Zephan: What is Evidence?

quote:

---

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.

---

Uh, maybe you would like to explain how being a self-proclaimed "expert" in legal evidence has any application to scientific evidence.I have never seen much resembling legal documents in a science journal.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-29-2003]

quote:

---

I have never seen much resembling legal documents in a science journal.

---

Maybe you were looking in the wrong place? Anyway, it's doubtful you've actually read all the scientific journals.I, however, have seen much reference to science journals in "legal documents". DNA analysis is new, and actually got some people off death row. I'm sure you'll hear of it sooner or later.I'd also be happy to continue to enlighten you about the utility of scientific evidence in a court room, if you could be so kind to define scientific evidence for us.Don't forget to cite the appropriate scientific journal where you will get your definition.

quote:

---

Maybe you were looking in the wrong place? Anyway, it's doubtful you've actually read all the scientific journals.

---

I never said I read all scientific journals.I said that I had never seen anything resembling a legal document in a scientific journal.

quote:

---

I, however, have seen much reference to science journals in "legal documents". DNA analysis is new, and actually got some people off death row. I'm sure you'll hear of it sooner or later.

---

Um, so what?I will repeat the question that you ignored:Uh, maybe you would like to explain how being a self-proclaimed "expert" in legal evidence has any application to scientific evidence.

quote:

---

I'd also be happy to continue to enlighten you about the utility of scientific evidence in a court room,

---

...except that's not what I asked.

quote:

---

if you could be so kind to define scientific evidence for us.

---

Sure.Scientific evidence is that which we can detect with our five senses.

quote:

---

Don't forget to cite the appropriate scientific journal where you will get your definition.

---

Such a basic concept is not likely to be found in a journal article, because journal articles do not deal with explaining what science is. Professional journals assume you learned such things in grade school.It will more likely be found in a textbook.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Zephan, I'm afraid you show little indication of being an expert in evidence. Perhaps you are a public defender?In particular, you seem to have little grasp of the significance of differing rules of evidence under different legal administrations.For example, there may be different standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. The standard required in criminal cases is that the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove his case on balance of probabilities.It is interesting that you ask for discussion of "a specific scientific procedure you think gives the world the holy grail of evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt?"Why choose the criminal administration rather than civil. If anything, science is much more like civil law, in that it's conclusions are open to be revisited - unlike, say, a death sentence which cannot be reversed. There are reasons for the differing approaches to evidence under different legal jurisdictions, yet you show no grasp of this at all, and try to fit scientific evidence into a jurisdiction of your choosing. First, however, you must justify considering it under that jurisdiction.This does not suggest to me that you have the expertise in handling evidence which you affect.Remember also that the law judges with a very coarse granularity - varying as to the juridiction, of course. Guilty, not proven and not guilty are assessments in the criminal jurisdiction which are far too coarse for science. For example, scientists may well consider the theories of evolution and relativity to be true, along with the kinetic molecular theory of matter, the Big Bang theory and string theory. But they would not likely hold them all to be proven to the same degree.Science, not having an administration, has no body of rules comparable to the jurisdictions of justice. How then would one establish a rule of evidence? You seem to have forgotten the first issue that any legal action must address - what is the relevant jurisdiction?You appear to exemplify the old adage "When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail." You are perhaps as expert with a hammer as you claim, but you clearly have not tools in your box suitable for working with science.Science is not a legal process. Similarly, legal processes are not scientific processes. I haven't heard of a court ordering a man to marry again, in order to observe whether he kills his second wife too.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-30-2003]

A post or two from zephan and yet he appears to ignore the definitions of science that posters have presented.As off-topic as it may be, I'm going to go ahead and predict that he will ignore Percipient's and Schrafinator's separate but similar definitions (data avaliable to our five senses).ZEPHAN: I'm accusing you of ignoring direct answers to your demand for definitions, and then continuing to demand as though you've recieved no answer. This is a clear falsehood. Maybe you'd like to address this? Prove me wrong.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

Be happy to address your non-issue.First, cite the relevant scientific journal which validates your alleged issue, to wit: anything perceivable to the five senses is, in fact, objective evidence (might I add, evidence of precisely what? -- it really sounds like the description of the logical foundation for eyewitness testimony, which most everyone is aware is subject to a multitude of interpretations). Or was it "anything perceivable to the five senses is science?" (you said that too)I just don't buy the assertion that the scientific community blindly accepts these subjective definitions. Prove me wrong. Cite the peer reviewed journals.After that, we'll discuss the little things like whether what is perceivable to the five senses is even relevant to the proposition you wish to establish.Let me restate in very simple terms: I'm not convinced the definition of evidence proffered here is generally accepted within the scientific community. You can prove me wrong. Just cite the appropriate journal I can referance which establishes the objective framework for analyizing alleged scientific evidence.Also, consider non-sequitur.A definition of "science" is clearly not tantamount to a definition of "evidence."Get with the program. And accuse all you want, such is the modus operandi of evos; burdens of proof are indeed difficult concepts to embrace. Just ask Pimboli... (he's next, although his rebuke will have to wait until tomorrow).I'm going to predict he won't get it either.

