Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Beth]

:rolleyes: These are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality. Well, they certainly don't correspond to any object in objective reality, which is why I used them as an analogy. Whether they are artificial human constructs or whether they might exist in minds other than human ones is the key question.

Do other apes think about concepts like justice and mercy? Might aliens on another planet? If so, can they not be said to be part of our shared reality that exists even when we stop believing in them?

I'm no more sure of the answers to those questions than I am of whether a creator god exists outside of human minds. That you, and others, are certain that the answer is "no" to all of them is not a convincing argument to me. It seems to me these questions are unanswerable by us at this time, so I must content myself with merely acknowledging my lack of knowledge regarding the existance of such intangible ideals outside of human minds to think of them.

BTW: Mobyseven sends you his love. How sweet of you to pass the sentiment on.

[epeos76]

Again... you are confusing opinion for fact. . . . but they all are just angry like you that anyone would even question whatever nebulous thing they feel proud for believing in (but don't really say.)

I feel like Charlie Brown replying to these posts, and can't help thinking we are headed for "abandon all hope" with this theme. To be clear, I don't think rudeness is a hanging offense. At the same time, I'm a grown up. I'm capable of distinguishing the wheat from the snarkiness in a heated debate.

The snarkiness doesn't add anything to either side of an argument (possibly a certain style, if properly kept in check). My quarrel with you is the extent to which you're apparently willing to attribute flawed inner qualities to whole classes of people, based on your omniscient understanding of what they "must" be feeling. I think it's creepy, frankly.


Now, you are doing what Beth does. [/qoute]

I'm a lefty lib. What I'm (snarkily) doing in that post is calling attention to the style of "argument" you keep indulging (along side other, interesting and reasonable points, for goodness sake!). It's in the same key as arguments made by people I assume you respect as little as I do. It does piss me off, but it doesn't command my attention or respect. You'll notice that the remark I parodied it is not a question.

[quote=articullet, 3452720] Do you consider your god an abstraction... that is, "not real" absent human thought? I do. Opinions about Bush's politics don't exist absent the human mind. Is that what you are saying your god is? If so, then I think we agree.

I'll have to think about this. I think the answer to your question is "no", though. I don't concede that language, culture, politics, government, god, money, fairness what have you are "not real absent human thought" in any meaningful way.

At the same time, I am certain that not every element in the mix of my religious practices and beliefs is correct. I just have no method of seperating out the key functional parts yet. The best I can do is continue to test whether any of the elements are harmful against my best judgment.

I don't think your analogy clarifies the position, though. We aren't talking about whether opinions about god's existence are real, we are talking about whether god is real, or more accurately whether a particular opinion about god's existence is reasonable.

ETA would you say a pulley is not real absent human thought? Maybe I can say I think my religion, including god beliefs : god :: pulley : principles of leverage.

[epeos76]

Well, they certainly don't correspond to any object in objective reality, which is why I used them as an analogy. Whether they are artificial human constructs or whether they might exist in minds other than human ones is the key question.

Do other apes think about concepts like justice and mercy? Might aliens on another planet? If so, can they not be said to be part of our shared reality that exists even when we stop believing in them?

I'm no more sure of the answers to those questions than I am of whether a creator god exists outside of human minds. That you, and others, are certain that the answer is "no" to all of them is not a convincing argument to me. It seems to me these questions are unanswerable by us at this time, so I must content myself with merely acknowledging my lack of knowledge regarding the existance of such intangible ideals outside of human minds to think of them.
How sweet of you to pass the sentiment on.

I think this is very well said.

[HghrSymmetry]

We aren't talking about whether opinions about god's existence are real, we are talking about whether god is real, or more accurately whether a particular opinion about god's existence is reasonable.


From my vantage point, that area of the discussion has been addressed.
Perhaps you can expand on that versus concentrating on the personal impugnment.

[Faithkills]

Cute but silly. You didn't use any latin and you know as well as I do who originally got all hot and bothered about the taxonomy of logic.

So Ad Populum is not latin? You continue to enlighten me;) Anyway you're the one trying to float appeal to the masses out there, not me.

Pat but unjustified. We know a lot about the mechanism of tobacco addiction. The idea that religion is some sort of psychic addiction is a largely untested hypothesis. Fun to chant, though.

Did you really just try to strawman me by claiming I made a woo claim about anything psychic? Yes you did! Good for you, you fit right in with the theists here.

Of course you will crawdad by claiming you meant psychic in the psychological sense, but don't worry I'm sure you will be awarded your strawman merit badge all the same.

Religion can do some of these things. Of course, it's quite possible to do them without religion. These are themes in the literature dating back to Voltaire. When was the last time you tested them against reality?

My whole life since I was a teen shows the reality is fine. Most people here show the reality is fine. I assume you are here because of that fact that there is a growing number of people willing to admit to atheism.

1. We have evidence based medicine now. Very few people walk around obsessing about death. Yet religion persists.

Did people ever walk around obsessing about death? WTF are you talking about?

But people do fear death and people do die in horrible pain. Everyone dies. Very few people want to. The only thing that changes is we have a lot more time to think about it once death darkens our door. Hence religion.

2. Personal responsibility has been a constant theme in at least some protestant sects since Martin Luther. Check out some 19th century theologians, to gauge the timeliness of your complaint.

I'm not complaining, I'm observing. Morality does not require religion, and I posit is impeded by it. Just as being handed a calculator impedes your ability to do long division, and more importantly you are obliged to take it on faith the calculator is giving you the correct answer.

3. TV/internet is the new opiate of the masses, don't you read Calvin and Hobbes?

Talk to me when the NBC Jihad starts. Until then I will simply observe no jihads or purges or crusades have been justified by TV. (tho it is definitely used as a propaganda tool of religion)

Religion does lots of things. Different religions even do different things. As mentioned earlier, I can't give you a complete list, because it falls into areas (social dynamics, identity, psychology, etc) that haven't been very well analyzed yet.

Yet you make morally certain claims.

Some of the obvious ones: fosters and creates conditions for various types of relationships; teaches various emotional processes (efficacy open to ordinary judgment), provides a tested moral framework etc.

Tested and failed. Ever had a gay friend beat up for that simple fact? I have.

Since I was talking about making distinctions based on judgment (a point which you, like so many others ignore) I didn't so much omit the violent ones as I did judge and choose the helpful ones. The Westboro folks aren't my co-religionists any more than the Jain are. It's an entirely different conception of God. I have no trouble distinguishing between sects on the basis of the practioner's acts, and hold mine to the same standard.

Yet you defend religion in broad terms, not just your own. If you made a case for your own I'd be interested to read it.

Allow me to translate from philosobable: Stawman. Paying attention to inner experience is not necessarily equivalent to disregarding the rules of objective evidence. Seriously, you just need to be clear about how conflicts get resolved.

Wow, you accuse of strawman while doing it. I didn't say that. You even quote it THEN mischaracterize it, lol. Brazen.

Moving on. Are you going to assert that inner experience is not subject to external manipulation? Because that was my point. When you become accustomed to faith as a valid mental process you do internalize the doctrine. It's unavoidable. Once you're on that path your ability to distinguish right from wrong is compromised by degrees. You may think you will never get past some magical line that you would somehow magically be able to tell when your 'inner experience' was telling you things that you would have previously considered abhorrent, and who knows, maybe you have that facility, tho I am not sure how it would work. What we do know is that most people do not have this facility. They believe, with certainty, whatever crap the religion they were indoctrinated told them.

Sometimes, you might. I leave construction of the hypothetical as an exercise to the reader.

I would have to go with evidence over impossible to prove promises as a model for social interaction. I can imagine exceptions but that's a long way from thinking that in general it's a good idea for religions in general to appeal to credulity.

In any event, the question of faith hasn't been raised by anyone but the atheists. In my view the important battle is to properly circumscribe its scope (or magisterium if you will, thanks JREF for the new vocab).

Of course why would a theist bring it up? If you're here at all you know the idea faith is not an error cause is something many people here are skeptical of.

Certainly I agree faith should be circumscribed. Then circumcised then castrated;)

Seriously I do recognize faith has been used to motivate people to good. But it's not required to do good. Faith has been used to motivate people to do evil, and that evil could not have been accomplished otherwise.

On reflection, I feel you may be bringing a personal perspective to this question that I don't yet understand. In any event ennobling faith over reason would seem to be an epistomological choice, so the use of the word "completely" appears a little reflexive.

No completely was used because you were completely wrong:)

Allow me to remind you of your position:

The only possible equivalence between Co$ and e.g. liberal Presbyterians is in the area of epistomology.

(emphasis mine)

The very obvious common thread is faith. That's the common factor of religion.

More to the point, I have specifically argued that a denomination's attitude toward faith is the litmus test for reasonableness. I and many others would say that faith has to be subordinate in the areas where our best epistomological methods have produced results.

That's certainly a step, but why stop there?

I'll tell you why, because absent making faith a virtue, religion really has no legs. Even assuming a particular religion wasn't designed with social control in mind it's way to tempting to abuse the power provided by the faith consumer. The promise of immortality or freedom from existential responsibility is the foot in the door. "I have the answers!" If you would say that any religion that goes beyond these (relatively) harmless sort of emotional sops then we might find room to agree. Though you won't like the fact I recognize them for what they are:D

But religions, all to often, don't stop there. Certainly there are socially 'polite' religions that do stop there. Really those aren't the main problem from a sociological perspective. From a human perspective although it does make me sad that people willingly befuddle and delude themselves but oh well. Even spoonfed morality can be relatively benign, but jeepers it's SO susceptible to abuse.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
SkG and various neurologists have suggested that our moral sense is the result of the fact that we are hard wired with an emotional "grammar" to help us navigate group dynamics. There is evidence that we can influence the shape and scope of those feelings.

I think (but can't prove) that has almost always been one of the functions of religion. If that's right, then the appropriate god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice that wouldn't necessarily arise without an equivalent stimulus.Could you summarize some more examples of "god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice"? I gave one, a criminal finds God and turns their life around. That's not exactly a major function of religion. It's more of a, "once in a great while religion helps a person change moral behavior".

And for everyone of those examples there are tens of thousands of examples of a Jerry Falwell condemning people for being born gay or a Pat Robertson condemning some abortion doctor while taking church donations to buy equipment for his diamond mine in a country where the diamond trade is responsible for some of the worst atrocities one could imagine like hacking off the limbs of children with machetes.

Church charities often have the underlying goal of converting people to Christianity rather than simply offering charity. In Africa and for that matter, all over the world, you have the religious imposition of "abstinence only" programs imposed on groups working to prevent HIV-AIDS when the evidence clearly shows those programs are a waste of resources, and worse, you have religious pressure limiting family planning because believers want to impose their white middle class America 'values' on poverty stricken powerless women who cannot "just say no" so they are forced to have too many children, who often end up as orphans in a system that cannot care for them ..... the list is endless for the incredible immoral crap that believers are currently imposing on people who the believers have no clue what the results of their beliefs and actions have on millions of women and children in the world.

Are you one of those believers, epeos? Believing in your narrow little world view, never having been to a third world country, never seen what a stupid idea it is to tell a woman who can either be a sex worker or starve they should "just say no", never seen a wall in a church covered with a gold plated shrine built from church donations given by those impoverished but indoctrinated town's people, never seen the wealth in the basement under the Vatican full of priceless treasure kept there for the enjoyment of the church elite, I guess, ...

And I haven't even gotten to atrocities like the Crusades.

Do you think it is possible you see what you want to see and disregard the rest?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Do other apes think about concepts like justice and mercy?Actually, there is pretty clear evidence they do.

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ei=5088&en=84f902d5855a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days....

all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped....

...human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.


As for tying religion in here, the researcher whom the article is about has the following view.Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. “I look at religions as recent additions,” he said. “Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.”

As Dr. de Waal sees it, human morality may be severely limited by having evolved as a way of banding together against adversaries, with moral restraints being observed only toward the in group, not toward outsiders. “The profound irony is that our noblest achievement — morality — has evolutionary ties to our basest behavior — warfare,” he writes. “The sense of community required by the former was provided by the latter.”

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

1. We have evidence based medicine now. Very few people walk around obsessing about death. Yet religion persists.This is a bizarre statement. Because we can extend some peoples' lives, no one worries about death?


...Religion does lots of things. Different religions even do different things. As mentioned earlier, I can't give you a complete list, because it falls into areas (social dynamics, identity, psychology, etc) that haven't been very well analyzed yet. Some of the obvious ones: fosters and creates conditions for various types of relationships; teaches various emotional processes (efficacy open to ordinary judgment), provides a tested moral framework etc. The article I linked to in the above post addresses this. Religion evolved out of social rules, social rules evolved out of living in groups. I think there is substantial evidence religions served as the first framework and set of laws before nations and other political group rules evolved, or they co-evolved. At some point political laws and religious laws separated. The leaders of these two types of societal organizations have cooperated and/or battled for control ever since.

[edge]

epeos76 says,
I think it's creepy, frankly.
Me too, Bump on that! :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

She doesn't like the message, so she considers the messenger (you) rude.

All woos think those who don't "respect" their woo are rude.To be fair, they had a tiff, words were spoken. I respect Beth's preference to ignore Moby rather than to continue fighting. I've gotten to the point with a couple people where I've said, why on Earth am I putting up with this? and put them on ignore. It happens.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this may be our disconnect. I can consider an experience that something I saw was red to be evidence that it is red, yet still be aware that I could be mistaken and change my mind based on other evidence. This is even easier to do when the experience is regarding an intangible thing and I was not the person who had the experience. To say that the experience was due to A does NOT mean I cannot later conclude it was something else. To presume otherwise is to confuse evidence with proof.
No, I understand the point you are making here. I simply don’t agree with you on this point. See below. Obviously you don't agree but whether or not you understand is debatable.

A visual observation can be confirmed. So we can use visual observations as evidence. That is the brain interpreting sensory input. I realize now what the problem is with this description. See below***

Sensory input generated within the brain is confirmable. But no evidence exists that an electrical/chemical nerve impulse generated from within the brain is evidence of something outside the brain. In fact, we can confirm that such things occur often, (dreams for example) and we can confirm that interpretation of such internally generated stimuli is often not evidence of the conclusion. In other words, we know people imagine things which are not true.

We are arguing what is evidence vs what is a conclusion. You say you understand. But you do not understand the difference between an observation which is confirmable, and something one imagines which is not confirmable.

Agreeing or disagreeing with me is irrelevant. The issue here is the definition of evidence. I've already said, you can believe what you want, but you cannot change the rules of what is and what is not evidence. And you can believe internal messages are or could be evidence of an external thing such as a god. In fact, at this point, I see no hope of further progress.

What you cannot do, is claim that an internal message is actually real evidence. Real evidence has rules. I hope at this point you at least recognize that I'm not arguing strong vs weak evidence, nor "scientific quality" evidence vs not. That was the straw man you started with.

What we are down to here is you not recognizing that your individual interpretation of the rules of evidence are recognized as faulty by the skeptical and the scientific communities. The skeptical and scientific communities recognize a distinction between evidence and a conclusion. And conclusions are not evidence. Your analogy is where you lack understanding of the concept. You are comparing an observation based on external verifiable stimuli with an observation (the experience interpreted as evidence for gods) which is for all intents and purposes based on internal stimuli.

That you and other people want to give validity to that internally generated stimuli is nice, but the skeptical and the scientific communities do not. So you can make the statement that you personally don't know where the evidence ends and the conclusion begins. You can make the claim the conclusion is evidence for the conclusion. But the bottom line is the skeptical and the scientific communities do not see one's imaginary belief in gods as evidence of gods.

At the least, I hope you can see that your claim it is weak evidence or it is not scientific quality evidence is a straw man. The reliability of the evidence is a completely different issue. The problem in this case isn't reliability, the problem is the skeptical and the scientific communities can see the difference between evidence and a conclusion. That you cannot see the difference is the issue here, not that we aren't recognizing 'weak' evidence. As you note in this statement:I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated. When you try to exclude it, you end up with nonsense like claiming the experience of seeing something that is red is the ‘evidence’ and the description of it as red is a conclusion and not evidence. ****I think I see the problem here. Not that you will, but I'll give it another try because this statement gave me another idea of where the problem is. Your analogy between internal unverifiable stimuli and external verifiable stimuli is causing some of the confusion you are having between evidence and conclusion.

