The question is "what comprises evidence?" is an interesting conundrum in the non-legal sense as well (Hempel's paradox).
If we consider the statement:
All swans are black
How could we prove, or at the very least provide evidence for this? One way would be to go round observing swans, and every black swan we saw would be additional evidence towards the proposition, whereas if we saw a blue, or a red swan, this would disprove the proposition immediately, despite all the "evidence".
But I can't be bothered to do this. Instead I take the logically equivalent proposition:
All things that are not black are not swans
And set about confirming this by looking around me. There's a blue pen here, so that is (weak) evidence for my proposition - in fact, I can find thousands, if not millions, of non-black objects here, none of them swans, so, given the above, do my observations then constitute strong "evidence" of my initial claim?
It obviously doesn't since each "non-black" observation only collapses the total possibilities by an infinitesimal amount (although if you lived on a hypothetical distant planet where everything around you was, in fact, a black swan, would this mean that the appearance of a blue pen was then strong evidence for the proposition? No idea )
The paradox comes in by the fact that the blue pen can be used to confirm the proposition that "all swans are black" and "all swans are white" simultaneously.
In summary then, my first approximation is that evidence for a proposition is "sufficient" information (in the Shannon sense) which excludes alternative possibilities.
{Or alternatively, what evidence is NOT is NOT "sufficient" information (in the Shannon sense) which excludes alternative possibilities. }
quote:
Zeph: 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.
Please do not misrepresent me. Apparently, despite the fact that you seem to want to argue about legal definitons, you are unfamiliar with the way in which the law treats scientific evidence. I suggest you read the Daubert decision. It acknowledges that scientific evidence is different than legal evidence.
quote:
In fact, the entire legal community is laughing their arses off right now at SLPx's last post,
They are?
All of them?
quote:
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.
Annd I should not expect the layman to understand that none of this has much to do with science. We don't see much testimonial evidence in a petri dish, nor much predicates in computer print outs.
Please do not inflict this asinine "law triumphs all" bullshit on us. Legal clerks and wannabes are irrelevant in scientific matters, as it seems are your petty 'definitions' (or non-definitions).
quote:
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*
I thought you just mentioned expert witnesses?
I am afraid that, unlike you, I would qualify as an expert witness (albeit not a highly impressive one ) on matters of evolution. Apparently, the Matlock buff cannot see his contradiction in a spcace of less than 2 sentences!
I think that would be called 'impeachment'?
quote:
Nevertheless, I find your definition of "scientific" evidence unsatisfying:
And, frankly, who gives a rat's ass what you think about anything?
if the best you can offer to the discussion is this pseudo-legalese nonsense, then you have nothing to offe at all, layman.
Of course, I cannot recall the last time that aspects of science were determined in courts of law.
Maybe legal expert Zephan can cite some case law for us, in which, say, competing ideas on some aspect of cellular physiology were determined in court.
"Shortly after this Issue Paper was published, the Supreme Court in June 1993 issued a verdict on the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case. It essentially ruled that judges should exclude testimony based on evidence not generally accepted by the scientific community. "
Since the scientific community does 'generally' accept things like fossil and genetic data as evidence for evolution, looks like Zephyr loses again..
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-19-2003]
It all depends on what we want the evidence for. If we want to prove something without any doubt that it has to be 'x' way, science can't do that. It can't prove that all swans are black unless you define swans as black. Like special relativity, where you can never add enough speed to go faster than light, you can never add enough observations (science's only 'evidence') to come up with a 'law'. You never know if you will find a possibility that contradicts your 'law'. So science is limited to saying, "I saw 'y' whenever I do 'x' which is 'z' times in the past 'a' years." That's not a scientific 'law', it's not even evidence (i.e. by my definition, "it can't be used as a premise in a valid argument for the existence of any scientific 'laws'"). So science can only make observations, not laws? (rhetorical question)
Another cool thing is that since the 'blue pen' can prove both a statement and it's opposite, it is irrelevant to the statement. It can't exclude the statement's alternative possiblities so it's not a valid premise:
John: Are all swans black? Harry: I have a blue pen. John: What do blue pens have to do with swans?!?!?
