence' so that we can consider whether it is, in fact, evidence for your statement.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Clarify

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 1:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 3:53 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 51 (538508)
12-07-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Jack
12-07-2009 3:18 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
No. Evidence could be a material thing, or it could not be. A piece of evidence could be one thing, or it could be a trillion. A 'piece of evidence' is whatever you want to present as a 'piece of evidence' so that we can consider whether it is, in fact, evidence for your statement.
Is evidence indivisible, a non-count mass, or simply an holistic entity individually composed?
Jon

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 3:18 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2009 5:51 PM Jon has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 30 of 51 (538529)
12-07-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
12-07-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Scenario A.1
You're dodging the question I posed. Give me an example of evidence you think meets your definition, please.
Is evidence indivisible, a non-count mass, or simply an holistic entity individually composed?
The only reasonable definition on that axis is whatever you've chosen to present, as I already said. Evidence, as I've said several times now, is only meaningful with respect to what it is evidence for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 3:53 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 12-07-2009 11:23 PM Dr Jack 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