Suppose you see that color red but you see it because your brain is stimulated in an experiment? Now is it evidence of red? No. What's the difference?

In one case your observation was an observation of evidence. You saw something red. It was the red thing that is the evidence. You observed it. You concluded you saw red. Your conclusion was not the evidence. Your conclusion was based on the evidence, the red thing you saw.

In the case of the brain stimuli, your conclusion was not evidence of something red. It was evidence of your experience. The experience was the evidence. Your conclusion would not be evidence something red was there.

In the case of believing what the god experience was, the belief doe not become evidence. And the belief you see something red does not become evidence either, the red thing is the evidence. The person in either case may or may not be correct. But the red thing is the evidence and in the case with the god belief, there is no evidence, only the belief.


I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things. It is a false accusation to claim I refused to answer. Don't go off on that imaginary defense here please. I did in fact answer. And after how many pages of discussion over conclusions vs evidence, I do resent that rationalization that I must be unable to answer something and am refusing.

You are asking for a contradiction. You are asking how one can prove something for which there is no evidence.

I can give you a number of things which would have been evidence of gods, but there is no evidence. Take the Biblical god, for example. If there was knowledge imparted in the Bible that suggested more than the humans at the time in the location the Bible originated could not have known without some supernatural giver of knowledge, that would have been evidence. It isn't there. And the claim about people wouldn't have understood so they wrote their interpretation doesn't hold up.

There's no reason people wouldn't have understood the Moon reflects the Sun's light, yet the Bible describes it as a light in the sky. There's no reason people wouldn't have understood there were human populations around the Earth. The Biblical writers were oblivious to 3/4s of the Earth's peoples. The Tower of Babel story for why people spoke different languages is absurd. The worldwide flood is untrue. There is no concept of hand washing to prevent infection. The list is endless of wrong science in the Bible.

Prayers are not answered. The Bible is inconsistent and unclear. It justifies the actions of the believers rather than actually making sense, God gave us the land, we are the chosen people, and so on.

As to how does one, "Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists", you are asking for evidence of something for which there is no evidence as if by saying, "well how is someone supposed to prove god to skeptics, then?" means the thing exists but it just can't be proven. You are not offering the option that there is no evidence because the thing does not exist.

However god beliefs may have begun and even if all human conceptions of god were known to be inaccurate, it does not invalidate the proposition that some god exists. What evidence would you accept for the existence of some god that does not depend on identifying similar human experiences that are reported to be due to god? In short, what evidence could be presented that would change your mind about your conclusion that no god exists?What evidence would you accept that invisible pink unicorns populate my backyard?

I believe in an evidence based world because the scientific process results in successful predictions and technology allowing us to walk on the Moon and send probes to Mars, to cure cancer, to increase agricultural production, to travel the world, to communicate via the Internet, to live in the house I do where I turn on the water an lights when I want. The evidence based world is verifiable and it works.

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs come from the imagination. There is no evidence for gods. The only gods for which one can argue are gods which don't interact with the Universe because if they did we would see the evidence. And gods which do nothing one could detect are irrelevant.

[epeos76]

So Ad Populum is not latin? You continue to enlighten me;) Anyway you're the one trying to float appeal to the masses out there, not me.

I see you did use that phrase. My apologies for sloppy reading. I'd be glad to continue the meta debate about my rather nice line "the grammar of greek logic" if you think its worth doing. It's not my fault that the grammar of greek logic is latin.




Of course you will crawdad by claiming you meant psychic in the psychological sense, but don't worry I'm sure you will be awarded your strawman merit badge all the same.


You sorted this out then? You meant religion is a sort of mind virus and its popularity is evidence that it is addictive like tobacco right? There is not really any evidence for that hypothesis.

I assume you are here because of that fact that there is a growing number of people willing to admit to atheism.

No. I'm here because I like the (humbling) honesty, intellectual chops, and enthusiasm for ideas here. I'm here in this thread, because I thought it revealed a misconception about theism. I'm still here because I'd like to sort out the undiscriminating vitriol towards theism I've seen.


Did people ever walk around obsessing about death? WTF are you talking about?

Probably. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/header.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/Art_music.html&h=170&w=262&sz=43&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=O2QDFVncNJNUPM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack%2Bdeath%2Bart%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26sa%3DN) The average lifespan was 35 or so until suprisingly recently.


The only thing that changes is we have a lot more time to think about it once death darkens our door. Hence religion.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about death. It isn't a major motive in my life. I doubt it is in most 21st century types, until they pass middle age. In any event, religion can actually increase fear of death. Why don't you provide some (http://psychsoc.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/4/P207) evidence (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm), so I can see what you think you mean. I suspect you won't be satisfied with any interpretation I put on your claim.


I'm not complaining, I'm observing. Morality does not require religion, and I posit is impeded by it. Just as being handed a calculator impedes your ability to do long division, and more importantly you are obliged to take it on faith the calculator is giving you the correct answer.

It's certainly a hypothesis. I think religion is more like being handed an english teacher. I think it can impede morality, precisely because it is so effective at shaping some of the foundational assumptions we use to make moral decisions. You will get no argument from me that religious persons have to justify their actions by the same objective standards as anyone else.



Talk to me when the NBC Jihad starts. Until then I will simply observe no jihads or purges or crusades have been justified by TV. (tho it is definitely used as a propaganda tool of religion)

We may yet work up to Fox news/NPR violence. In my view it doesn't take much more than a tool for convincing people that they have a group identity and that it is threatened by another group. Religion certainly can do this. It can also provide a method for connecting with the alien and the outsider.



Yet you make morally certain claims.

Right. I don't fully understand the function of religion, and yet I claim some of the things it does are beneficial.


Tested and failed. Ever had a gay friend beat up for that simple fact? I have.


I am sorry for your friend. I don't think I'll share the incident it brings to mind. In any event, I acknowledge that religion can be a tool to incite violence. Are you under the impression that bully boys need a religious reason to be violent homophobes?

Yet you defend religion in broad terms, not just your own. If you made a case for your own I'd be interested to read it.

That's a response to the broad brush the atheists here are painting with. Personally, I'm an agnostic theist (thanks MobySeven for the correct label). I've observed practioners of progressive christianity in the midwest for years. It serves many powerful, community building functions, including keeping track of people who need help, producing amateur art, etc. None of those functions require belief in god. What is really impressive about it, though is its ability to teach its practioners certain social attitudes that I find deeply humbling, when I really stop to think about it. Those attitudes translate pretty well into action. I can take another, explicit stab at this, in another post, if you like.


Wow, you accuse of strawman while doing it. I didn't say that. You even quote it THEN mischaracterize it, lol. Brazen.

Why don't you explain why it is a strawman? Then I can address whatever you're actually thinking without deploying my psychic powers.



Moving on. Are you going to assert that inner experience is not subject to external manipulation? Because that was my point. When you become accustomed to faith as a valid mental process you do internalize the doctrine. It's unavoidable. Once you're on that path your ability to distinguish right from wrong is compromised by degrees. You may think you will never get past some magical line that you would somehow magically be able to tell when your 'inner experience' was telling you things that you would have previously considered abhorrent, and who knows, maybe you have that facility, tho I am not sure how it would work. What we do know is that most people do not have this facility. They believe, with certainty, whatever crap the religion they were indoctrinated told them.

Inner experience can be manipulated. It's prone too error. That's why I think deference to better proven methods is the touchstone for reasonableness. I don't see any reason to buy your slippery slope argument, though. Are you walking around ignoring your feelings? There is plenty of evidence that they are tied up in all sorts of cognitive processes.


I would have to go with evidence over impossible to prove promises as a model for social interaction.

Verified evidence supporting a well developed theory is best. It's not usually available though (it's expensive to produce). Observational evidence supporting contingent beliefs is the best we can do in lots of situations.

Of course why would a theist bring it up? If you're here at all you know the idea faith is not an error cause is something many people here are skeptical of.

I think faith can be a cause of error. I haven't mentioned it because I thought the central thrust of SkG's challenge was showing it was possible to discriminate between god beliefs on some other basis. In all honesty I took your focus on it to be some sort of trap, so you could then shout about how I don't understand the difference between faith and reason.


Certainly I agree faith should be circumscribed. Then circumcised then castrated;)

That sincerely drew a snort. Cheers for style.


Seriously I do recognize faith has been used to motivate people to good. But it's not required to do good. Faith has been used to motivate people to do evil, and that evil could not have been accomplished otherwise.

Thank you for acknowledging the first point. I agree that god beliefs are not required to do good. I think that the ability to do good depends on more than reasoning, however. I have some evidence for this, posted above. I think we have to be trained and to practice particular emotional postures, to get good at them. A sort of psychic training, if you will. Religion may not have a monopoly on this, but its certainly the most common provider.




That's certainly a step, but why stop there?

I'll tell you why, because absent making faith a virtue, religion really has no legs. Even assuming a particular religion wasn't designed with social control in mind it's way to tempting to abuse the power provided by the faith consumer.


The Presbyterian church is governed by a bicameral house of representatives elected by the laity, and has more committees than a fortune 500 company with a new corporate vision. In the midwest it is also blessed with a culture of mild discomfort for extreme positions, and a voracious appetite for "polite" disagreement which advanced practioners can extend for years. There are checks and balances designed by people with your concerns in mind.


The promise of immortality or freedom from existential responsibility is the foot in the door. "I have the answers!" If you would say that any religion that goes beyond these (relatively) harmless sort of emotional sops then we might find room to agree. Though you won't like the fact I recognize them for what they are:D

I think there's some interesting stuff in here, possibly distorted by typing fatigue. Would you explain how existential responsibility is different from the more mundane kind I'm familiar with? And are you sneering at emotion here, or claiming you're beyond it or what? I not embarrassed by the assertion that religion involves my emotions.

But religions, all to often, don't stop there. Certainly there are socially 'polite' religions that do stop there. Really those aren't the main problem from a sociological perspective. From a human perspective although it does make me sad that people willingly befuddle and delude themselves but oh well. Even spoonfed morality can be relatively benign, but jeepers it's SO susceptible to abuse.

I think we agree on almost everything but language, meaning, context and history here. Is it fair to say you think your moral positions are entirely self-derived? Are you the master of your fate/captain of your soul? Greek logic through and through? That sort of thing?

[epeos76]

Could you summarize some more examples of "god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice"?

You know the honor role I think? God beliefs inspired a number of people to oppose slavery, practice non-violent social resistance, agitate for civil rights, treat native populations justly etc. etc.

On a much smaller scale, I am claiming that progressive christian beliefs (the "polite" ones people on both sides of the debate often deem insincere) teach people the emotional and social skills required to reach out to strangers and outcasts and spend sometime taking care of one another. I provided you with a number of ancedotes recounting my observations.





And for everyone of those examples there are tens of thousands of examples of a Jerry Falwell condemning people for being born gay or a Pat Robertson condemning some abortion doctor while taking church donations to buy equipment for his diamond mine in a country where the diamond trade is responsible for some of the worst atrocities one could imagine like hacking off the limbs of children with machetes.

True. I conclude from this that religion can have a profound effect on people's moral choices, and that it's important to give some thought to rules for distinguishing between them. It is a fair point to say the distinguishing characteristics are clearly not the bible or the name jesus.


Church charities often have the underlying goal of converting people to Christianity rather than simply offering charity.


Some don't of course. Some do valuable work.

In Africa and for that matter, all over the world, you have the religious imposition of "abstinence only" programs imposed on groups working to prevent HIV-AIDS when the evidence clearly shows those programs are a waste of resources, and worse, you have religious pressure limiting family planning because believers want to impose their white middle class America 'values' on poverty stricken powerless women who cannot "just say no" so they are forced to have too many children, who often end up as orphans in a system that cannot care for them ..... the list is endless for the incredible immoral crap that believers are currently imposing on people who the believers have no clue what the results of their beliefs and actions have on millions of women and children in the world.

I'm outraged by this stuff. I can say that the churches I've belonged to are too. There is a whole, (generally) non-yelling swatch of responsible theists, who think this is outrageous and shameful.

I understand why actions like this make you unwilling to give any credence to a religion. I acknowledged some 800+ posts ago that this is not an academic or cost-free debate. Rules of proof aside, religion, and christiantity in particularly, clearly has the burden of justifying why we should keep it around.

To me though, thinking as clearly as possible about religion means reconciling the good stuff with the bad stuff. I'd like to take an evidence based approach to what religion is as well as what it isn't.

I don't see any benefit in pretending to be blind to the distinctions between religious beliefs and I don't much respect a view that dismisses the choices of many, many people here, in this country, who are often less well educated and less well off as the bleating of a bunch of useless sheeple. I'd like to go forward with them and don't believe it can be done any other way.


Are you one of those believers, epeos? Believing in your narrow little world view, never having been to a third world country

No. I'm well travelled. My passport has some cool stamps on it. I speak Chinese. I pay attention. I'm also well read, dashing, bold, and true. My torso can't compare with Faithk's, however.

Do you think it is possible you see what you want to see and disregard the rest?

It is possible, but no more for me than for anyone. Slightly less so because I'm a skeptophile. My dearest hope is to someday be declared a real live skeptic. I understand there is someone here in charge of that.

(lai-la-lai)

ETA (or should it be mm-mm-mm?)

[epeos76]

From my vantage point, that area of the discussion has been addressed.
Perhaps you can expand on that versus concentrating on the personal impugnment.

Fair enough. It would be nice if you were willing to police the otherside a bit too, though.

[articulett]

Fair enough. It would be nice if you were willing to police the otherside a bit too, though.

I think there has been enough of that going on. In fact if you look at the words used, you might be surprised at who is being the most abrasive.

You liken god to a pulley. But pulleys are physical... If you believed in an invisible pulley that was immeasurable, then I would find that a bit crazy. On this forum do you consider any believers "wooish" or do you mostly just post to defend your beliefs? How do you treat those with beliefs that you don't share... say, reincarnation? Or conspiracy theorists? How about the believers of psychics? I want to know why you think we should respect your opinion regarding "god" more than you respect those types of opinions--which may be different in "form", but not in regards to evidence. They may all have helpful or harmful elements. The bottom line is that you don't think these things are true-- but you think your god beliefs are. We are trying to find out why. If you think god is of more essence that an "invisible immeasurable pulley" (whatever that might be), then you would need to tell us why for us to respect that as more than belief in an "invisible immeasurable pulley" that you may well have imagined.

To a skeptic all of this stuff may as well be exactly that. Real material pulleys exist. I'm not sure if invisible immeasurable ones do, so I don't believe in them. The same goes for consciousness. We know that it exists in living people with brains... we don't know that any kind can exist absent a brain. God and souls are entities that fall in that category, and so --like invisible pulleys-- most skeptics have no reason to believe in any of them unless indoctrinated to "need" such a belief.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well let's just say that compassionate non-judgmental religious crowd you are describing certainly are hard to see with all the judgmental horrible religious right wingers that are in the news and affecting the laws and policies of this nation, epeos.

My comment would be that you are attributing to religion what I attribute to good people because they are good people. Religion does not make them good or bad. If it did, all the religious people you are talking about would be good. But they aren't. Belief in God does not seem to be a variable with any correlation to good people doing good deeds. An occasional correlation with select individuals is all I see. You're giving God more credit than the evidence supports is deserved.

[Mobyseven]

Moby was rude to her.

Okay, seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. Yeah, maybe I was a bit short with Beth. I was short with her because she was incredibly rude to me, and tried to treat me like a moron. You want to go and play the 'big bad Mobyseven' card? Go right the hell ahead. I'm right here, waiting for polite discussion the minute it comes my way - give me attitude though, and you can be damn sure you'll get it right back at you. Beth was rude to me, and I was as patient with her as I could be right up until the point I gave her my honest and reserved opinion - that she was being deliberately evasive and ignoring arguments that contradicted her preconceived notions, and I gave her that opinion in private because I didn't want to be rude by calling her on it in public.