If you limit yourself to deductively valid arguments - as it seems you are - then you cannot do science. Indeed you can have no knowledge at all about any external reality - you cannot even knwo that there is one.
Science takes a more pragmatic view and holds that induction is valid, that there is an external reality and that we can derive data from it via our senses. (Or rather most scientists would - there are other valid viewpoints, notably instrumentalism).
The Bayesian viewpoint offers one validation of induction that - even if you do not buy the whole Bayesian package - at least offers good reason to accept that induction can offer all-but-certain proof (if you have enough data).
There is an implicit assumption of time invariance in the laws of physics, as well as invariance in space. Obviously, you can't "prove prove" this assumption, but you can disprove it - and its stood up to any test so far.
That said, the laws of physics could change tomorrow, in much the same way as the sky could fall on our heads tomorrow. I don't see anything wrong in the scientific method for the approach it must necessarily take in its assumptions.
quote:Another cool thing is that since the 'blue pen' can prove both a statement and it's opposite, it is irrelevant to the statement. It can't exclude the statement's alternative possiblities so it's not a valid premise
I like this idea and want to develop it further - what if you were asked to discern between two contradictory premises:
1) All swans are blue 2) All swans are black ?
Does this then imply that my finding a blue pen is *not* irrelevant, given that this can only provide "supporting evidence" for 2) and not 1)?
Good point. I agree, I think we probably can safely assume that the laws of science are reasonable even if we can't "prove prove" them. But I'm a 'logic' kind of guy, so I like to see if I can "prove prove" things, and I can't prove science deductively. I am very interested in hearing how inductive logic could do this, I've never heard how inductive logic really works.
But Primordial I still think that the blue pen would be irrelevant, let's arrange these statements into a logical argument:
premise I see blue swans or I see black swans (or anything else) premise I see blue pens conclusion All swans are blue or All swans are black
Both of these fall under an identified fallacy, for which I can't remember the name. But it's something like 'the conclusion is not supported by the arguments, ergo invalid'.
So anyway, I'd like to hear what you think.
Evan
P.S. Does anyone know the HTML symbol for 'tab'. I can't remember.
P.S. Does anyone know the HTML symbol for 'tab'. I can't remember.
The reason you can't remember it is because you never knew it because it doesn't exist. But you can use the [INDENT] UBB code, like this (case isn't significant in UBB codes, but I've used upper case here):
[INDENT]This is an indented region.[/INDENT]
Which would end up looking like this:
This is an indented region.
In case you're interested in looking under the hood, the software translates it into this HMTL:
This is an indented region.
The "in" class definition is in a cascading style sheet and looks like this:
HTML tag yourself, which gives you an indent about twice as great. You can also use "style=" inside the blockquote tag and specify styles yourself, eg:
If you wanted a tab function in order to line up text into orderly columns then you have to use the HTML
tag, but use "class=ms1" or "class=ms2" for the
tags or you won't like the results.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-27-2003]
Its difficult to see where (or even if) we diverge.
But Primordial I still think that the blue pen would be irrelevant, let's arrange these statements into a logical argument:
premise I see blue swans or I see black swans (or anything else) premise I see blue pens conclusion All swans are blue or All swans are black
I don't think thats quite what I was saying. To spell it out:
Premise 1: All swans are blue i.e Premise 1a: All not-blue things are not swans
is true
OR
Premise 2: All swans are black i.e Premise 2a: All not-black things are not swans
is true.
A blue pen can only be used as supporting evidence (not a conclusion, by any means) for 2a (and by implication for 2), and not for 1a - so its not entirely irrelevant in this context despite your previous statement that:
since the 'blue pen' can prove both a statement and it's opposite, it is irrelevant to the statement. It can't exclude the statement's alternative possiblities so it's not a valid premise
although *common sense* would seem to suggest that the blue pen was utterly irrelevant.
