|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Zephan: What is Evidence? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
P:
Zephan, I'm afraid you show little indication of being an expert in evidence. Perhaps you are a public defender? Z:Don't fear me. Btw, public defenders are lawyers too! P:In particular, you seem to have little grasp of the significance of differing rules of evidence under different legal administrations. Z:Same rules of evidence, different burdens of proof. So what's your point? P: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. Z:There is also a clear and convincing standard of proof. Never heard of the balance of probabilities, however. Did you mean preponderance of the evidence? No standard of proof requires probabilities, it requires evidence, which, at present, is a concept that is eluding you. P: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. Z:Mark stated he had evidence for evolution proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Fair enough, let's see it. Define evidence first though. And cite the peer reviewed journal. P:This does not suggest to me that you have the expertise in handling evidence which you affect. Z:How would you know? Do you even have a clue what evidence is? P: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? Z:Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? Better organize yourselves a little better would be my advice. Nevertheless, the exercise here is to attempt to establish rules of scientific evidence. Too difficult for you I guess. P:Science is not a legal process. Similarly, legal processes are not scientific processes Z:And this has what relevance to deciphering the framework for the establishment of the rules of scientific evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Bias is acceptable evidence? That's idiotic.
But I suspect you were not answering the question at all, but avoiding it. Typical. Why would you avoid such a simple question? hmmm... probably because you can't name a type, or cite an example, of acceptable evidence that is not sensory. Yet you have already criticised such evidence. You are trapped by your own words. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
Evidence of bias would indicate the proponent's credibility to be lacking and would provide reasonable doubt as to whether one should take the assertions seriously.
Maybe you haven't heard of researcher bias? Perhayps you are not as up to speed with how science works as you think. Bias would be negative evidence since, obviously, not all evidence is relevant or positive. Here's another one for you, Your Honor: Motive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:So I hear, although I don't hear anyone here in the US voicing much respect for them. quote:Different burdens of proof? Example, please. quote:No - I meant "balance of probabilities." Scots Law, English Law, Irish Law, etc. BTW, there are interesting debates on both sides of the Atlantic at present, concerning the utility of Bayesian reasoning in directing juries. quote:Not quite. So far we haven't even reached evidential burden, never mind probative burden. But we'll get there, no doubt. So far the concept of jurisdiction seems to be eluding you - as I said, when all you have is a hammer ... quote:I am making no claims for my knowledge. You are making claims for yours. I will leave the others on the board (within their own jurisdictions, of course ) to decide for themselves which of us has the appropiate knowledge, based on what we write here about evidence, not what we claim about ourselves. quote:I think the lack of organization in science is its great strength - no big brother telling us what to believe. Hugely diverse views, indeed totally incompatible views, can be published in peer reviewed journals - which is refreshing, fun and conducive to fertile, free research. Any attempt to legislate the progress of science would be a disaster. But let us return to our sheep ... The exercise here is to discover "What is evidence." You seem to be tak1ing a legalistic approach, which I think inappropriate, but in the spirit of good fun I'm taking you at your word. The evidential burden, probative burden and standards of proof all differ depending on jurisdiction. These differences exist because the nature of the issues raised in different jurisdictions require it - for example in civil courts, criminal courts, courts martial, the Lyon Court in Scotland, maritime courts etc. So the first question must be "What is the appropriate jurisdiction?" From there, and not before, we can start to answer the question "What is evidence" in terms appropriate to the jurisdiction. Given your apparent inability to grasp this, I pray God you are not a public defender. [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-31-2003] [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-31-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:And how would this bias be detected or identified? ESP?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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; Why would it be meaningless? the scope of science is limited only by what can be observed and tested. Then theories are made to explain those observations and tests. Often the theories make predictions; later these can (or caannot) be born out by further observation or test. (The progress of technology expands our ability to make observations we couldn't before, by expanding the reach of our senses.) In that sense, everyting IS evidence in one way or another. However, some evidence is unrelated to the hypothesis in question (for instance, the temperature in brazil is generally unrelated to the question "Is light a wave, a particle, or both?") and thus is not considered. How do you tell if the evidence is relevant? Generally it's trivial to distingush, because your hypothesis will be phrased in such a way as to suggest what evidence will be relevant to it. For instance if I hypothesize that adding sugar to tea will make it taste sweet, tasting the tea will be relevant evidence. The color of the teapot will not be relevant. Note that evidence is never rejected because it contradicts the hypothesis (peer review exists to ensure this is discouraged), but evidence may be rejected because it has no bearing whatsoever on the hypothesis. Why do you think that the definition of evidence would be found in a peer-reviewed journal?