She wants to lie about me in this thread, she can do it - but I will call her on it each and every time. Rude? Maybe. I call it keeping people honest.

It may sometimes be appropriate. Even pretending Beth's posts were all deeply flawed it is hard to see how patiently attempting civil discussion justifies that kind of treatment, though.

I'm sorry - 'pretending'?

Also, I'll cut you some slack on the assumption that you haven't been following all this from the beginning, but you'd best know that we've all attempted patient, civil discussion with Beth in the past. There's only so many times you can have the same erroneous argument repeated at you politely before you figure out that perhaps the person isn't being as polite as they superficially seem.

I can point to your post and say, "that's English". I could do it even if ever single mind that understood the language disappeared (though in that case, I would presumably be making the equivalent statement in some other language). Someone would have to be around to do the pointing, but that gets a bit arcane for me.

It has been at least suggested that some components of justice and mercy would fall out of a proper analysis of group behavior. The buzz words would be game theory, reproductive utility, group strategies etc. I can google something, but I bet you're at least as familiar with this idea as I am. That suggests they deserve a similar classification.

SkG and various neurologists have suggested that our moral sense is the result of the fact that we are hard wired with an emotional "grammar" to help us navigate group dynamics. There is evidence that we can influence the shape and scope of those feelings.

I think (but can't prove) that has almost always been one of the functions of religion. If that's right, then the appropriate god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice that wouldn't necessarily arise without an equivalent stimulus.

Excellent - we've established that you can't tell the difference between abstract concepts like language and ink on a page.

I'm off to watch an episode of Firefly, and then maybe if I can be bothered I'll come back and have the same damn discussion I've had a thousand times over. I'm reasonably sure it won't make a damn bit of difference either way.

People always complain that they aren't given a chance. They never seem to realise that they're giving you the exact same argument you've heard a thousand times before. Nobody wants to think they're predictable...

[Beth]

This is quite lengthy (did I strike a nerve?) so I cut quite a bit. If there is anything I miss responding to that you feel deserves an answer, please point it out to me again.

I think this may be our disconnect. I can consider an experience that something I saw was red to be evidence that it is red, yet still be aware that I could be mistaken and change my mind based on other evidence. This is even easier to do when the experience is regarding an intangible thing and I was not the person who had the experience. To say that the experience was due to A does NOT mean I cannot later conclude it was something else. To presume otherwise is to confuse evidence with proof.
No, I understand the point you are making here. I simply don’t agree with you on this point. See below.
We are arguing what is evidence vs what is a conclusion. You say you understand. But you do not understand the difference between an observation which is confirmable, and something one imagines which is not confirmable. Actually, I quite understand this difference between confirmable and not confirmable. That is what separates scientific caliber evidence from non-scientific caliber evidence and why I admitted long ago that the evidence for god, such as it is, is not of scientific caliber.

Agreeing or disagreeing with me is irrelevant. The issue here is the definition of evidence. I've already said, you can believe what you want, but you cannot change the rules of what is and what is not evidence. It seems to me that it is you who want to change the definition of what is and what is not evidence. By your definition, testimony presented under oath in a trial would not constitute evidence. You are trying to limit the definition of evidence to that which meets the criteria of publishable scientific evidence. I don’t think that is appropriate for all contexts, including this discussion. My point is that most people don’t limit ‘evidence’ so strictly so it’s perfectly reasonable for them to accept their own personal experiences and those of people they trust on this matter.
And you can believe internal messages are or personal experiences could be evidence of an external thing such as a god. In fact, at this point, I see no hope of further progress. Bolding and correction mine. Yes, I think that similar experiences of many different people across different cultures may indicate some sort of external stimulus for their experiences. What it is, I can’t say but it does seem to get consistently labeled ‘god’.

That you and other people want to give validity to that internally generated stimuli is nice, but the skeptical and the scientific communities do not. So you can make the statement that you personally don't know where the evidence ends and the conclusion begins. Normally I wouldn’t have any difficult with the two, but the way you are using the words is confusing me. Can you describe a viable method to distinguish between what you are terming ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that can be applied to all sorts of different situations appropriately? Because, as it is, it appears to me you're just making up your definitions in order to exclude testimonial evidence for things you don't believe in.

You can make the claim the conclusion is evidence for the conclusion. But the bottom line is the skeptical and the scientific communities do not see one's imaginary belief in gods as evidence of gods. I haven’t denied that at any time, nor do I find that an unreasonable position for someone to take. It’s the insistance on using only that definition of evidence and the certainty of the conclusion that god does not exist based on that definition that bothers me. That is what allows so many here to class those who do believe in god as irrational or delusional. They are not, or at least no more likely to be so than the atheists I am acquainted with.
At the least, I hope you can see that your claim it is weak evidence or it is not scientific quality evidence is a straw man. No. I don’t follow why that is a straw man in the least. Isn’t a straw man when I make up an weak pretend argument and claim that it yours? I’m saying that weak or non-scientific quality evidence is how I view it and that it isn’t an unreasonable POV, but a fairly common one. Particularly among people who are not scientists. I saying that accepting such evidence doesn’t make them irrational or delusional or even incorrect in a case where the truth cannot be proven one way or the other.

I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated. When you try to exclude it, you end up with nonsense like claiming the experience of seeing something that is red is the ‘evidence’ and the description of it as red is a conclusion and not evidence.
In the case of believing what the god experience was, the belief doe not become evidence. And the belief you see something red does not become evidence either, the red thing is the evidence. The person in either case may or may not be correct. But the red thing is the evidence and in the case with the god belief, there is no evidence, only the belief.

So, by this definitions, when I read an article in a scientific magazine, that isn’t evidence they are presenting, they are just reporting their conclusions. And when when people cite scientific publications, you do not consider that evidence that supports their arguments, but just conclusions. I think this delineation between evidence and conclusion you are advocating is, frankly, nonsensical.
I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things. It is a false accusation to claim I refused to answer. Don't go off on that imaginary defense here please. I did in fact answer. And after how many pages of discussion over conclusions vs evidence, I do resent that rationalization that I must be unable to answer something and am refusing.

You are asking for a contradiction. You are asking how one can prove something for which there is no evidence. I am not asking for proof. I am not asking for actual evidence. I am asking for what you would consider to be evidence, as opposed to a conclusion based on a personal experience, for the existence of an intangible object.

However god beliefs may have begun and even if all human conceptions of god were known to be inaccurate, it does not invalidate the proposition that some god exists. What evidence would you accept for the existence of some god that does not depend on identifying similar human experiences that are reported to be due to god? In short, what evidence could be presented that would change your mind about your conclusion that no god exists?What evidence would you accept that invisible pink unicorns populate my backyard? Well, you could claim that you have communicated with them psychically. That would be testimonial evidence. I repeat, perhaps I need to make this my mantra - evidence is not proof. I can accept that it is evidence. It is not especially convincing evidence. If you then introduced me to them and I, too, was able to communicate with the psychically, that would be far more convincing evidence to me, but I doubt anyone else would believe us and that would be understandable. :D

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs come from the imagination. For many specific god beliefs, that is true. But not for all. There is no evidence for gods. No, there is no verifiable consistent evidence. There is not proof. But despite your insistence to the contrary, that is not the same as NO evidence. I think this is where we started the discussion. The only gods for which one can argue are gods which don't interact with the Universe because if they did we would see the evidence. And gods which do nothing one could detect are irrelevant. Irrelevant is not the same as non-existent. I have not been debating the relevance of such a god. That would be a subjective value judgment.

[Mobyseven]

...and again, we see the same argument. And again, the criticisms of the argument have not been addressed. And again we shall be chastised if we even think about pointing that out.

[cyborg]

By your definition, testimony presented under oath in a trial would not constitute evidence.

Last time I checked both prosecution and defence get to present testimony presented under oath.

Presumably they do so such that their presented evidence leads to different, and opposite, conclusions.

Hmm... if only we had some sort of "cross-examination" process whereby the opposing side has the chance to argue that the evidence does, in fact, not support the conclusion it is purported to do so.

(You really just don't seem to grasp the "evidence is not conclusion" thrust here even when your analogies undermine it.)

[Beth]

Last time I checked both prosecution and defence get to present testimony presented under oath.

Presumably they do so such that their presented evidence leads to different, and opposite, conclusions.
Right. Evidence is not the same as proof. Difference conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence.

Hmm... if only we had some sort of "cross-examination" process whereby the opposing side has the chance to argue that the evidence does, in fact, not support the conclusion it is purported to do so. Yes, imagine a world in which different ideas could compete to see which is the best. What a paradise that would be, eh? :)

(You really just don't seem to grasp the "evidence is not conclusion" thrust here even when your analogies undermine it.)

Oh, that evidence is not the same as a conclusion is not an issue for me. It's the claim that testimony isn't evidence, but a conclusion that bothers me. If a witness says that the perpetrator drove a red car away from the scene, I'd call that evidence. Skeptigirl claims it is a conclusion and therefore, not evidence. Only the car itself would constitute evidence. Do you agree with her definitions?

[cyborg]

It's the claim that testimony isn't evidence, but a conclusion that bothers me. If a witness says that the perpetrator drove a red car away from the scene, I'd call that evidence. Skeptigirl claims it is a conclusion and therefore, not evidence. Only the car itself would constitute evidence. Do you agree with her definitions?

The statement being presented as evidence and what circumstances lead to the utterance of the statement are two different things.

[epeos76]

Well let's just say that compassionate non-judgmental religious crowd you are describing certainly are hard to see with all the judgmental horrible religious right wingers that are in the news and affecting the laws and policies of this nation, epeos.



I sympathize with you. It's worth noting that the progressive churches are shrinking while the fundies grow. I think the strain I like is in danger of disappearing.

I'm interested in the problem of how to be good people. I think we can at least agree that there is some work involved, and some technique too. I would certainly never suggest that everything required can be found in religion, or that religion was a requirement.



If that were true, all those religious people etc.

Here we disagree. This would only be true if the fundies were correct, and the bible worked by magic. It still seems reasonable to me to look at the different results reached by people who consider themselves to be practicing different beliefs.

[Beth]

The statement being presented as evidence and what circumstances lead to the utterance of the statement are two different things.

Yes. That doesn't answer the question though. Do you agree with skeptigirl's definition of evidence such that any type of testimony cannot be considered evidence? Just to clarify, she stated:

You saw something red. It was the red thing that is the evidence. You observed it. You concluded you saw red. Your conclusion was not the evidence. Your conclusion was based on the evidence, the red thing you saw.

[articulett]

Someone's memory of a red car is evidence of a memory... the red car is evidence of the red car... but memories are fallible... Really believing that an alien visited is evidence that people can believe crazy things... it's not evidence that an alien visited. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence... not "feelings" and premature conclusions or feel good inferences. The same for god.

Cars exist. Red exists. So far, no evidence for any form of consciousness without a material brain exists. None. Zilch. We have tons of evidence that people have been having delusions about such things for eons-- ghosts, demons, gods, furies, thetans, etc. So far, zero measurable evidence.

We have tons of evidence that people are prone to believe certain things that are fallacious.

We have no evidence that immaterial forms of consciousness can exist. None. Not Xenu. Not god. Not demons. Not aliens that do anal probes in the night. For a person to rationally believe ins such things there would need to be convincing measurable evidence. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish your god from known delusions such as those things you don't believe in.

And rest assured, epeos, I'm not interested in your respect any more than you are interested in mine. I was just wondering if anyone has a decent answer to the OP. Since no one does, I'll just go on assuming that you believe your woo for the same reason Tom Cruise believes his-- it makes you feel special and super duper an in on a secret.

From my perspective, religion makes people feel more moral, but their "morality" or niceness or whatever only seems evident to others that believe like them. When you look at their words, they sure aren't more pleasant or logical or nice or funny or compassionate. They are not good listeners... they tend to be pedantic and judgmental while feeling readily offended when people are far less abrasive than them. At least that's my observation. You are much ruder than the people you think of as rude. And if someone used your inane words back on you, you'd see exactly how pedantically delusional you sound. Really-- Any woo-- Tom Cruise or Sylvia Browne could use your words to pretend the same nothingness and avoid answering the OP.

There is no good reason to believe in your god or your woo any more than there is to believe in any other... each woo just feels that they, personally, can't be fooled-- that they are chosen and that all those who believe differently are deluded. That's what you are avoiding saying with all your mock offense, semantics, and pedantry. Your god is an invisible immeasurable "pulley" that you believe in, and you feel special for believing in it and are made that we think you are as deluded as the woos you laugh at or are offended by.

[Faithkills]

...and again, we see the same argument. And again, the criticisms of the argument have not been addressed. And again we shall be chastised if we even think about pointing that out.

I chastise thee, I chastise thee, I chastise thee!

Now say the "Hail Dawkins'" and call me in the morning;)

Am I missing something or isn't all Beth doing with the walls of textual fluff just saying "I think Ad Populum shouldn't be a valid criticism"?

[articulett]

Yes. That doesn't answer the question though. Do you agree with skeptigirl's definition of evidence such that any type of testimony cannot be considered evidence? Just to clarify, she stated:

You are confused as to what it's evidence for. If you wish on a star and your wish comes true... that is NOT evidence that wishing on a star works... If you believed that it was that is evidence that humans confuse correlation with causation because superstition is a primitive way of learning. We avoid stuff associated with bad things and repeat actions associated with the pleasant.

Science makes this technique less prone to error.

Of course, Beth has me on ignore, because she wants to believe that "believing you've had a god experience" is evidence for a god experience. But it is no more a god experience than the experience of a person believing that someone is possessed is evidence of demon possession.

For a rationalist to believe that consciousness could exist absent a material brain-- would take extraordinary evidence-- the kind every one could confirm for themselves... measurable evidence-- that is if you were really interested in knowing whether such things could exist or not.

[epeos76]

Okay, seriously, this is a bit ridiculous...

You had a fight with her. In the process you were "short". It's not a hanging offense. If you look above you'll find some acknowledged snipiness on my part (I'm sure you can find short, shirty, "impugnment" and rudeness too, acknowledged or not). Hell, I'm from the midwest, we have some forms of politeness that have more in common with a knife fight than with principles of kindness.

She put you on ignore. So what? Why not be forthright about the fact that any real discussion between people with serious differences who care about their ideas is likely to involve some tension? The goal is to minimize. As you keep reminding me, a response is not a right.

There's only so many times you can have the same erroneous argument repeated at you politely . . .

I've felt the same way myself.




Excellent - we've established that you can't tell the difference between abstract concepts like language and ink on a page.

Moby7 you're simply not coming to grips with my point. Language is a thing first, and an abstract concept second. I won't cross-examine you on this, because I'm sure you've been over the trivial premises many weary times. I'll just suggest you consider the idea that there is reason to believe that - at any level of abstaction - language has non-arbitrary properties independent of human thought.

One piece of evidence for this is that it has origins in evolutionary biology. It's not a pure invention.

Firefly! Comrade, the only meaningful dispute we can have now is over the proper language to be applied to Kaylee's grin.

[epeos76]

And rest assured, epeos, I'm not interested in your respect any more than you are interested in mine.

You traduce me articullet. You wouldn't piss me off so much if I wasn't impressed by your commitment to doing your homework. I just don't think much of your penchant for categorizing people as a class and attributing icky inner qualities to the class you don't like.

[articulett]

I chastise thee, I chastise thee, I chastise thee!

Now say the "Hail Dawkins'" and call me in the morning;)

Am I missing something or isn't all Beth doing with the walls of textual fluff just saying "I think Ad Populum shouldn't be a valid criticism"?

That's pretty much it... lots of people claim to have a god experience (whatever that means); therefore, she thinks there might be something to it (whatever that is).

Lots of people believe in demon possession or reincarnation and have experiences that they feel prove it... but those don't matter to Beth... just the belief that makes her feel special.

I'm not sure what epeos is saying other than playing the "offended" card, but he/she seems to think that morality is related to religion or is proof of god or something. But every religion thinks that people of their religion are more moral than those who believe differently. And I think non believers may be the most moral of all-- at least I find them more honest.