I'm sure I saw a good rebuttal of this paradox somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it oot...
[This post is by Zephan, and was moved here from Message 22 of the Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation? thread. --Admin]
I can accept that Admin. However, for the record, it was I who asked the question of "what is evidence" first. I realize it was an extremely difficult question, which is why it was left largely unanswered. By failing to proffer an objective framework to analyze the alleged data and/or alleged facts, I clearly demonstrated that subjectivity reigns in interpreting the alleged "evidence" of evolution. That was really my only point to demonstrate. That I continue to receive insults on the matter (still no workable definition) further validates my point.
Reasonable people understand the gross error of shifting the burden of proof, which is precisely what occured when the question was turned around on me by Mark24. Such a tactic concedes defeat and clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of what evidence is, especially in light of the glaring fact that the word "evidence" is so generously, although erroneously, utilized in these discussions.
Nevertheless, I am immune from the insults because I really do know something about real evidence. I am, in fact, an expert in evidence (and arguments from the evidence) as most lawyers who practice daily in a court of law should be. The feigned inquiry into what I personally thought of the definition of evidence was sadly misplaced since I said time and again evidence was objective, not subjective.
Alternatively, I genuinely desired to know what you evolutionists thought evidence was since it is so freely associated with ToE here, notwithstanding, of course, my provocative debating style of requiring ToE to stand or fall on its own assertion of having tons of evidence in its favor and challenging the erroneous definitions. Quite simply, I believed it important for those utilizing the word to have a working knowledge of its meaning. I guess I was wrong to assume evidence was important to the logical foundations of evolution (abiogenesis) and evolution itself. Or maybe I was correct to assume that real evidence was unimportant to ToE.
quote:
Reasonable people understand the gross error of shifting the burden of proof, which is precisely what occured when the question was turned around on me by Mark24. Such a tactic concedes defeat and clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of what evidence is, especially in light of the glaring fact that the word "evidence" is so generously, although erroneously, utilized in these discussions.
Why is the burden of proof on me to define evidence & not you? In point of fact, YOU started claiming that you knew what evidence was coz you're a big shot lawyer, not I, the burden of proof is therefore on YOU to define it. You asked a question of me, that doesn't place the burden of proof on me, right? If I had made as superior a claim as you regarding evidence, then I would reasonably be expected to back up my blather. But I'm not claiming I have a special understanding of evidence that science somehow has passed all of science by, you are. The burden of proof is therefore with the claimant, & it's you, Zephan, not I.
Regardless, if you cast your mind back when you asked for a definition in your appletoast incarnation, I gave you one. I then asked you to reciprocate, & you have spent the remaining time refusing to do so. I even started a thread on these boards so you could share your wisdom, but still you refused.
This then begs the question: What is the point in attempting to discuss something with someone who refuses to agree terms in the first place? The only possible answer is; none whatsoever. Your posts are of the form, "you are sooo wrong, but I'm not telling you why, I'm a lawyer so I know what I'm talking about", well, I've seen no evidence of that, you can't even get Daubert, & the scope of your own rules of evidence right. So I have no reason to trust any definition of evidence you might provide unless backed by a relevant cite.
You can whine about evidence as much as you like, but until you are forthcoming with your own definitions of relevant terms, there is absolutely no reason to take your objections seriously.
quote:
Nevertheless, I am immune from the insults because I really do know something about real evidence. I am, in fact, an expert in evidence (and arguments from the evidence) as most lawyers who practice daily in a court of law should be.
No, you are an expert in evidence in a legal context only. The Federal Rules of Evidence state clearly in the scope statement that the rules apply only to US courts, & nowhere else. It is true that science is admissible in the courtroom, but in no way claims it is allowed to tell science what is & isn't acceptable in the lab & field. In fact, it makes clear that it doesn't.