Or maybe you don't really care about what constitutes real evidence. I think we've addressed that. What you may be asking is "What constitutes relevant evidence for any particular scientific hypothesis?" There isn't really a hard and fast rule, and in fact that's what most of the debate among scientists on any given issue is about - whether the evidence they cited is relevant to the hypothesis and if the evidence supports the conclusion. Sometimes the same evidence can support multiple conclusions. In cases such as this, the issue is decided often by the weight of evidence. The more I think about it, the more I think you're asking "what constitutes relevant evidence to any given hypothesis?" Maybe that's helpful to the other people trying to explain. If this isn't your question please say so. ------------------Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That's nice, but doesn't remotely address the issue. Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five senses. What, in this case, would be the NON-SENSORY evidence of bias? You're dancing.
quote: Yup, sure have heard of it. And it involves sensory data. How is it we know about researcher bias anyway? hmmm... I bet some researchers OBSERVED SOME THINGS and deduced researcher bias from those observations. So, I guess, we can't depend on that either, being as it is inferred from sensory data and hence is no better than questionable eye-witness testimony.
quote: And bias is determined via what non-sensory method? As Mr. P suggested, perhaps ESP? I bet if one wished to show bias in court, one would bring in STUFF, and stuff is as we know PERCIEVABLE. So precisely where is the non-sensory data which isn't "like the description of the logical foundation for eyewitness testimony" and which is not therefore "subject to a multitude of interpretations?"
quote: In the context of science, seems like this would fall under bias. But just for fun, if you were to try to demonstrate motive, what non-sensory data would you use? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
zephan writes: Motive. It seems pretty obvious to me that "bias" and "motive" aren't at all evidence, but rather conclusions that would be inferred from evidence. i.e. "the suspect was the beneficiary of the victim's life insurance (verifiable observation - evidence). thus we infer a motive for the murder (conclusion based on evidence)." Wow, if you think conclusions are evidence, and you can't tell the difference between abstract concepts and concrete observations, I wouldn't want you as my lawyer... I mean (according to tv) evidence is labeled and presented to the baliff - where would you stick the label on "motive"? But I'm no lawyer so I'm sure you can explain why I'm wrong. ------------------Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi crash:
Very well written post. I think you've touched on the crucial difference between "scientific evidence" (or rather, what scientists mean when they use the term), and "legal evidence" that Zephan/Tensai/whatever is insisting on. Scientists gather data or observations in order to support or disconfirm hypotheses. They call this data "evidence". Science uses this "evidence" as part of their attempts to approach a description of what really exists. Lawyers, on the other hand, attempt to twist, distort, confuse, obfuscate or otherwise cloud data and observations in order to prove their point or disprove their opponent's point. These distortions are called "evidence". Lawyers are engaged in a contest to defeat their opposite number, not an attempt to gain understanding of what is real. Scientists and lawyers are using the same words to describe completely different concepts. Zephan's demand that science adopt some form of legalistic "rules of evidence" is simply absurd. Even when lawyers use the results of scientific inquiry in their cases, those results are simply one more weapon in the legal arsenal to defeat their opponents - which, of course, is why "expert testimony" can be cross-examined, refuted, and/or inadmissable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
In this thread you have not been asked to proove anything.
You have been asked to define a term vital to the argument. Surely, in legal terms, clear definitions are reasonably importantotherwise why would the language used in legal documents etc. be so precise. You are evading the question. One must assume you fear theanswer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
Not just yet, got another one for you:
Intent. Much like microbe to man, it can be inferred from the circumstances and the observer may be correct or not, assuming the proper logical predicate is present. But, ultimately, it is guesswork since bias, intent, and motive are not directly perceivable to the five senses just like the content of all other thought processes. Honestly, I thought you were asking for direct observations rather than wanting to play games with the cumulation of an untold number of indirect observations to reach a conclusion that you had sufficient evidence of something not directly perceivable to the five senses. You're the one dancing John. You asked what would constitute evidence not perceivable via one or more of the five senses. I submitted to you the above thought processes which cannot be directly observed. Can they or can't they be directly observed? Of course they can be inferred and indirectly guessed at; one may make a tenuous conclusion based on the circumstances, but the conclusion would not itself constitute a fact, or as Crashfrog suggested, actual evidence. So, who gets to decide what is evidence? Should we be concerned about their conclusions if bias, motive, and/or intent to defraud were present? If facts could speak for themselves, we wouldn't have this problem. But they don't. Somebody has to speak for them, an advocate if you will. Meanwhile, I don't equate conclusions with evidence as someone suggested, although conclusions can be tantamount to evidence under certain circumstances. For example, if someone were make an freely, knowingly, and intelligent admission of being biased, it would be relatively safe to rely on that admission of bias as actual evidence. Of course, the individual could be lying and then we could argue "what is truth"? You cannot directly observe the content of a thought process, nor can it be absolutely ascertained based on indirect observations of the thoughts. That was my point. We can move on now to discuss whether evidence perceivable to one of the five senses is always relevant to evolution as suggested, or continue to fantasize about various thought processes and the indirect methods of reaching conclusions. Your call. PS to Crashfrog, It is unwise to believe everything you see on T.V. There is both tangible and intangible evidence, the former comprising items placed into evidence while the latter consists mainly of testimonial evidence (much like peer reviewed journals). And yes, it is always a matter of relevant evidence for evolution, among other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3217 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
OK Zephan, I will play.