[articulett]

You traduce me articullet. You wouldn't piss me off so much if I wasn't impressed by your commitment to doing your homework. I just don't think much of your penchant for categorizing people as a class and attributing icky inner qualities to the class you don't like.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. Yes... there is a class of people who believe in things for which there is no measurable evidence. I call these people woos. All the woos think their woo is true and all the other stuff is woo. But I think they are all woos. You don't like being lumped in with other woos, but you can't give any reasons why your belief in an invisible creator of the universe is less wooish than all the stuff that you find woo-ish.

I don't need to do homework to figure that out. And I don't do homework assigned by woos. They tend to be people who think they have a lot to teach, but I find them blinded to their own arrogance and ignorance. You know, like Tom Cruise. He's nice and handsome and a good actor-- but still a woo. Like you. Unless there is some reason why believing in whatever you believe is less wooish than believing in Xenu--so far, there has been no reason given in your and Beth's pedantry.

[cyborg]

Yes. That doesn't answer the question though. Do you agree with skeptigirl's definition of evidence such that any type of testimony cannot be considered evidence? Just to clarify, she stated:

TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.

CONTENT OF TESTIMONY IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS A CONCLUSION.

[thaiboxerken]

It's clear to me that the theists in this thread don't understand what evidence is, on a scientific level.

[Beth]

TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE.

CONTENT OF TESTIMONY IS NOT EVIDENCE. IT IS A CONCLUSION.

No need to shout. Testimony is evidence but the content is not? Could you describe for me what the non-conclusion non-evidence part of testimony is? I would have thought that testimony devoid of content would have also been devoid of evidence.

[articulett]

Right. Evidence is not the same as proof. Difference conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence.
Yes, imagine a world in which different ideas could compete to see which is the best. What a paradise that would be, eh? :)



Perhaps. But there still is one truth. A murder is committed. A defendant might be found guilty or innocent. But the verdict is not necessarily the truth. O.J. was not convicted. That does not mean he is innocent. See?

One truth, Beth. The best way to find that truth is to follow the measurable evidence towards the best explanation. That someone's version of an invisible entity or entities might exist in some manner is NOT the best explanation. And yet, it's the one you seem to be hanging on to.

[cyborg]

No need to shout. Testimony is evidence but the content is not? Could you describe for me what the non-conclusion non-evidence part of testimony is? I would have thought that testimony devoid of content would have also been devoid of evidence.

JEEZUS, it's not that hard to understand.

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: "I saw a red car at place X at time T."

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE: "I saw a green car at place X at time T."

NOT EVIDENCE, CONCLUSION: There is a red car at place X at time T.

NOT EVIDENCE, CONCLUSION: There is a green car at place X at time T.

And again this drum is endlessly beaten.

[articulett]

It's clear to me that the theists in this thread don't understand what evidence is, on a scientific level.

Only when it's convenient. I'm sure they could understand why someone believing that they were possessed is not evidence that a person is possessed... I'm sure they could understand why someone swearing by astrology is not evidence that astrology works... but when it come to god-- peoples' transcendent feelings suddenly become evidence for god and whatever magical qualities one attributes to that god.

Beth is conveniently stupid. All theists are. They aren't stupid when it comes to other woo-- Xenu, conspiracy theories, etc. I bet they could even tell you why the things believers point to for evidence is not evidence of what they've concluded it's evidence for-- but when it comes to their magical sky daddy that they've been promised they'll be rewarded for believing in-- then lots of believers in something with the same "name" suddenly becomes "evidence" that an invisible form of consciousness exists-- and cares especially about them!

I think it's arrogant, but they always imagine themselves humble for having this belief.

[articulett]

Memories exist. Red exists. Cars exist. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to conclude that someone can accurately remember a the color of a car.

Imaginary friends don't exist, but believers in them often think they do.

You have managed to invent evidence that the one you believe in does. That is NOT evidence that it does. It's evidence that you have an imaginary friend.

[thaiboxerken]

They seem to want to use a court of law to determine reality rather than science. Perhaps it's because courts of law allow for loopholes and rhetoric matters.

[epeos76]

Methinks thou doth protest too much. Yes... there is a class of people who believe in things for which there is no measurable evidence.

Classify away. It's the attributing such a florid profusion of wicked inner qualities to your classifactions that I think is a dangerous fallacy. If you want to attribute horrible inner qualities specifically to me, personally, do feel free.

[articulett]

Classify away. It's the attributing such a florid profusion of wicked inner qualities to your classifactions that I think is a dangerous fallacy. If you want to attribute horrible inner qualities specifically to me, personally, do feel free.

It's not a florid profusion of wicked inner qualities... just basic credulity. The ones on this forum do tend towards the self righteous... but I imagine it's because they have a desire for skeptics to respect their woo and it's threatening when they don't. Moreover, they tend to feel like they are here to teach and tend to be unaware that others here know more than them on given subjects. Plus, they often put down some of my favorite posters while imagining themselves much more likable than I see them.

Annoying... but not worse than Tom Cruise... no florid profusion of wicked inner qualities... just a much higher opinion of themselves than is warranted by anything they post.

I'm guessing that the woos find themselves their favorite posters and the majority find much to admire in other posters while the woos take offense at everything the majority says.

[articulett]

Btw, I know not all believers are the same or have the same level of vapidity or gullibility in their beliefs. But that doesn't make any of the woo true, now does it?... not your god or Xenu or demons-- nor does it mean that some young kid is the reincarnation of some departed holy man.

Sure, people can believe in all these things for reasons they think are good. That doesn't mean that such things exist or that their reasons really are good or warranted. People have very loose standards of evidence for what they want to believe or already believe... and no amount of evidence can change their mind when they think "faith" is the key to salvation.

God believers are making the same fallacy as someone who looks at aberrant behavior and finds that it's evidence for demon possession. It's evidence of aberrant behavior-- maybe mental illness, a neurological disease, drugs, etc. It is NOT evidence of demon possession. First, one would need to show that demons exist-- or that any invisible form of consciousness can exist (and possess people).

Red cars exist. There is no evidence that demons do.

[Faithkills]

You sorted this out then? You meant religion is a sort of mind virus and its popularity is evidence that it is addictive like tobacco right? There is not really any evidence for that hypothesis.

So you would purport that human minds innately know there is a god, and that faith is not transmitted to children when their minds are malleable?

I suppose you think inclement weather causes colds too? Viruses come from nowhere?

Probably. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/header.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.insecta-inspecta.com/fleas/bdeath/Art_music.html&h=170&w=262&sz=43&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=O2QDFVncNJNUPM:&tbnh=73&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack%2Bdeath%2Bart%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26sa%3DN) The average lifespan was 35 or so until suprisingly recently.

And you conclude what? That if religion was based on a desire for immortality that religion should be on the decline? Well guess what? Religion is on the decline and that decline can be correlated with longevity. Or were you going to say that increase in lifespan should mean the complete disappearance of religion?;) I mean really this line of exploration isn't helping you:)

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about death. It isn't a major motive in my life.

Why should you? Haven't you been promised immortality?;) All you have to do is internalize doctrine as reality to get it.

I doubt it is in most 21st century types, until they pass middle age. In any event, religion can actually increase fear of death. Why don't you provide some (http://psychsoc.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/4/P207) evidence (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050628_deathfearfrm.htm), so I can see what you think you mean. I suspect you won't be satisfied with any interpretation I put on your claim.

So it surprises you that people who are only slightly religious fear death more than people who are more religious? Or that nonreligious people have already given the idea some thought and better accept it?

It surprises you that strongly religious fear death the least?

And this supports your position.. how?:D


It's certainly a hypothesis. I think religion is more like being handed an english teacher. I think it can impede morality, precisely because it is so effective at shaping some of the foundational assumptions we use to make moral decisions. You will get no argument from me that religious persons have to justify their actions by the same objective standards as anyone else.

Not the least quibble with this.

We may yet work up to Fox news/NPR violence. In my view it doesn't take much more than a tool for convincing people that they have a group identity and that it is threatened by another group. Religion certainly can do this. It can also provide a method for connecting with the alien and the outsider.

You mean converting an alien into a believer. Religious 'outreach' has a goal, it's is not to embrace otherness, it's to eliminate otherness. Religion propagates conformity.

Right. I don't fully understand the function of religion, and yet I claim some of the things it does are beneficial.

Agreed. But those things can be done without religion. And religion does bad things that cannot be done without religion.

I am sorry for your friend. I don't think I'll share the incident it brings to mind. In any event, I acknowledge that religion can be a tool to incite violence. Are you under the impression that bully boys need a religious reason to be violent homophobes?

Are you under the impression that homosexuals are not regularly executed in the name of god?

It may help you to note I'm not making absolute claims, so your counters come off as specious. I never said all bad things happen because of religion. And I welcome a debate about how much. But it really doesn't make you look credible when you keep trying to put words in my mouth of the form 'there would never be a gay executed without religion'. There would be, but not nearly as many. And as the cultural stigma and intolerance that is abetted by religion fell out of acceptance I suggest it would diminish.

..What is really impressive about it, though is its ability to teach its practioners certain social attitudes that I find deeply humbling, when I really stop to think about it. Those attitudes translate pretty well into action. I can take another, explicit stab at this, in another post, if you like.

Sure. You may be able to come up with some good, which can be shown to be impossible without religion which might change my mind from thinking in the ideal circumstance no religion would be desirable to thinking, assuming the power (unlikely) and moral authority (more unlikely) to get rid of religion we would see that it would be impossible to do completely and doing so would cause more harm than good. In which case we'd have to devise some method to somehow constrain it so that we could curb the evils while maintaining the necessary goods.


Why don't you explain why it is a strawman? Then I can address whatever you're actually thinking without deploying my psychic powers.

You mischaracterized what I said then attacked the mischaracterization. It's right there. Stop it;) It doesn't fly well here, and you'll get called on it abut every time you try.

Inner experience can be manipulated. It's prone too error. That's why I think deference to better proven methods is the touchstone for reasonableness. I don't see any reason to buy your slippery slope argument, though.

Well you wouldn't would you?;) Questioning faith is after all, defined as a bad thing in religions;)

I think faith can be a cause of error. I haven't mentioned it because I thought the central thrust of SkG's challenge was showing it was possible to discriminate between god beliefs on some other basis. In all honesty I took your focus on it to be some sort of trap, so you could then shout about how I don't understand the difference between faith and reason.

Not at all. And I'm gratified that you do see the difference. You can see that some people don't see the difference tho.

That sincerely drew a snort. Cheers for style.

:D

Thank you for acknowledging the first point. I agree that god beliefs are not required to do good. I think that the ability to do good depends on more than reasoning, however. I have some evidence for this, posted above. I think we have to be trained and to practice particular emotional postures, to get good at them. A sort of psychic training, if you will. Religion may not have a monopoly on this, but its certainly the most common provider.

Then perhaps we should focus on the question of what religion provides that could not otherwise be provided, or would even be too impractical to provide. We will presume I said jihad, inquisitions, intolerance, etc, already and try to focus on the good things;)

The Presbyterian church is governed by a bicameral house of representatives elected by the laity, and has more committees than a fortune 500 company with a new corporate vision. In the midwest it is also blessed with a culture of mild discomfort for extreme positions, and a voracious appetite for "polite" disagreement which advanced practioners can extend for years. There are checks and balances designed by people with your concerns in mind.

Wisely so. And I do accept that 'societally polite' religions do exist. It's almost as if these realize faith is an addictive and dangerous drug but either can't live without it or convince themselves there is some other benefit that it provides that makes it worth the risk. In that recognition they take systemic measures to keep it in check.

I think there's some interesting stuff in here, possibly distorted by typing fatigue. Would you explain how existential responsibility is different from the more mundane kind I'm familiar with? And are you sneering at emotion here, or claiming you're beyond it or what? I not embarrassed by the assertion that religion involves my emotions.

Not sneering at emotion at all. Existential responsibility I mean is taking responsibility for one's own existence. By adopting a religion you are given ready answers for unpleasant questions. Why am I here? What is my purpose? What should I be doing?

It's a common complaint of new atheists. Reason led them down a road but didn't prepare them for what was at the end. "Ok, I never really bought the heaven stuff, and I couldn't avoid getting where I am, but.. now what?" Lots of theists similarly don't even believe in an afterlife, but facing that responsibility is too just much.


I think we agree on almost everything but language, meaning, context and history here. Is it fair to say you think your moral positions are entirely self-derived? Are you the master of your fate/captain of your soul? Greek logic through and through? That sort of thing?

Yes and no. Believe it or not I'm a romantic.

Of course, my moral decisions are not entirely self derived, but they are not based on an external doctrine nor are they immutable. I'm a moral anti-realist, as such I have to take responsibility for my own morality. That responsibility may oblige me to steal some morality from others;) But I won't take dish that comes with a blue pill. Faith is the blue pill.

[Mobyseven]

Epeos:

Sorry, I was short, and I don't mean to be short at you. The reason I'm so frustrated is because I've seen all this before with Beth.

In regards to language: The evolutionary processes that led to language are important to consider, yes. But without the existance of a mind (which has also arisen via evolutionary processes), it is meaningless to say that language exists. A sheet of paper will still be a sheet of paper and ink will still be ink should intelligent life cease to exist. But without a mind to interpret and give context, what possible meaning can be assigned to the pattern of ink scrawled on the paper? Where does that meaning exist absent a mind to conceive it? - not necessarily a human mind, mind you. :p It is the same criticism that I apply to the concepts of 'justice' and 'mercy', and that is why they are not valid analogies for god.

Kaylee is too damn cute for words. And I had a weird moment...

...watching the episode where Mal is accidentally 'married'. The girl he gets married to looks exactly like my ex-girlfriend looks, save for the hair colour. It's an eerie experience right up to the point she starts...you know...trying to kill them all.

[Mobyseven]

Faithkills:

Yeah, Beth's argument pretty much amounts to, "argument from popularity shouldn't be a fallacy".

[epeos76]

So you would purport that human minds innately know there is a god, and that faith is not transmitted to children when their minds are malleable?

I suppose you think inclement weather causes colds too? Viruses come from nowhere?



What now? We have to be taught lots of behaviors and beliefs. Tooth brushing, for example. I don't think that makes tooth brushing a mind virus. In fact, I don't think the concept of addictive ideas is well defined.



And you conclude what? That if religion was based on a desire for immortality that religion should be on the decline? Well guess what? Religion is on the decline and that decline can be correlated with longevity. Or were you going to say that increase in lifespan should mean the complete disappearance of religion?;) I mean really this line of exploration isn't helping you:)

I'm saying that whatever role fear of death may have played in religion in the past, it hasn't been the major selling factor for progressive christianity for some time.



Why should you? Haven't you been promised immortality?;) All you have to do is internalize doctrine as reality to get it.


I have never been interest in the immortality part. It would be fair to say that I don't believe it, and it would be fair to say that is not really an uncommon position for progressive christians.


So it surprises you that people who are only slightly religious fear death more than people who are more religious? Or that nonreligious people have already given the idea some thought and better accept it?


It surprises you that strongly religious fear death the least?

And this supports your position.. how?:D



It shows that religion can induce a fear of death as easily as relieve it. nothing in the study suggests that the nonreligious "have given the matter some thought" in any special manner.


You mean converting an alien into a believer. Religious 'outreach' has a goal, it's is not to embrace otherness, it's to eliminate otherness. Religion propagates conformity.


You're mistaken. I'm talking about personal acts that embrace the potential for difference, with no element of evangilism.



Agreed. But those things can be done without religion. And religion does bad things that cannot be done without religion.


Genocide, programatic, violent homophobia, and ethnic cleansing have all be accomplished sans religion. You'll have to identify what specific types of evil acts you are thinking of.


Are you under the impression that homosexuals are not regularly executed in the name of god?


None are executed in the name of progressive presbyterianism. You can find denominations willing to ordain and marry homosexuals. I think its worth staying in for that fight.

This is the same argument as above. Religion can certainly be used to do horrible things, but it isn't the only way to do it.



It may help you to note I'm not making absolute claims, so your counters come off as specious. I never said all bad things happen because of religion. And I welcome a debate about how much. But it really doesn't make you look credible when you keep trying to put words in my mouth of the form 'there would never be a gay executed without religion'. There would be, but not nearly as many. And as the cultural stigma and intolerance that is abetted by religion fell out of acceptance I suggest it would diminish.