Maybe an example will help. I check the outside temperature, the date and the time, and I write them down in my weather journal. This, to me, is data, and I can use it as evidence in support of any relevant assertions I might make, such as, "March has been a colder month so far this year than last."This is pretty much the way experimental science is taught - measure it, write it down, analyze it, use it as evidence to support your hypothesis.--Percy

quote:

---

anything perceivable to the five senses is, in fact, objective evidence

---

Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five senses.

quote:

---

it really sounds like the description of the logical foundation for eyewitness testimony, which most everyone is aware is subject to a multitude of interpretations

---

Interesting... and what exactly does the court accept as stronger evidence than eyewitness testimony? ... ballistic data, fingerprint data, fiber analysis, DNA profiling ... wait ... but all of that is information aquired by scientist via their five senses and thus all of it is on par with eyewitness testimony according to you. And also according to you -- no argument here-- eye-witness testimony is subject to a multitude of interpretations. It seems you have reduced all evidence to a very doubtful state.

quote:

---

I just don't buy the assertion that the scientific community blindly accepts these subjective definitions. Prove me wrong.

---

You are correct that sensory perceptions are subject to error. That is why it is an important component of science that these perceptions be reproducible and that results be independently verified. These things serve to weed out the fluke observations. To wit, is it better to have one witness state something, or to have ten witnesses state the same thing? How about a hundred witnesses? Or a thousand?

quote:

---

A definition of "science" is clearly not tantamount to a definition of "evidence."

---

In a sense it is. A large part of science is the weeding through data to find evidence. Observations are data. Anything could be data, I supposse. Reproducible and independently verifiable observations become evidence. The evidence is worked into theory, which is the other half of science.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Let me restate in very simple terms: I'm not convinced the definition of evidence proffered here is generally accepted within the scientific community. You can prove me wrong. Just cite the appropriate journal I can referance which establishes the objective framework for analyizing alleged scientific evidence.

---

This rather clearly demonstrates how weak is your grasp of the workings of science. You seem to expect science to be a neatly defined body of theory and rules - but it is no such thing.No journal can "establish the objective framework for analyizing alleged scientific evidence." How could it?However there are journals, papers, books and lectures which work towards such frameworks, propose them, review them, knock them down and rebuild them. Science is a process not a fixed body of rules and regulations.For example, there are no boundaries to what is "scientific." There is considerable debate as to whether the study of ESP may be science, whether psychoanalysis is science, whether some aspects of quantum theory are science.Perhaps, as you claim to have a legal background, you could think of it as being like the practice of constitutional law - you seem to be seeking a written constitution of science. There is no such thing, but that does not mean that there is no constitutional law.BTW, if you would like to read a peer reviewed journal which discusses the nature of evidence in science I would recommend the excellent "Philosophy of Science" from the University of Chicago Press. From only a small selection of its editions you will find the following:1995
ON THE EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE QUANTUM NO-SIGNALLING PROOFS, J. B. KENNEDY
BEYOND BOOTSTRAPPING: A NEW ACCOUNT OF EVIDENTIAL RELEVANCE, MADISON CULLER1996
LOG [P(h/eb)/P(h/b)] IS THE ONE TRUE MEASURE OF CONFIRMATION, PETER MILNE 21
INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION: IS IT REALLY DIFFERENT FROM MILL'S METHODS?, STEVEN RAPPAPORT 65
CONTENT, CAUSAL POWERS, AND CONTEXTS, KEITH BUTLER1997
Inductive Skepticism and the Probability Calculus I: Popper and Jeffreys on Induction and the Probability of Law-Like Universal Generalizations KEN GEMES
Old Evidence and New Explanation CARL G. WAGNER
etc ...From this short selection alone, even you should be able to see that the nature of scientific evidence is continuously evolving, tentative by nature, and open to review and reinterpretation.This is science. It works.

Isn't it at times like this in TV courtroom dramas
that the prosecutor starts shouting 'Just answer the
question!'Someone asked YOU what is your definition of evidence.That's all.It's a pretty simple request isn't it?If you know what evidence is for you, then you must have
a definition for evidence that you use ... what is it?Or are you worried that should you present your definition that
someone will post an item that meets your criterion AND
supports ToE?

quote:

---

Applesai:

​

DNA analysis is new,

---

And thus lies the proof of irrelevance.DNA analysis has been used in science for over 20 years, probably longer. It has been used as a tool for exploring evolution for just as long.I suggest that the legal 'expert' get out of the 1980's if it wants to be seen as anything other than a tool.

I am not sure which is more irritating, your arrogance or your ignorance. Here is the type of Journal where you can find the rules for scientific evidence that you are looking for. The general rules that have been cited can be found there.
Philosophy of Science
While I do not know whether or not you are really a lawyer (although I tend to doubt it) I can state as a fact that you know little to nothing about science, inside the courtroom or out.

Sweeping statements are unflattering to credibility.Nevertheless, I insist upon a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal to back up the claim that "what is perceivable to the fives senses is evidence" since such a definition is not specific to time, place, or manner and is meaningless if it could reasonably be construed as saying that everything is evidence; it describes the foundational requirements for ascertaining what may or not be a fact rather than evidence. Evidence must be first and foremost relevant. Who gets to decide that? The requirement of citing peer reviewed journals is constantly being required of the parties herein. This issue is no different in importance.I'm not very persuaded by self-serving subjective appeals to authority by anonymous posters on the internet. Nor am I likely to be persuaded by reading a treatise on the metaphysics or philosophy of science. I was looking for something more objective and concrete.Perhaps if you could direct your thoughts to the substance of the issue rather than the content of my character you could earn a more meaningful exchange of ideas regarding the virtues of objective evidence.Or maybe you don't really care about what constitutes real evidence.Have it your way.

The individual impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and I addressed that already.Thanks for playing.

quote:

---

Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five senses.

---

Bias