FIrst, Rules of Evidence is a legal not a scientific term. You have already been told this but let us go into "your" arena. Here is a link to a site from the LSU law school, they should know something about legel evidence shouldn't they?
Legal Eagle So what constitutes allowable science under the legal rules of evidence is contained in the above site, basically they information must conform to the scientific method, I have inserted their link for your convenience Real Science And guess what, much of the definition for what constitutes real science falls under the Philosophy of Science, a group of scientists and academics who try to determine how science really works. WHich links back to the peer reviewed journal which you demanded and I supplied. Just in case you lost it please transfer your attention to Zephrams requested peer reviewed journal wherein you will find the definitions for what constitutes real science, the scientific method and therefore science acceptable under your requested Rules of Evidence. Goodbye Zephan, you are the weakest link ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Like bias and like motive, this is based on observation. It is an interpretation.
quote: Whaddayaknow? An inference from CIRCUMSTANCES? And an OBSERVER? Smacks of "description of the logical foundation for eyewitness testimony, which most everyone is aware is subject to a multitude of interpretations."
quote: You consider bias, motive and intent to be direct observations? You can't be serious? The rest of it is meaningless.
quote: Actually... the issue is this...
Zephan post #36 writes: 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) ... which is the criticism of sensory data as being unreliable as is often the case with eyewitness testimony. Thus far, you have not addressed the issue.
quote: However, to demonstrate, or attempt to prove or verify, that one of these processes is in effect, you must use inferences from sensory data. Simply stating that this or that is bias is not evidence. You have to prove it. Do you claim otherwise? And how does one prove it without resorting to those damned unreliable sense organs? To wit, you haven't produced anything remotely objective, or anything that can stand on its own as evidence.
quote: You are correct that these things cannot be directly observed, but as you also rightly point out they can be inferred from circumstances. This is the ONLY way we have access to knowledge of these things, except in our own brains ( perhaps ). But this brings us right back to dependence upon sensory data, and you disallow that. Thus your whole chain of reasoning fails.
quote: I'm sorry? Did you not post bias, motive and intent as if they were evidence? Lets see.... ah... from just a few sentences up in this very post:
quote: quote: That is very much the question. I think most here will agree that at the least evidence needs to be verifiable by anyone who wishes to check the results. The alternative is that any claim made is on par with all others, no matter how odd the claim may be. "Pigs fly" suddenly stands on equal footing with "birds fly." Suppose I am the only one making the claim? Doesn't matter. The second you start asking other people if they have seen pigs fly you have introduced the idea of verifiability. It is, in fact, introduced as soon as you wonder whether you have ever seen a pig fly.
quote: But you introduced such things as alternatives to objective evidence. That does not make sense.
quote: Sure looks like a retraction... At any rate, we have been discussing whether evidence percievable to the five senses is relevant. You are the one who criticised such evidence, and got caught in the absurdity of the criticism. You equated sensory evidence to eye-witness testimony, and implied it was therefore unreliable. Now you pretend differently? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Are you avoiding me Zephan? It would have taken an expert in evidence only a minute to clarify my direct question about "different burdens of proof."
But let's have a look at your latest ramble along the less-trodden byways of thought ...quote:And what, pray tell, would the "proper logical predicate" be when inferring intent? If the proposition is "The scientist intended to deceive" then we are predicating "intention to deceive" of the scientist. To say that the inference the observer makes is correct or not, assuming the "proper" logical predicate is present, appears to be equivalent to saying The inference "The scientist intended to deceive" is correct if the predication to the scientist of "intention to deceive" is "proper." Clearly this tautological and not worth saying. If I have this wrong, please do correct my understanding of predicate logic. To see what a mess you are getting yourself into, let's look at an exchange between yourself and John. John calls out the problem nicely in another post, but it's worthwhile making it absolutely clear what is going on ... J: Please cite what would be acceptable evidence that is NOT percievable via one or more of the five senses Z: Bias J: Bias is acceptable evidence? That's idiotic. Z: Evidence of bias would indicate the proponent's credibility to be lacking See how we have slipped from Bias as evidence to "evidence of Bias" in a discussion of what constitutes evidence. I can only speak for myself, but to me this does not read like Zephan is experienced in reasoned arguement, the nature of evidence or predicate logic. What do others think? [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: So, when Jon Wells states that he is on a religious mission ot 'destroy Darwinism', it is proper to consider his motives when reading his essays and books?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024