What helpful advice. I will bear it in mind. Perhaps you could bear in mind that I can only see the actual words you put on the page, and have to fill in the rest based on what I infer about your position from your style.

Your suggestion is plausible. To me it rests on the idea that without religion there would be no other vectors for widespread prejudice, though. I disagree.

What do you know about the change in attitudes towards homosexuality in China after the communist revolution? Republican Rome v. Greece?


In which case we'd have to devise some method to somehow constrain it so that we could curb the evils while maintaining the necessary goods.

May I suggest a creed emphasizing earthly responsibilites over the otherwordly, recognizing the preeminence of systematic empiricism, and embodied in a church governed by a bicameral legislature elected by the laity?



You mischaracterized what I said then attacked the mischaracterization. It's right there. Stop it;) It doesn't fly well here, and you'll get called on it abut every time you try.


It's right there. Yes. Thank you. The subjective intent you have when you write this stuff isn't self-evidently visible. I'm willing to be corrected. You have the responsibility of communicating your position at the risk of being misunderstood or ignored.


Well you wouldn't would you?;) Questioning faith is after all, defined as a bad thing in religions;)


The heck? Isn't this one of those absolutes you aren't using? How many times do you want me to say that practioners need to (1) defer to better verified knowledge, and (2) continue to test the effects of their beliefs against their best, objective judgment.

I think there is a duty to continually question faith. Questioning changed the shape of mine considerably.



Then perhaps we should focus on the question of what religion provides that could not otherwise be provided, or would even be too impractical to provide. We will presume I said jihad, inquisitions, intolerance, etc, already and try to focus on the good things;)


I'm not sure religion can do anything that can't hypothetically be accomplished by some other means. I think my god beliefs are one known way to teach and practice a state of mind/set of emotional postures/set of relationships that are valuable.

Earlier, I acknowledged it may be possible to replace particular god beliefs, and still make the system work. On reflection, I realized that I know it is possible, because I've already edited the set. I think my current beliefs are the minimum necessary to make the thing work. I certainly could be wrong.


Wisely so. And I do accept that 'societally polite' religions do exist. It's almost as if these realize faith is an addictive and dangerous drug but either can't live without it or convince themselves there is some other benefit that it provides that makes it worth the risk. In that recognition they take systemic measures to keep it in check.


Since I am specifically arguing I think god beliefs provide a particular type of benefits and can be dangerous if not checked, it is very much like that is what we do.


Not sneering at emotion at all. Existential responsibility I mean is taking responsibility for one's own existence. By adopting a religion you are given ready answers for unpleasant questions. Why am I here? What is my purpose? What should I be doing?

That's interesting. At least with respect to the "what should I be doing" part? I think I did get most of my beliefs on that score from watching parents/etc practice actions rooted in, or at least explained by progressive christianity i.e. try to develop your talents, try to support the weak, strengthen the downhearted, people are more important than ideas, pay particular attention to the outcasts etc. Render unto Caeser.

And ultimately, that is likely what I am most moved by. I want to honor the commitment of all of those people to those hard ideals. I value the way my religion fosters them without extremism or exalting purity of theory. I can find other reasons to adopt any I've listed now, but they weren't really taught as a closed set of axioms, and I think the value lies in fostering the emotional and social techniques that produce them.

In any event, my moral positions are not any more "immutable" than yours.

[Faithkills]

I'll address the rest later but this was a gem.

What helpful advice. I will bear it in mind. Perhaps you could bear in mind that I can only see the actual words you put on the page, and have to fill in the rest based on what I infer about your position from your style.

Your suggestion is plausible. To me it rests on the idea that without religion there would be no other vectors for widespread prejudice, though. I disagree.

In two contiguous paragraphs you mock me for suggesting you stop the strawman crap after advising you I have made no absolute assertions, clarifying exaclty what those absolute positions were not, and then, in the very next paragraph, you do it again.

WTH is with theists? I mean seriously WTF. Does this work on your peers? Or is dissent so much more suppressed than I ever imagined that you simply have no idea how this all works? Are you really this ignorant or do you think we are?

Don't do this anymore. Your credibility is being damaged. Stop.

If you want to engage in a discussion that is great.

But if you really think that crap works, you are not going to be happy:)

I reread this before I clicked the post button, because it just seemed implausible you would make this post, but no. You did. Heh.

[articulett]

Faithkills:

Yeah, Beth's argument pretty much amounts to, "argument from popularity shouldn't be a fallacy".

So the earth was flat when the majority of humans assumed it was? All that believing can't go wrong--right?

[articulett]

Epeos... you've been drawn to reasons that "validate" religion while excluding your beliefs from the damages that faith does.

Religion is spread like chain letters and Santa... only on a much grander scale-- rewards are promised to those of faith who "spread the word", and doubting is seen as a sin... a reason for punishment. And then there's eternal damnation... even Pascal could be convinced to believe "just in case". People believe because they are told god is true by trusting authority figures when they are kid and inculcated with a fear of doubting. What else is new. Regimes, cults, and religions, have been using stuff like this for years... and as a bonus, they encourage their members to go forth and multiply and begin instilling the indoctrination memes on the gullible genes from birth. The most successful religions spread themselves with this simple start... bonus if you get people to feel indebted for eternity and afraid to ask questions... extra bonus if converting others is encouraged and you get to feel super special or "chosen" for believing...

Humans have always been good at mind games... the ones that are the best at it often spread their genes and memes the furthest.

My contention is that all religions are like all other religions is regards to truth... and all religions are like every other woo in regards to truth. You have yet to show why yours isn't. Or why any religion isn't.

[Mobyseven]

So the earth was flat when the majority of humans assumed it was? All that believing can't go wrong--right?

Oh, what, now you're one of those 'round earth' crazies? Go tell that bs to Rincewald why doncha?

[epeos76]

MobySeven, no worries at all. You really raised the bar, and I'll try to keep up.

I'd like to talk about your substantive point too, but it will have to wait on real life.


[quote=Mobyseven;3459707]

Kaylee is too damn cute for words. And I had a weird moment...

[quote]

She is. Isn't that other woman the villian in that episode? That would be weird.

[Mobyseven]

MobySeven, no worries at all. You really raised the bar, and I'll try to keep up.

I'd like to talk about your substantive point too, but it will have to wait on real life.

Mmmm...real life is tricky that way. I'll be moving back to college for uni on the 1st of March...I'm not sure whether that means I'll be posting more, or less... :p

Take your time. It's teh interwebs, so there's no real rush.



Kaylee is too damn cute for words. And I had a weird moment...



She is. Isn't that other woman the villian in that episode? That would be weird.

Yeah. She is. And then she shows up again in a later episode (I was sick yesterday, spent the day watching Firefly. Only two episodes left...)

I've texted my friend who's seen the whole series, just to make sure that no other ex-girlfriends show up in the finale. She said all of them do, and gave me some 3D glasses.

I'm worried, to say the least.

[articulett]

Oh, what, now you're one of those 'round earth' crazies? Go tell that bs to Rincewald why doncha?

I'm agnostic about the shape of the earth.

[Mobyseven]

I'm agnostic about the shape of the earth.

And I'm unable to remember a simple name like "Rincewind". Such is life.

[articulett]

I'm agnostic about names like Rincewald and Rincewind. I don't believe anyone can truly know which one is correct.

[Mobyseven]

I'm agnostic about names like Rincewald and Rincewind. I don't believe anyone can truly know which one is correct.

*Mobyseven goes and checks Terry Pratchett books...

No, it's definitely Rincewind.

:p

[rocketdodger]

What now? We have to be taught lots of behaviors and beliefs. Tooth brushing, for example. I don't think that makes tooth brushing a mind virus. In fact, I don't think the concept of addictive ideas is well defined.

I think a pretty canonical defintion would be ideas that include directives whose sole intent is to reinforce the acceptance of the idea.

Tooth brushing does not contain any such directives -- you brush your teeth because it cleans them.

Religion does contain such directives -- you believe (utter nonsense) because it convinces you it is wrong to not believe.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't know if you are still reading the thread, Beth, but this one is for you and the perception of red vs the evidence.

It took me 32 pages or so to find a more precise description of the difference between evidence and conclusion. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have mattered in this discussion, but it might make sense to you sometime in the future. However, I'm glad we had the discussion because it sharpened my own understanding of the difference between the evidence and the conclusion.

So let me sum it up one last time with the better understanding I have, and a new example that could help clarify it for you as well.

I believe your position is, if you trust your senses when you see something red, then you should be able to trust your senses when you sense god. Seeing red is therefore evidence of red, so sensing god is evidence of god.

What we've been trying to tell you is what the person senses is the evidence, but what it is evidence of is not evidence of god. The underlying question is, which thing is the evidence and which thing is the conclusion?

You then gave an example where the conclusion was likely to be correct, seeing red. And you surmise then, that if the person is capable of drawing the correct conclusion seeing red, they must (or might) be capable of drawing the correct conclusion about sensing god.

But here is where your reasoning breaks down. You conclude that since red (the evidence) is evidence of red, then experience the person has(the evidence) is evidence of god.

In both cases you have evidence, the red thing and the experience. In both cases you have the conclusion, one sees red, one senses god respectively. But in neither case is the conclusion the evidence. In the case of the conclusion a thing is red because it looks red, the color of the thing is still the evidence. Whether or not the conclusion the thing is red is correct is dependent upon one's sensory input and neuro processing. But regardless, the evidence is still the red thing and the interpretation it is red is still the conclusion.

The red thing is only evidence of being red, if the conclusion is correct.

Take a look at the following science blog examining the visual sensory system of the brain. The anatomy of an illusion -- and what it tells us about the visual system (http://www.scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/02/what_illusions_tell_us_about_t.php).


After you digest that interesting article, then think about your other request of how it is one provides evidence of something like a god that doesn't have a physical presence? The answer is you don't. Evidence is a physical thing. It exists. If it is not a physical thing, then people believe in it but there is no evidence for it.

One can dissect the neuro sensory system in a person. If there was to be evidence there that the conclusion an experience was indeed initiated by a god, then one would need to find evidence, first, confirming that such an experience actually occurred and was consistent from person to person. Meaning one would need to show exactly what occurred physically in the brain that was being triggered by the god. If nothing was found, then you have no evidence.

Then, if something was found, you would still need physical evidence a god triggered the experience.

In the case of the red evidence, we have the red thing. In the case of the god experience, we only have the conclusion. There is no thing which is evidence of gods. There is no evidence for gods regardless that some people conclude they have some kind of god experience.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So no one has an answer other than "I believe in my God, so He is the Right One"?

Not too surprised.

:rolleyes:

[HghrSymmetry]

Correct.
After centuries and millennia of building temples, churches, mosques and countless wars, torturing, and printing of billions of books on the subject we're left with..........(drum roll please)........................................... .................................................. .............
.
.
.
.
.
(no evidence).

[articulett]

... or maybe you could say evidence on par with what a schizophrenic would give for their delusion confirmed by lots of people who sound like they may share a similar nebulous delusion... thus lending pseudo veracity to their own delusion.

sort of like a conspiracy theory, but "nice" and more vague.

[HghrSymmetry]

(a fine alternative)

[Piscivore]

And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.
Hello! :)

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence,

This could get a little tricky. The experience is the means by which you detect the evidence. The red thing is still the evidence.
No, it isn't. Let me diagram it for you:

(O+P) = D
D + X + Y + Z +?... = E
E => C

Where:
O is the object, The red thing (let's call it a chair, just to forgo using "thing" so much). it could also be an event, of course. A volcano eruption, an EEG scan, etc.
P is the perceiver, the one who experiences the object. It could be you, me, Claus, a video camera, a little green Cthulhiod, a sex robot, or any number of scientific instruments.
D is the Data, the experience. This could be seeing the chair, or having an emotional reaction, or smelling a nice plate of salmon as it greedily dissapears into the fat guy in the next booth.
X,Y,Z and ? are all the supplemental bits of data that may be needed to correlate and corraborate with Mr. D. These would include repeatability, reproducability, statistical analysis, and all the other elements of the scientific method, as needed.
E is the evidence.
C is the conclusion.

What you seem to be proposing is taking out P, D, and X etc. and just going straight to O = E. It doesn't work that way. "Evidence" unobserved is not evidence. I can't claim that there are fossil bones undiscovered that conclusively prove my family evolved from squid. I can't say the chair I've never seen is red. The invisible unicorn no one can detect cannot be used as evidence that invisble unicorns are pink. Something has to observe O before it can be evidence, and even then it might not be enough evidence.

Contrariwise, your statements that the experiences Beth mentioned are not evidence seems to mean you are working backward:

C [There is no god possible] => D [the feeling god is real] = ((O [god] + P [the person feeling])-O [god]) because C

That is wrong in so many ways. More accurately, we should be looking at it like this:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real]

P experienced something, but whether it is god or not is as yet undetermined. This is where I see Beth going wrong, thusly:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real] => C [O = god]

That's unwarranted. While D is evidence that something exists, it needs X etc. to corroborate what it is before we can get to C, Because sometime D can be misleading. I might see a red chair but have a vision problem such that every other observer sees a blue one. I might see a red chair, but be hallucinating and not see it tomorrow. I might have a feeling of intense peace and euphoria because I was touched by god, had a stroke, or someone slipped me LSD.

For example, when you observe the checkerboard optical illusion (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) one light square in the shadow is really the same shade of gray as one dark square not in the shadow. In this case your experience is faulty, but the evidence does not change.

What you are saying here is:
(O + P) = D
((D = C) or (D =/= C)) => (O = E).

That doesn't work. The error correcting mechanism for perception error is repeatability and reproducability, not stipulating that what you think (or are told) something is is the evidence. Which you seem to imply- how does one discover in this case that what is perceived is in error? Appeal to authority? Or observation by other means?

I hope that's clear.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What you seem to be proposing is taking out P, D, and X etc. and just going straight to O = E. It doesn't work that way.

Agreed. Very good post. I have to tell also that this formula can be applied to everything we want, but that's subject for a whole thread I guess.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is not a good post and it is not logical logic.

Define evidence for me Piscivore.

Have you heard the saying you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts?

You aren't even looking at the same thing here that is being discussed when you make up something called 'data' as if it differed from 'evidence'.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on. But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence. So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.

Try again.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

First of all, excuse me for not reading the thread, I will just give my opinion in this specific point.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on. But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence. So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.

The thing as it is "in itself" (if such thing is even logical to express) is not what we observe. What we observe is a construct, made by our perceptions, memory and culture.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.

It is not a red thing unless it is seen by someone who can spot (and conceptualize) red. The key here is that there are not "red things", red is a color, and a color is part of perception. Sure, what causes red is beyond subjectivity, it is an objective component of reality, and it can be described as having a particular wavelength and so on.. but it is not red unless it is red to someone.

In other words. Red REQUIRES US (note that I say us and not a perceiver, or a consciousness or mentioned any qualia). Why us? Because red is part of a culture ("red", "color", "things that are red", "redness", are relational concepts, not stuff outside us).

[Beth]

Hello! :)

This is where I see Beth going wrong, thusly:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real] => C [O = god]

That's unwarranted. While D is evidence that something exists, it needs X etc. to corroborate what it is before we can get to C, Because sometime D can be misleading. I might see a red chair but have a vision problem such that every other observer sees a blue one. I might see a red chair, but be hallucinating and not see it tomorrow. I might have a feeling of intense peace and euphoria because I was touched by god, had a stroke, or someone slipped me LSD.



Thanks for the great post. I quite agree with the above. I'm never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's. If other people find the evidence convincing, well, that's also a reasonable conclusion for certain concepts of an non-material god - such as yours. Good luck convincing sg about that though.

[Piscivore]

Define evidence for me Piscivore.
ev·i·dence (http://www.answers.com/evidence&r=67)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
However, there's a problem with this definition- "thing".

