Zephan: What is Evidence?

Hi Zephan,Q. What is evidence.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Circumstantial or Direct Evidence?Thanks,Zephan

Zephan,I'm after an all encompassing definition of "evidence", so "direct" & "circumstantial" must fall within the same definition.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Evidence is an exclusionary rule.It would help if you first advised what you think evidence is, then I will take it from there. Perhaps you could provide a factual example of what you believe constitutes competent evidence and your reasons for reaching such a conclusion?Alternatively, if the challenge above is too difficult, tell me what you think is NOT evidence and why.You must be somewhat familiar with the concept.

Zephan,I'm just after a definition, that's all, what I think evidence is, is irrelevant to what you think evidence is. Feel free to define concepts/words that make up the definition. If I have any questions, I'll ask.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Zephan,The legal and scientific definitions of evidence are unlikely to be the same. From your past posts I gather that you would like to apply a legal definition of evidence in a scientific context, which would be inappropriate, sort of like using NFL rules in a soccer game.I couldn't myself produce the legal definition of evidence, but my guess is that its waters are muddied somewhat by a legal process where judges decide what is evidence and what isn't.In science, evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses. Replicability is important in science, so evidence must either be available to or reproducible by any competent practitioner in the relevant field of scientific endeavor.--Percy

Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

quote:

---

I'm just after a definition, that's all, what I think evidence is, is irrelevant to what you think evidence is

---

So tell me what evidence is NOT then.If you truly believe my definition of evidence would be irrelevant, why would you even ask the question?Further, you appear to believe evidence is subjective and, although not surprising considering your belief in evolution, I can't help you under these circumstances.All that would occur is an argument based on your subjective beliefs.Sorry, mate. I'm not into arguing about your subjective beliefs.But at least you got two parts of the evidence definition to chew on for a while:1. It is an exclusionary rule
2. It is objective

Hi Zephan,In this thread Mark hasn't said any of the things you've attributed to him, he's only asked you for your definition of evidence. I've given you science's definition of evidence, and now I, too, would like to see yours.--Percy

Zephan,

quote:

---

So tell me what evidence is NOT then.

---

Evidence isn't candyfloss, OK? Bit of a silly question? Evidence isn't spthathangwongthchyaaaa. It's far more informative to tell me what it is, than isn't.

quote:

---

If you truly believe my definition of evidence would beirrelevant, why would you even ask the question?

---

I don't believe your definition of evidence is irrelevant, I want you to define it. How can I possibly comment it's relevance until you actually stop equivocating?

quote:

---

Further, you appear to believe evidence is subjective and, although not surprising considering your belief in evolution, I can't help you under these circumstances.

---

After you define evidence, we can discuss, right?

quote:

---

All that would occur is an argument based on your subjective beliefs.

---

No, we could embark on a debate after having agreed our terms.

quote:

---

Sorry, mate. I'm not into arguing about your subjective beliefs.

---

That's rather the point, isn't it? Then you can show my beliefs to be subjective, rather than objective. Everything will become clear once the equivocation stops, no?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Zephan,In one of your previous incarnations you applauded Mr Borger for his presumably "evidence" based insights (at least he seems to think so), yet I'm unclear as to what PB has brought to the discussion that the ToE hasn't?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

It is iinteresting, especially in light of the fact that every other person familiar with the 'evidence' Borger has presented has in fact demonstrated that it does not support Borger's myths.And yet he has a cheerleader.It is funny - on another board, I encountered a chap that also claimed that evolution had no evidence in its favor, and relied upon legal definitons.Funny thing was, the case he kept refering to, Daubert, in fact produced guidelines under which the evidence for evolution IS legally, evidence.But he would have none of it.One of the universal creationist traits - never - NEVER - admit error when you have based a major premise of your beliefs on a single line of reasoning....

SLPx, both camps are guilty of mingling dogmaticism and stubborn bias.

Percy,SLPx tends to disagree with you about a legal definition of evidence being different from an alleged, but non-existent, "scientific" definition of evidence. Both of you are in gross error.In fact, the entire legal community is laughing their arses off right now at SLPx's last post, although nobody really expects the layperson to understand the little things like relevance, conditional relevance, elements, predicates, burdens of proof, demonstrative evidence, testimonial evidence, expert testimony, authentication, etc, ad naseum. I wish he would show us all how Daubert facilitates the introduction of the mountains of "evidence" that a Trilobyte or a Banana and myself have a common anscestor. I guess SLPx believes mere opinions are also evidence...*sigh*Nevertheless, I find your definition of "scientific" evidence unsatisfying:

quote:

---

In science, evidence is that which is apparent in some way to the five senses.

---

Well, if that is the case Percy, I find no scientific evidence that you are really thinking about the import of what constitutes real, reliable, evidence, "scientific" or not. Indeed, I cannot smell, taste, hear, feel, or see your thoughts, so, under your tortured definition of "scientific" evidence, there is NO evidence that you are thinking about the issue. What you are really describing, however, is the foundational requirements for eye-witness testimony, which is just the tip of the iceburg of evidence.Could you provide a reference please for a peer reviewed resource agreeing on the terms of what constitutes "scientific" evidence as it is relevant to ToE? Or must we assume there is no agreed upon "scientific" definition of evidence relevant to ToE, and evolutinists just make up definitions depending on the circumstances? Because if researchers are permitted to make up definitions of "evidence" as it fits their pleasure, it makes the meaning of evidence meaningless. Just like the ToE.Yet I maintain there is a thing called evidence which absorbs science, and it is not of the subjective nature you describe.Mark,If you can't tell me what evidence is NOT, how would you know what evidence IS when you "see" it? Hmmmm.And how are we ever going to agree to terms if you truly believe what I think of evidence is irrelevant?I have little interest in engaging a discussion with you as it is clear you have little interest in engaging a discussion with me.But have a pleasant day anyway. I have no doubt you will continue to believe there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in spite of the fact you admit you couldn't advise what is NOT evidence. I guess it's all good?

Zephan,

quote:

---

If you can't tell me what evidence is NOT, how would you know what evidence IS when you "see" it? Hmmmm.

​

And how are we ever going to agree to terms if you truly believe what I think of evidence is irrelevant?

​

I have little interest in engaging a discussion with you as it is clear you have little interest in engaging a discussion with me.

---

I am after a definition of what evidence is, from that, I will be able to tell what evidence is not, obviously. It's the point of such a definition, after all. Could you imagine a world where every request for a definition was met with, "no, no, you tell me what it isn't", not very instructive, is it? How do you know I disagree with your definition when you refuse to give such a thing? What I consider as evidence is irrelevant to what you consider as evidence. Once terms are defined, a discussion can ensue. & you are wrong, I AM interested in a discussion with you, it's very difficult to do with this level of obfuscation & equivocation, though.I'm after a definition, that's all. Given you have professed in the past to possess knowledge of what evidence is, I find it remarkable you consider what I consider isn't evidence is relevant at all, which of course, it isn't.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.