Mark
------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
quote:Why is the burden of proof on me to define evidence & not you? In point of fact, YOU started claiming that you knew what evidence was coz you're a big shot lawyer, not I, the burden of proof is therefore on YOU to define it.
Wrong. Very simply: If you can't articulate the meaning of a word you consistently utilize in furthering your arguments, drop the word from your vocabulary. That word is "evidence". And it is still your burden to demonstrate a working knowledge of the concept.
quote:You asked a question of me, that doesn't place the burden of proof on me, right? If I had made as superior a claim as you regarding evidence, then I would reasonably be expected to back up my blather. But I'm not claiming I have a special understanding of evidence that science somehow has passed all of science by, you are. The burden of proof is therefore with the claimant, & it's you, Zephan, not I.
This site is called Evolution v. Creation. You are the party claiming evidence of evolution. I'm holding you to your burden of proof, that is, back up the claim of having tons of evidence for evolution after you define the word. Still your entire burden, and the defense has to prove nothing. Evidence 101.
I am convinced you cannot grasp the concepts of either evidence or burdens of proof.
quote:you can't even get Daubert
Wrong again, Mark. Daubert does NOT DEFINE EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise. It is a rule of procedure for the admission of scientific evidence, which itself (if admissible at all) is not impervious to cross-examination. I am certain I can find my own expert to refute your expert. But the experts don't define what evidence is, Mark. Daubert goes to mere admissibility rather than the weight of the evidence. Again, Evidence 101. Would you like to define what an expert is? Hint: It wouldn't hinge on whether the expert believed in evolution.
Don't confuse a mere opinion with evidence. A laboratory procedure being generally accepted within the scientific community is also not tantamount to what evidence is given the issues of relevance, conditional relevance, probative values, and other points of inquiry concerning admissibility. Procedures for ascertaining a result from a legitimate scientific experiment was at issue in Daubert. The procedure itself, including its assumptions, are squarely within the scope of cross examination for the opposing party. And the opposing party is still permitted to present their own expert to refute your expert. That's called a rebuttal.
Unrebuttable presumptions aren't permitted. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Would you like to discuss a specific scientific procedure you think gives the world the holy grail of evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt?
Please lay the proper predicate first, i.e. the proper evidentary foundation. Such begins with abiogenesis and the scientific procedures giving rise to your conclusion that was how life was created. Or skip that part and begin with the first population which is responsible for the microbe to man process.
quote:The Federal Rules of Evidence state clearly in the scope statement that the rules apply only to US courts, & nowhere else
That would be called a housekeeping provision and it is no way relevant to the definition of evidence you are trying to weasel yourself out of addressing. Jurisdiction 101.
But guess what Mark? If you can prove to me with evidence that evolution be true, I will believe it. Guaranteed. That's why it is important for you to give us a working definition of the concept which up until know has eluded you.
And you still have the entire burden of proof. If that burden is too much for you, stop arguing on behalf of the evolutionists you admire so much. It's that simple.
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.
So far you've yet to address this definition. I suspect it may be because it didn't come from Mark himself. However I suspect he agrees with it (although I won't speak for him.)
So maybe you could address this definition and outline where you feel it's wanting? Because the evidence in support of evolutionary models is all stuff that you can see yourself, given knowlege of the procedures for it's discovery (i.e. how to use a microscope, etc.) Taken together, the evidence is overwhelimingly in favor of evolutionary models as explanations for the diversity of life on Earth. But no one experiment or observation is going to provide incontrovertable "proof" of the evolutionary model, if that's what you're after. But science isn't done that way, as far as I understand.
I don't see why this definition wouldn't be good enough for you. it's good enough for people who do science, which in turn is good enough for people to apply to practical use (technology).
------------------ Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-29-2003]
)
}
™ Version 4.2