Thing is perhaps the worse word in the English language. It can be used to refer to just about anything. This dictionary alone has nineteen different senses for it. As I said to Alric in the other thread, English is great for art because of this ambiguity, but lousy for accuracy. You seem to want "thing" to mean the object. That's understandable, one of the first uses anyone learns for "thing" is as a referent to an object.

But as I said, a "thing" undetected cannot be used for evidence. You can't take a murder weapon no one's found into a courtroom as evidence, you cannot cite the measurements of a phenomenon you didn't make in a scientific paper. The chair in a locked room you haven't seen cannot be evidence for "red" because you don't know what colour it is in the first place. The broken window in the dictionary is just a broken window until somebody sees it, and puts it in context of the burglary. Otherwise, it might as well be evidence of an errant baseball or a windstorm. It's all the same to the window. "Evidence" is a human judgement that has no meaning to the universe at large.

Have you heard the saying you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts?
Quite so. Do you have evidence that this is only my opinion? :)

You aren't even looking at the same thing here that is being discussed when you make up something called 'data' as if it differed from 'evidence'.
I didn't make up "data", skeptigirl.
da·ta (http://www.answers.com/data&r=67)
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum (sense 1).

Sense one and sense three are the important ones here. Watch what happens when we make a couple of substitutions:
ev·i·dence
n.
1. Factual information helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
ev·i·dence
n.
1. Values derived from scientific experiments helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment
That's a whole hell of a lot less ambiguous, isn't it? It also eliminates a lot of nonsense, like unrepeatable phenomenon, or subjective opinion, from the definition of "evidence"- because if it is to be factual information (at least under a scientific framework) it has to be verified by repeatability, reproducibility, falsifiability, etc. Exactly as I said before.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on.
What is it if it is not observed, measured and so on?

But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence.
Whoever said it did? What I said was that observations of an object (what you are here calling evidence) is not meaningful or helpful to the conclusion or judgment (which are also soley human judgements) unless it is observed.

So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.
Quite so. Never said it did. The reason you are thinking I did is because you are making the mistake that "evidence" is an inherent quality in an object. It isn't.

Funnily, this is exactly the same mistake plumjam makes about the "aesthetic value" of art.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.
Of course not. but it does affect the observation of the object. Can the colourblind man ever come to the conclusion the chair is red, no matter how often he repeats the test? How then is the chair itself evidence?

Try again.
Likewise. :)

ETA: One of my older dictionaries defines "evidence" as "That which demonstrates a fact is so". Much better, but leaves out the word "helps".

[Piscivore]

Thanks for the great post.
Thank you. :)
I quite agree with the above. I'm never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing.
Then I misread, I'm sorry. I didn't read the whole thread, just the last few posts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, I stated over and over that the degree of certainty in Beth's "evidence" has never been part of the discussion. She continues to not understand that point which has been discussed in detail over and over in this thread.

The point has always been that "a feeling" is evidence of "a feeling". Because you believe that feeling is evidence of god does not make it evidence of god. That would be akin to saying because you believe your dream about a unicorn is real, the dream is evidence unicorns are real.

And now you, Piscivore, are either as confused as Beth or are unwittingly reinforcing her misconceptions about the difference between a conclusion and evidence and the fact conclusions are not evidence (unless you are talking about evidence about conclusions themselves).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh Noes!!

This thread has been resuscitated. Well -- not that I'm actually sure it had any life in the first case.

Now I'll have to start wading through the wordage in the faint hope the question in the OP may just have a rational answer. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I didn't make up "data", skeptigirl.You are making up a definition of data that only includes data that is observed. But with the exception of some things in quantum physics, the evidence we are discussing exists regardless of whether or not it is observed. We know that because different people can observe it at different times.

...What is it if it is not observed, measured and so on?The same as if it is.


...Whoever said it did? What I said was that observations of an object (what you are here calling evidence) is not meaningful or helpful to the conclusion or judgment (which are also soley human judgements) unless it is observed.Unless you have the philosophy that we are living in the Matrix, then things exist whether observed or not.

...Quite so. Never said it did. The reason you are thinking I did is because you are making the mistake that "evidence" is an inherent quality in an object. It isn't.This is where you are making your definition of data into something other than evidence. We are arguing semantics. You are wrong, but it is a semantic error and not the same error Beth is making.

...Funnily, this is exactly the same mistake plumjam makes about the "aesthetic value" of art.I doubt it. I'll have to see later what error he makes that you are referring to.


...Of course not. but it does affect the observation of the object. Can the colourblind man ever come to the conclusion the chair is red, no matter how often he repeats the test? How then is the chair itself evidence? Yes. Easily. Because there are many ways to measure the evidence of color. There is the electromagnetic wavelength.

..ETA: One of my older dictionaries defines "evidence" as "That which demonstrates a fact is so". Much better, but leaves out the word "helps".

ETA: One of my older dictionaries defines "evidence" as "That which demonstrates a fact is so". Much better, but leaves out the word "helps".In this discussion, evidence is being used as it is used in science.

Try the Wiki discussion of evidence rather than a dictionary discussion.Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable. The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as policy, scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.


You add the step of observation but the evidence exists without being observed. One of the key features about evidence is it is the basis of conclusions so if a conclusion is wrong, the evidence is not.

[Piscivore]

You are making up a definition of data that only includes data that is observed.
No, that's not quite what I said. I said data was obtained when an object (a thing, an even, a phenomenon) is observed.

But with the exception of some things in quantum physics, the evidence we are discussing exists regardless of whether or not it is observed.
No, the object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed. The object cannot be evidence if it is not oberved. Look at what you say in this very post- you agree with me:

We know that because different people can observe it at different times.
Because there are many ways to measure the evidence of color.
See? You cannot talk about the objective existence of something without refering to it as an observed phenomenon, or resorting to unreason. Faith, for example.

The same as if it is.
Then why did you say "evidence must be observed, measured and so on" if it exists inherently as evidence, regardless if it is observed or not?

Unless you have the philosophy that we are living in the Matrix, then things exist whether observed or not.
I never said things unobserved ceased to exist. I said the object cannot be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion if it is unobserved.

This is where you are making your definition of data into something other than evidence.
I specifically said that data was not evidence, but an element of evidence. So do the dictionaries. You're making the error that objects, data, and evidence are all equivalent terms. They are not.

We are arguing semantics. You are wrong, but it is a semantic error and not the same error Beth is making.
Well, since the "semantics" underpins the entire logical basis of the discussion, it's not just a meaningless triviality. Not every discussion of "semantics" is nitpicking.

In this discussion, evidence is being used as it is used in science.
Indeed.

Try the Wiki discussion of evidence rather than a dictionary discussion.
anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
That's the same as what I offered. Further, your link says:
Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.
...thus 'evidence' is a social construction.
In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world,
...which is exactly what I've been saying.

The only place in that link that mentions "evidence" as a physical object is in the "Evidence in Law" section.

You add the step of observation but the evidence exists without being observed.
You can keep saying that, but you've offered no evidence it is true. In fact, you've done the opposite.

One of the key features about evidence is it is the basis of conclusions so if a conclusion is wrong, the evidence is not.
That's just madness. How does one use objective, immutable evidence to come to a wrong conclusion? How does one determine that a conclusion is incorrect if all the evidence is incapable of being incorrect?

You are way out in woo-land here. There's no difference between your concept of "evidence" and certain versions of god, that I can tell:
Evidence is eternal.
Evidence is unchangable.
Evidence is an inherent quality of every physical object in the universe.
Evidence exists even if it is never detected.
Evidence influences conclusions even if it is never detected.
Evidence is never incorrect.
If the conclusion is incorrect, the evidence is correct.

That's not scientific. It is just bizarre.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You add the step of observation but the evidence exists without being observed.

err. Lets try to clear things up. Correct me if you do not agree.

An object is:

1) a separate entity
2) it existence is independent of observers
3) has different characteristics which are not affected by observers

Among such characteristics we can find:

a) shape
b) color
c) evidence

Is this what you say?

[Beth]

Thank you. :)

Then I misread, I'm sorry. I didn't read the whole thread, just the last few posts.

No problem, I just wanted to clear up the misconception. It was much earlier in the thread. Also, I've stated repeatedly that such evidence doesn't meet scientific standards. I have no argument with that stance and it's why I find the athiest position completely rational and defensible even if I don't share the belief that the conclusion that no gods exist is inevitable for any rational skeptical person.

Good luck with skeptigirl. You're explanations are better than mine and while I can type (sort of) with 9 fingers, it will remain painfully slow for a few weeks yet. Perhaps you can convince her that testimony regarding observations is evidence. I couldn't.

[Piscivore]

...while I can type (sort of) with 9 fingers, it will remain painfully slow for a few weeks yet.

Yeah, sorry to hear about that, by the bye. I hope you heal quickly.

[I Ratant]

I've come to the conclusion that there not being any real positive evidence that anyone's god is THE god, the reason for the strife between beliefs is that if I get rid of all those who believe differently, then I'm right.
Almost Darwinian. :)
Of course the idea that as all religions can't be right, but all of them most certainly can be wrong, can't be entertained.
It's the killing of the others that bothers me the most.
I have no problems with other people having ideas different from mine, but Lordy, don't make me have to swallow yours!
It's like swinging your arms. You can do that up until your arm intersects my nose.
Then you've gone too far.
Why is this restriction on what you can do to others not observed, despite its incorporation into most belief systems as some form of the Golden Rule?
If you want to know where Mecca is before you squat so your butt isn't "facing" that way, fine, but don't bother me because I don't care how the toilet is oriented, and see that condition as totally superficial, unworthy of consideration, much less killing for.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh Noes!!

This thread has been resuscitated. Well -- not that I'm actually sure it had any life in the first case.

Now I'll have to start wading through the wordage in the faint hope the question in the OP may just have a rational answer. :DNo need. There is no answer.

Piscivore was discussing the difference between conclusions and evidence and we didn't want to hijack the thread it came up in. I told him Beth and I had a long discussion on it here. Seemed a shame to waste all those posts and start a new thread.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh in and help me explain the difference between conclusions and evidence though? ;)

[Skeptic Ginger]

err. Lets try to clear things up. Correct me if you do not agree.

An object is:

1) a separate entity
2) it existence is independent of observers
3) has different characteristics which are not affected by observers

Among such characteristics we can find:

a) shape
b) color
c) evidence

Is this what you say?Yes. And the problem here with Piscivore is he is defining evidence as the observation while I am defining it as the entity. It's just a semantics issue with the definition of evidence and not really worth too much discussion.

Beth, OTOH, is claiming that a feeling (or something of that nature) is evidence of God if the person believes the feeling is a god generated sensation. Beth is arguing a different matter and is incorrect. The feeling is evidence of a feeling. It is not evidence of god. Her argument is that because one has learned that a specific neurosensory input correctly registers color, that means one can claim innate knowledge that a different neurosensory input is registering god. But the fact you see red is not evidence red exists. You can believe you see red when an object is not red. So your neurosensory input registering the sensation of red is not evidence of red. The red thing is the evidence. And you had to learn what that input was before you could say it was red. So just believing a sensation is evidence of god since we have no physical god we can verify your conclusion with, is not evidence of god. A conclusion is not evidence.

And because a conclusion is not evidence, Piscivore's definition that the conclusion is the evidence is also wrong but for a different reason than Beth's error.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No problem, I just wanted to clear up the misconception. It was much earlier in the thread. Also, I've stated repeatedly that such evidence doesn't meet scientific standards. I have no argument with that stance and it's why I find the athiest position completely rational and defensible even if I don't share the belief that the conclusion that no gods exist is inevitable for any rational skeptical person.

Good luck with skeptigirl. You're explanations are better than mine and while I can type (sort of) with 9 fingers, it will remain painfully slow for a few weeks yet. Perhaps you can convince her that testimony regarding observations is evidence. I couldn't.His explanations are not better, Beth, he is saying something completely different than you are. See the above post.

But I am bothered that I have told you repeatedly scientific standards and/or quality has nothing to do with this. You keep resorting to that excuse and by doing so never address the real problem with your rationale.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, that's not quite what I said. I said data was obtained when an object (a thing, an even, a phenomenon) is observed.

No, the object exists regardless of whether or not it is observed. The object cannot be evidence if it is not oberved. Look at what you say in this very post- you agree with me:This is just semantics, Piscivore, so let me try a different approach. What is the 'thing' then if the evidence is the observation? Do you not observe the evidence? What are you observing if the observation itself is the evidence?

That's just madness. How does one use objective, immutable evidence to come to a wrong conclusion? How does one determine that a conclusion is incorrect if all the evidence is incapable of being incorrect?Are you serious? If 10 people view the evidence in a trial, will they all report the same thing on the witness stand?

If 10 people view an object from different angles, can they come to different conclusions about what they are viewing?

You are way out in woo-land here. There's no difference between your concept of "evidence" and certain versions of god, that I can tell:
Evidence is eternal.
Evidence is unchangable.
Evidence is an inherent quality of every physical object in the universe.
Evidence exists even if it is never detected.
Evidence influences conclusions even if it is never detected.
Evidence is never incorrect.
If the conclusion is incorrect, the evidence is correct.

That's not scientific. It is just bizarre.I think the problem here is what you think the word evidence means. Substitute the word 'conclusion' for the word 'evidence' in your above statements and the statements make sense. How you find the words 'conclusion' and 'evidence' to be synonymous however makes no sense.

See the Thesaurus entry for 'conclusion' here. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conclusion) I don't see 'evidence' in there anywhere, except "conclusion took the evidence into account" and "conclusive evidence" which is a link to another entry.

For evidence (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence) we have1. A thing or things helpful in forming a 'conclusion'And no where in the thesaurus entry is 'conclusion' synonymous with 'evidence'.

The word 'evidence' is no where to be found under the entry for 'observation' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/observation).

[articulett]

Piscivore--

When people claim to have "proof" that god is real (an inner knowingness) or that they astrally traveled or that they saw a ghost or that Sylvia Browned "knew" something that she couldn't have known if she wasn't really psychic...

Is that evidence of what they believe it's evidence for? Skepticgirl is saying evidence of god tends to be like evidence that "astrology works"-- it's confirmation bias, noticing the hits, and finding signs and lots of anecdotal evidence. This may be "evidence" to someone who wants to believe... but it certainly is not evidence of what they "believe in" to someone interested in the objective truth-- the reality that is the same no matter who believes what.

Tom Cruise can point to his stellar success to prove that Scientology is true. His stellar success may be evidence of something... it is NOT evidence that Scientology is true. This is on par with god beliefs and demon beliefs isn't it?

[Piscivore]

This is just semantics, Piscivore,
Maybe so, but as I said in the part of my post you glossed over, "semantics" isn't always a triviality. "I ran over to my son" is not the same as "I ran over my son". "Dog bites man" means something very different than "Man bites dog"- even if it is just a tiny semantic difference betweeen the sentences.

so let me try a different approach. What is the 'thing' then if the evidence is the observation?
Well, you are not listening fully, because the observation is not the evidence, either. The observation is an element of the evidence. That's a semantic, but imortant difference, otherwise every flawed, subjective experience would be useful in coming to a conclusion. I've explained why this is not so in the parts of my posts you seem to be glossing over.

What are you observing if the observation itself is the evidence?
The observation is not the evidence, as I said, but what is observed is the object (which, as I explained, I am using to mean a thing, an event, or a ny sort of observable phenomenon).

Do you not observe the evidence?
Are you serious? If 10 people view the evidence in a trial, will they all report the same thing on the witness stand?
Well, two things. In both these statements you seem to have switched from the scientific usage of the word "evidence", to which you linked and which you also declared you wished to use- to the legal sense of the word. In a courtroom, "evidence" can indeed be used to refer to an object, but this is a colloquial, non-scientific use of the word evidence.

In a courtroom, a bloody knife will be called "evidence'. But the bloody knife itself is just a forged piece of steel with a thin coating of organic molecules. It needs a a human to evaluate the blood, whose blood it is, whose knife it is, what the scrapes on the blade signify, where it was found and how it got there to become evidence. CSI Grissom can't walk into court with any old bloody knife he pulls out of his pocket and declare the defendant a murderer, can he?

If 10 people view an object from different angles, can they come to different conclusions about what they are viewing?

Secondly, of course observation can be flawed. I explained that in the very large secion of my post that you ignored. Go give it another look.

I think the problem here is what you think the word evidence means. Substitute the word 'conclusion' for the word 'evidence' in your above statements and the statements make sense. Those statments were nothing to do with what I think evidence means. None of them. they are all contrary to the defintion of "evidence" used by me, the dictionaries I've read, and science as I understand it. Do any of those those statements correlate to your understanding of "evidence" If those statements do reflect qualities you think evidence posesses, how did you come to understand these things?

I gave my defintion, you gave the one you said you wanted to use, the defintions agreed with each other, but then you use the word in ways incompatible with any of them. And that useage doesn't match any definition or useage of the word with which I am familiar, nor does it appear in any dictionary or scientific text I've read.

And no, substituting the word "conclusion" for the word "evidence" in those statements does not make sense. If anything, they are even more bizarre and unscientific. That you even could think they make sense does not speak well for your understanding.

How you find the words 'conclusion' and 'evidence' to be synonymous however makes no sense.
Well, since I don't find the words "conclusion" and "evidence" to be synonymous, and have never have claimed they are synonymous, I think that accounts for it not making sense. It makes no sense to me how you come to that conclusion. I don't see how anyone actually reading my posts could do so, as I've specifically said otherwise.

The word 'evidence' is no where to be found under the entry for 'observation' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/observation).
Quite so, because observations are not themselves evidence, and not all observations can be used to produce evidence.

Go back and look at the parts of my posts you skimmed over. The understanding you seek is there.

[Piscivore]

Piscivore--

When people claim to have "proof" that god is real (an inner knowingness) or that they astrally traveled or that they saw a ghost or that Sylvia Browned "knew" something that she couldn't have known if she wasn't really psychic...

Is that evidence of what they believe it's evidence for?
No. As I explained, at some length, the observaion (if it even existed in the first place, people lie) would just be an observation.
(O [something that caused the experience, possibly an emotional experience] + P) [the person having the experience]) = D [an experience interpreted as "inner knowingness"]
(O [something that caused the experience, possibly an neurological imbalance] + P) [the person having the experience]) [b]= D[/bI] [an experience interpreted as "astral travel"]
(O [something that caused the experience, possibly paraideola or a dream] + P) [the person having the experience]) = D [an experience interpreted as "seeing a ghost"]
(O [something that caused the experience, possibly (probably) Sylvia Browne using cold reading techniques] + P) [the person having the experience]) = D [an experience interpreted as "Sylvia Brown having knowledge she couldn't"]

Note of these things are evidence yet, as I explained at length earlier. They must be vetted by repeatablity, reproducability, and the rest of the scientific method, and supported by other similarly vetted pieces of data (observations) before they can be used to determine a conclusion- in otherwords, be evidence.

Skepticgirl is saying evidence of god tends to be like evidence that "astrology works"-- it's confirmation bias, noticing the hits, and finding signs and lots of anecdotal evidence.
But those things aren't evidence, are they? Just because the people offering them say they are evidence does not make them so. maybe this is where skepticgirl's disturbing idea of what evidence is comes from- she's trying to fit the defintion to whatever cock-eyed useage anyone claims. That doesn't work.

This may be "evidence" to someone who wants to believe... but it certainly is not evidence of what they "believe in" to someone interested in the objective truth-- the reality that is the same no matter who believes what.
I don't disagree, but none of this means that "evidence" is the thing observed.

Tom Cruise can point to his stellar success to prove that Scientology is true. His stellar success may be evidence of something... it is NOT evidence that Scientology is true.
I don't disagree.

This is on par with god beliefs and demon beliefs isn't it?
No, because one (Tom Cruise's career success) is a single data point, an observation vetted by repeatability and reproduceability. That isn't the same as a conclusion (beliefs about gods and demons (you really like those demons, don't you :))).

Unless one decides to just lump them all together using the subjective quality "things with which I do not agree", but that would be a mistake.

ETA: I think where you and skepticgirl and I are running afoul is that we both recognise that the "god evidence" presented as being faulty, but are ascribing different reasons for that fault. I see the "god evidence' as faulty because it fails the basic defintion of evidence. It seems to me that the two of you see the "god evidence' as faulty for some other reason, and I hope it isn't because you've already decided that "gods cannot exist".

[I Ratant]

I see the "god evidence' as faulty because it fails the basic definition of evidence. It seems to me that the two of you see the "god evidence' as faulty for some other reason,
.
Some see god's existence all over the place.
Springtime is certainly a manifestation of something bringing out life where it was formerly not present.
Others look a bit deeper beyond the appearance and wonder why these things occur, and look for supportable reasons which fit other situations without invoking any poofery as an explanation.

[Piscivore]

.
Some see god's existence all over the place.
Are they right or wrong because what they consider "evidence" agrees or not with the definition of evidence, or becuse it about god?

Springtime is certainly a manifestation of something bringing out life where it was formerly not present.

Others look a bit deeper beyond the appearance and wonder why these things occur, and look for supportable reasons which fit other situations without invoking any poofery as an explanation.
Indeed.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No need. There is no answer.

Piscivore was discussing the difference between conclusions and evidence and we didn't want to hijack the thread it came up in. I told him Beth and I had a long discussion on it here. Seemed a shame to waste all those posts and start a new thread.

Perhaps you'd like to weigh in and help me explain the difference between conclusions and evidence though? ;)

Thanks for the kind invitation. I do know the answer between conclusions and evidence, though. It's: SEMANTICS.

In meantime I'll let articulett speak for me. :D And wait patiently -- just in case some one does come up with a reply. :boggled:

[articulett]

I like demons because people tend to be agnostic about gods but not demons though they both are nebulous things that involve invisible immeasurable entities without material brains. As far as I can tell, the "evidence" for both is equal. It's all equally subjective and unverifiable. And yet people aren't usually "on the fence" about belief in demons.

I would say that whatever evidence people are using to prove demons (possessed children, bad events, aberrant behavior, etc.) is on par with the same evidence they use to prove god. I don't think any of it is actual evidence for which people claim it is evidence for. I don't think there is any evidence or reason to believe that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain, and that makes all such entities equally likely to be "real" --and all the evidence equally useless as evidence. We'd have to prove the possibility of such a thing, before we could label it gods, ghosts, souls, demons, thetans, incubi, houris, angels or anything else.

Until there is evidence that consciousness can exist outside the brain, all such beliefs are as unsupported as the claim "some psychics are real" or "I had a psychic experience" or "there are ghosts". Just because it goes by the name "god" and more people "believe in" it or feel like it's good to believe in such a thing, doesn't make it more likely to be real nor should anyone else take such evidence as evidence for what people think it's evidence for.

God is not a warranted inference from any evidence at this point; in the same way demons are not a warranted inference. The same reason that people don't believe in other gods or explain other people believing in the wrong things... should also be used to explain away their own gods if they were logically consistent.

As I said, I use "demons" because, like god, it's a nebulously defined term that lots of people believe in or have believed in to some extent or another. They fear them and protect against them... People tend to think their god belief is more "logical" than "demon belief" but they cannot verbalize why. And I think that is because it is NOT more logical. It just "feels" better.

[Piscivore]

Thanks for the kind invitation. I do know the answer between conclusions and evidence, though. It's: SEMANTICS.
If by "SEMANTICS" you mean DEFINITONS, BECAUSE THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS then yes, that's the difference.

"SEMANTICS" gets bandied about frequently as if it were a synonym for "trivial", but it isn't. What it actually means is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." So yes, the difference between evidence and conclusion is the meaning or the interpretation of the words. But that's not a trivial difference.

[Piscivore]

I like demons because people tend to be agnostic about gods but not demons though they both are nebulous things that involve invisible immeasurable entities without material brains. As far as I can tell, the "evidence" for both is equal. It's all equally subjective and unverifiable. And yet people aren't usually "on the fence" about belief in demons.

As I said, I use "demons" because, like god, it's a nebulously defined term that lots of people believe in or have believed in to some extent or another. They fear them and protect against them... People tend to think their god belief is more "logical" than "demon belief" but they cannot verbalize why. And I think that is because it is NOT more logical. It just "feels" better.
That's great, but that was only a sidebar to my main point, and not an important one. Do you have any comment on the rest of the post?

I would say that whatever evidence people are using to prove demons (possessed children, bad events, aberrant behavior, etc.) is on par with the same evidence they use to prove god.
Why?

I don't think any of it is actual evidence for which people claim it is evidence for.
That's fine. What led you to that conclusion?

I don't think there is any evidence or reason to believe that consciousness of any sort can exist absent a brain,
That's what I understand as well.

and that makes all such entities equally likely to be "real"...
I don't see how that extrapolation is warranted. Just because a horse is a mammal doesn't make all animals mammals.

--and all the evidence equally useless as evidence.
Right here we are back to you sounding like you've come to a conclusion and so all evidence to the contrary is automatically invalidated. Is that what you're saying?

We'd have to prove the possibility of such a thing, before we could label it gods, ghosts, souls, demons, thetans, incubi, houris, angels or anything else.
I think before even attempting to "prove" anything we would first need to determine what exactly our hypothesis is. I acknowledge that most theists try to work the process backwards, but that does not justify ourselves taking shortcuts or leaps of assumption in turn.

Until there is evidence that consciousness can exist outside the brain, all such beliefs are as unsupported as the claim "some psychics are real" or "I had a psychic experience" or "there are ghosts". Just because it goes by the name "god" and more people "believe in" it or feel like it's good to believe in such a thing, doesn't make it more likely to be real nor should anyone else take such evidence as evidence for what people think it's evidence for.

God is not a warranted inference from any evidence at this point; in the same way demons are not a warranted inference. The same reason that people don't believe in other gods or explain other people believing in the wrong things... should also be used to explain away their own gods if they were logically consistent.

This looks like you are slipping into another, previous discussion. The only point I was addressing thus far in this thread was the nature of evidence. Did you have any comment on what I wrote with regards to that?

[articulett]

I guess I hear you saying that there is more evidence or more valid evidence for a belief in god than for a belief in demons. Beth says that too. I just never hear what it is... it sounds like semantic games. It sounds to me like people want to believe that whatever god they believe in however nebulously defined is morel likely to be true because of (insert lame evidence that they would never use to believe in demons or other invisible entities) while all those other gods and invisible things are false because (insert reason that would make their own god disappear if subject to the same scrutiny.)

Why would someone be on the fence about one brand of invisible immeasurable poorly defined entity and not all the others? They just disbelieve in those others... they are fine saying there is no evidence for those other things. Why do people only find evidence for the invisible immeasurable entity they were indoctrinated to believe in?

Why is evidence for god... whatever it is you are defining as evidence-- of better caliber than the evidence people use to prove demons are real or that reincarnation is real. I don't see the evidence for god being more valid or useful or warranting the conclusion of "god". You seem to think that it is.

I see the stuff you are calling "evidence" for god as "confirmation bias" of the type people use to prove to themselves that various things they've come to believe are true. I wouldn't call it evidence for god anymore than craziness is evidence of demon possession.

Do you think that the belief or evidence for god (however you define god or evidence) is better than the evidence for demons (however you define demons or evidence). If so why? Do you think that the evidence for "god" is more valid than the evidence that "some people are truly psychic". If so, why? If you are more skeptical of one claim than the other-- why? Based on what "evidence" or lack of it?

[Piscivore]

Are you responding to my post? Because I don't see what any of that has to do with what I wrote. What is your opinon of what I explained about evidence? Do you argree with it? Do you think the same definition and standards of evidence should apply regardless of whichever proposition we are considering, or can some "evidences" be dismissed out of hand because we already know the subject to be "woo"?

I guess I hear you saying that there is more evidence or more valid evidence for a belief in god than for a belief in demons.
If you think I said that in this thread, you are greatly mistaken. You may be carrying over elements from the previous discussion we had, you may be reading elements into it from the previous discussion on this thread. Either way, the only topic my posts here addressed is the nature of what evidence is. Anything you think you see about gods and demons in my posts here isn't coming from me.

Beth says that too. I just never hear what it is... it sounds like semantic games.
(semantic = trivial) => dismiss?
That's a fallacy.

It sounds to me like people want to believe that whatever god they believe in however nebulously defined is morel likely to be true because of (insert lame evidence that they would never use to believe in demons or other invisible entities) while all those other gods and invisible things are false because (insert reason that would make their own god disappear if subject to the same scrutiny.)

Why would someone be on the fence about one brand of invisible immeasurable poorly defined entity and not all the others? They just disbelieve in those others... they are fine saying there is no evidence for those other things. Why do people only find evidence for the invisible immeasurable entity they were indoctrinated to believe in?

I see the stuff you are calling "evidence" for god as "confirmation bias" of the type people use to prove to themselves that various things they've come to believe are true. I wouldn't call it evidence for god anymore than craziness is evidence of demon possession.
This is a discussion you are having with someone else. It has no bearing on what I'm saying here.

Why is evidence for god... whatever it is you are defining as evidence-- of better caliber than the evidence people use to prove demons are real or that reincarnation is real.
I didn't say any such thing. All "evidence"- or better, all data that leads to evidence- is, in science, subject to the same scrutiny.

I don't see the evidence for god being more valid or useful or warranting the conclusion of "god".
I can see you don't. I asked you why. especially since you seem disinclined to consider it, dismissing it out of hand because it deals with "god", a concept with which you've already decided to disagree.

You seem to think that it is.
Is that because I used the word "god" to describe something I thought was a real phenomenon in another thread? Does that word automatically taint any other arguement I make from now on? Are you going to read or address these questions, or the previous ones, or are you just going to write a couple of more paragraphs outlining your assertions? Do you think assertion is valid evidence?

Do you think that the belief or evidence for god (however you define god or evidence) is better than the evidence for demons (however you define demons or evidence). If so why? Do you think that the evidence for "god" is more valid than the evidence that "some people are truly psychic". If so, why?
It depends on what that evidence is. I'm not going to prejudge it because I presently disagree with the hypothesis it purports to support.

If you are more skeptical of one claim than the other-- why?
I'd like to think I'm equally skeptical of all claims, including my own.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If by "SEMANTICS" you mean DEFINITONS, BECAUSE THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS then yes, that's the difference.

"SEMANTICS" gets bandied about frequently as if it were a synonym for "trivial", but it isn't. What it actually means is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." So yes, the difference between evidence and conclusion is the meaning or the interpretation of the words. But that's not a trivial difference.

As a follower of the imortal Alfred Korzybsk and his seminal General Semantics of course I mean "the two symbols have different referents". :D

[articulett]

I'm getting confused. But I don't agree with anyone's god concept or evidence for the same reason I don't believe in demons or psychic powers of any sort. I know these are common ways people fool themselves. That there are always better explanations and if there ever were any actual evidence, we'd be refining it and honing it like we do with DNA. I mean what could be more important than knowing whether some invisible something wanted us to believe in him for the sake of our eternity? What could be more important that proving that you "exist" after your brain dies or that some consciousness can exist without a brain? I understand why people could believe this, but I also understand why none of what they consider evidence for their beliefs constitutes evidence of what they believe.

I don't think all possibilities are equally likely. If actual evidence becomes available, it should be available to everyone... just like information about gravity and DNA and mental illness and so forth... I can safely assume all the evidence is of the confirmation bias type which is good, because there is no way to tell one woo belief from another... and it's easy to be fooled.

I guess I'm more in line with skeptic girl. I don't care how many people really believe that aliens are visiting them and would swear their life on it... that is not evidence of alien visitation. It may well be evidence of hypnogognic dreams, schizophrenia, or something else--but it is not evidence of alien visitation. I would say that there is similarly no evidence for god-- just the same sort of "certainty" and anecdote and feeling and nebulous immeasurable conviction.

I guess I"m saying that what you are calling evidence for "god" is not what I consider evidence for god. I don't have to examine each and every person's evidence to reach my conclusion. In the same way, I don't need to examine all psychics to claim they are all frauds. One psychic who can pass a scientific test, is all that is needed to disprove my belief. One piece of measurable replicable evidence that consciousness could exist absent a brain would be enough to warrant looking at evidence... but until there's evidence for that... there can be no evidence for god.

This makes your horse/mammal/analogy a false analogy. All gods appear to be conscious entities that exist and have properties that we only know to exist in living brains (thinking, feeling, wanting, loving, etc.) but they don't have material brains. I don't know of any god definition that doesn't fit that category, and if so, it seems only to be doing so to avoid being negated by logic.

Perhaps it is better to say that I've never seen empirical evidence for any god and I don't expect to anymore than I expect to see empirical evidence for demons. It doesn't count as evidence to me, because unless it's measurable or objective in some way, it seems indistinguishable from bad evidence or no evidence or faulty inferences.

I would say, that per the OP, nobody has presented a valid reason for believing in whatever god they believe in while disbelieving in other gods or other invisible entities. I don't understand why the evidence they use to believe in their god isn't also applied to the gods or supernatural notions they disbelieve. And I don't understand why the reasons they use to explain away other peoples delusions or cults or false belief aren't used to erase their own gods.

I think it is a semantic argument and cognitive dissonance that makes people believe that the god they believe in or hold out belief for is more likely to be true than all the woo they dismiss. I think they have a much looser standard of evidence for what they want to be true than they do for the things they don't.

I'd like to think someone had good evidence or a good reason for god belief... I try and read and understand what they are saying... but to me, all the evidence does sound like semantics... a way to convince themselves that the god they want to exist-- does.

Maybe I'm not following you. I understand skepticgirl. I understand why I wouldn't consider someone's evidence of god as actual evidence of god. I can't really tell what you are saying, but it sounds like you are more willing to examine evidence for god (however you define that) and hold the door open to that belief... than to examine the evidence for "miracles" or alien visitation or fairies. Yet, you've not been clear as to how or why. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would consider all such evidence equally or you think the evidence is of different caliber or would require different levels of interpretation to count as "evidence".

When it comes to evidence as to what is objectively true--rather people believe it or not-- I don't think the god hypothesis has any more evidence going for it than the demon hypothesis or the reincarnation hypothesis. If so, I can't tell what the heck it is and it doesn't count as evidence as far as I can tell.

But I feel like I'm getting tangled in definitions. I understand skepticgirl. I don't agree that there is any evidence that some sort of god exists outside the human imagination. I didn't agree on the other thread, and I don't agree here. I think all gods are entirely human creations. I know you think this too... or I believe you do. I guess I would say that the evidenced you might call evidence for god, I'd call evidence that people are very good at fooling themselves.

Yes, as a skeptic, I feel very confident in dismissing all supernatural claims, because I know that I'd be amongst the first to hear if there were actual evidence... I don't need to waste my time on that which people claim is evidence. I've spent enough of my life on that. I'm interested in what is objectively true. Is there any reason or evidence I should take the god that Beth is "on the fence about" any more seriously than the demons she is not "on the fence about". And as far as I can tell, the answer is no. The evidence she has is equally useless as far as understanding whether some invisible entity or supernatural something exists.

I don't even know where you and I differ. As I said, I understand skepticgirl. I understand what is and isn't evidence for what and why. I don't believe I've heard a logical reason or actual evidence that warrants being more on the fence about "gods" than "demons"-- my mind or brain is equally open to all empirical evidence and evidence for both... like the MDC-- tell me what you are claiming and then prove it. But so far people just make claims. They never provide evidence and so it's all "woo" to me. It's all equally "wooish" and unsupported by evidence. None of it is what I would consider evidence for any being I would interpret as "god".

I can't respond to your arguments because I don't really understand them. I do, however, understand skepticgirl. And I agree with her. I might be agreeing with you too, but I'm not really sure where we differ or what you are saying.

I know you think I'm not trying... , but maybe if you summed up your answer to the question in the OP along with what you perceive as your differences with skepticgirl it would help. Or maybe I just can't get it. Or maybe you aren't conveying what you think you are conveying. Clearly there is no direct evidence for god... I suppose you count some stuff as circumstantial evidence that I don't think meets that criteria.

To me the the default presumption is not to believe in something so big as an invisible form of consciousness until or unless the evidence becomes incontrovertible-- you know... -extraordinary claims.... it's much easier to conclude that each god belief is as delusional as all the god beliefs the believer finds delusional or mythical. All religions are "scientology" as far as objective truths go... as far as I'm concerned. I don't recognize or respect the evidence of one over any other and still don't understand why anyone logically could.

[Piscivore]

I'm getting confused.
That's fine. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

All gods appear to be conscious entities that exist and have properties that we only know to exist in living brains (thinking, feeling, wanting, loving, etc.) but they don't have material brains.
I offered that they have ours, but that's a different converstaion, one you don't seem to be ready for yet.

I don't know of any god definition that doesn't fit that category, and if so, it seems only to be doing so to avoid being negated by logic. that's because neither you nor skepticgirl can look past the old, parochial definitons yet. Again, there was another thread for it.

I would say, that per the OP, nobody has presented a valid reason for believing in whatever god they believe in while disbelieving in other gods or other invisible entities. I haven't even read the OP. Skepticgirl invited me to bring our discussion of "evidence vs. conclusions" here trom the Radical Skeptic thread.

I think it is a semantic argument...
Indeed so, but that doesn't make it trivial. If we are not using the same words the same way, then understanding is not possible. Neither is objectivity. Skepticgirl and I are clearly not using the words under discussion the same way.

Maybe I'm not following you. I understand skepticgirl. I understand why I wouldn't consider someone's evidence of god as actual evidence of god.
Why?

I can't really tell what you are saying
Clearly. You seem to be way too wrapped up in an emotional need for "god" to be wrong because you don't seem to be able to write about anything without inserting paragraphs restating and restaing your assertions that it is wrong. TRY and forget about god for just a moment and consider the notion of "evidence"- any evidence, for anything- by itself. What do you think it is?

Maybe you would consider all such evidence equally or you think the evidence is of different caliber or would require different levels of interpretation to count as "evidence".
All evidence should be treated the same. All evidence is interpretation of data. All evidence should be considered valid as far as it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

When it comes to evidence as to what is objectively true--rather people believe it or not-- I don't think the god hypothesis has any more evidence going for it than the demon hypothesis or the reincarnation hypothesis.
I know this. Everyone knows this. You restate it ad nauseum at every opportunity, whether it is relevant or not. Let it go, assertions are not evidence.

But I feel like I'm getting tangled in definitions. I understand skepticgirl. I don't agree that there is any evidence that some sort of god exists outside the human imagination. I didn't agree on the other thread, and I don't agree here. I think all gods are entirely human creations. I know you think this too... or I believe you do. I guess I would say that the evidenced you might call evidence for god, I'd call evidence that people are very good at fooling themselves.
That's because your emotional bias has kept us from even getting past the first step.

Yes, as a skeptic, I feel very confident in dismissing all supernatural claims, because I know that I'd be amongst the first to hear if there were actual evidence...
That's a bit arrogant.

I don't need to waste my time on that which people claim is evidence.
Congratulations, you are Claus Larsen:
Why should people waste time finding out if skeptics tell the truth or not? Aren't people wasting enough time doing that with the woos?
When your audience has to ferret out the truth for themselves each time you say something, you are not teaching them that skepticism is a good method, but a useless method that only wastes people's time. You don't speak with the authority from knowledge, but with the ever-present uncertainty that nobody knows if you are telling the truth or telling a lie.
He thinks examining evidence is a waste of time too, and we are better off just assuming we know the truth and should get busy combating those that disagree.

I don't even know where you and I differ.
Yeah, I'm aware of that.

I understand what is and isn't evidence for what and why.
Great. Care to share that information?

I can't respond to your arguments because I don't really understand them. I do, however, understand skepticgirl. And I agree with her. I might be agreeing with you too, but I'm not really sure where we differ or what you are saying.
Yet, you don't seem to be at a loss to respond at length. That's lecturing, or preaching, if you will. Not discussion. I'm happy to repeat or clarify whatever it is you don't understand, but it's not going to help if you don't listen to what I say.

I know you think I'm not trying... , but maybe if you summed up your answer to the question in the OP
Like I said, I've not even read the OP.

along with what you perceive as your differences with skepticgirl it would help.
I did so, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3605622&postcount=1313).

Or maybe I just can't get it. Or maybe you aren't conveying what you think you are conveying.
That's possible. It took me a few minutes just to explain what we were talking about to my wife, and she's not emotionally invested in it.

...it's much easier to conclude that each god belief is as delusional as all the god beliefs the believer finds delusional or mythical.
"Easier", certainly. Just like it is "easier" for a theist to believe all his enculturated assumptions and "evidence" about god are correct and all others, including atheism, are delusional. Easy makes neither choice correct.

As I have told my daughter from the time she was a small child, if you are trying to figure out what is right (in terms of both reason and morality), the easy choice is probably the least correct.

[I Ratant]

Pointing to the influences of demonic activities as evidence of their existence overlooks the reality that humans need nothing like a demon's influence to perform demonically!
History shows this.
Sloughing off heinous activities to some supernatural influence is merely passing the buck for the human responsibility.
The existence and acceptance of demons does predicate the existence of the other side.
There has to be something to be "bad" in relation.
Once human fraility gets its proper place in who did what to whom and why, then the need to invoke demons or angelic intervention goes away and praise/blame can be properly assigned to a real person or persons, good or bad.

[articulett]

If I'm trying to find out whether there's a reason to believe in anything supernatural... I think it's safe to wait for empirical evidence. To do otherwise, seems to be a recipe for fooling oneself.

I'm sorry Piscivore... I'm trying to understand... I tried on that other thread too. I understand that you see god as a concept that people create that causes them to do things and build things and so forth... and that you see the things they do and build as evidence of some sort of "realness" of their god.

I understand how you can extract that to be sort of "real" or to exist separate from human thought as a kind of zeitgeist or symbol or primal longing or metaphor. But I don't understand the rest, and I'm not sure if anyone else is or does. Moreover, Claus has an opposite point of view... he thinks if no one is claiming evidence for their god we can't judge whether it exists. I'm of the camp that until something is proven to actually exist, it's safe to "believe" that it does not-- from fairies to psychic powers to demons to gods... especially when it comes to supernatural claims. We know believing in such leads to magical thinking which humans are particularly prone too. Believing in god is like believing in "the matrix" to me. And the "evidence" is similar. I imagine my view on god is similar to Randi or most skeptics. Let me know if there is any actual evidence. I can see why people believe that Sylvia Browne is a real psychic and I can also see why she's not and it's unlikely that there are any real psychics. I feel the same way about god. I feel the evidence is of the same kind for psychic powers. We don't sit on the fence for things that are unlikely to be true.

I don't think anyone who is actually interested in whether god objectively exists would find the evidence people claim for god existing convincing unless it was a belief they already wanted to have. I think that when something is real or true, the evidence accumulates. I agree that god exists as a concept or ideal... but nobody thinks of their god as a concept or ideal or as coming from their head and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that any god is more than that... which I think is something you agree with.

Does someone else understand what you are saying here? Yes, lots of things can be "evidence"... but the real question is what is it evidence for? Maybe it's evidence for the conceptual god that you were talking about on piggy's thread. Do you understand BDZ? Do you think you are talking about the same thing?

Most of your posts I find I understand just fine. But when it comes to god and evidence for god... I can't make sense of what you are saying. Maybe it is me. Maybe someone else can explain. But maybe you aren't being as clear as you think. I don't understand the essence of what you are saying... only that you think it's something that I'm lacking and not an error in your communication. I don't think you are actually interested in a discussion on this topic or having anyone answer your questions. I think you have opinions that you think you are conveying but no one may be getting.

Nobody is advocating combating those that disagree... just trying to figure out how people come to believe so strongly and so surely in something so unsupported. When I was a kid, I figured it was an important question to try and find the right belief and believe it-- I believed my eternity was at stake. I have come to the conclusion that people mostly don't know what they believe or why when it comes to god, and none has any reasons that make me think they have found any divine truth.

I don't think that's closed minded. I wish I'd come to that conclusion a lot earlier. It would have kept me from worrying that I might not believing in the right faith with enough fervor to please the invisible nebulous creator of the universe that everyone appeared to believe in.

I think it's very smart for skeptics to without belief in things until there is evidence to warrant belief in such things. And the words people use to justify otherwise just sound like special pleading to me. Or like you you are trying to judge people for not understanding whatever "divine thing" you are trying to explain. How is that different than what woo do? When you insult me, I feel like you are trying to make me feel bad about not understanding instead of taking responsibility for the fact that you might not be conveying information. I do understand most of the people most of the time, you know. I'm not stupid. And I do understand skepticgirl.

[Piscivore]

When you insult me, I feel like you are trying to make me feel bad about not understanding instead of taking responsibility for the fact that you might not be conveying information.

I have not insulted you, if it seems I have it's probably just frustration. I feel like I am answering your questions but when I ask any back all I get is more lecturing on what you think about god and how you don't think it's possible. I'm sorry, articulett, I like you, but that just not what I've been talking about in this thread.

And I have admitted that what I was trying to explain about my god idea is not easy for me to illustrate, or someone else to get. It is something counterintuitive and completely at odds with most people's earliest enculterations. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread. I showed you where I explicitly laid out what skeptigirl and I were discussing, at your request, and you completely ignored it and just restated (again) your assertions about how god can't exist and the evidence isn't evidence.

I do understand that you feel that way. You can stop now.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piscivore:The object cannot be evidence if it is not obervedand The observation is an element of the evidence.andyou seem to have switched from the scientific usage of the word "evidence", to which you linked and which you also declared you wished to use- to the legal sense of the word.

I'm trying to get at the semantic problem here, Piscivore because I see what it is but I'm not sure you do.

You are including some action or purpose in your definition of evidence and I am not. You are adding the preposition, of, which is fine, but it isn't what I'm talking about. You objected to my calling evidence, "'the thing' one based the conclusion on", and tried to change that definition. But 'the thing' is what I am talking about.

You are saying one must use the intent, "evidence of" while I am using the word, evidence, as "'the thing' one bases a conclusion on". I see what you are getting at but it limits the definition of evidence to a specific circumstance "evidence of" and doesn't allow a discussion of the characteristics of evidence as a thing. In other words while you are arguing about what you think the term evidence is limited to, you leave no means of discussing the example of the issue with Beth which is her claiming the conclusion is evidence.

So rather than trying to convince me what you believe the word evidence means, how about trying to understand the concepts here instead? We can debate whether evidence is the 'thing' or evidence requires one add the preposition, of, as in "evidence of". That is a semantic argument and does nothing to further the issue at hand.

Evidence, whether it be something an individual uses to draw a conclusion, whether it is used in a court of law, or whether it is used to draw a scientific conclusion is "the thing" which one bases a conclusion upon.

Bear with me here, and don't try to answer this sentence by sentence. Let me go back to the original issue which was: Conclusions are not evidence of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the evidence it isn't the evidence. The body has its neurosensory input. One looks at a red thing. One draws a conclusion it is red. The thing is the evidence. The conclusion is it is red.

So forget your semantic sidetrack for the moment, how would you discuss the problem that a conclusion is not evidence?

For example, is a wrong conclusion evidence that it is right? Of course not! Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that? I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?

[Piscivore]

So forget your semantic sidetrack for the moment, how would you discuss the problem that a conclusion is not evidence?

A conclusion is not evidence of or for itself, no. A conclusion may be evidence for something else. I don't know exactly how this is a problem.

For example, is a wrong conclusion evidence that it is right? Of course not! Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that? I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?

I would say, and did:
The error correcting mechanism for perception error is repeatability and reproducability, not stipulating that what you think (or are told) something is is the evidence. Which you seem to imply- how does one discover in this case that what is perceived is in error? Appeal to authority? Or observation by other means?


The body has its neurosensory input. One looks at a red thing. One draws a conclusion it is red. The thing is the evidence. The conclusion is it is red.:rolleyes:

[Piscivore]

Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that?

I'm going to put this another way.

We have two squares on the checkerboard. Because of the context of the squares, most people, using their ordinary vision unaided by equipment, will percieve them as being different colours- reflecting light in different wavelengths or degrees of brightness. Measuring with a machine not subject to the same type of perception error, or removing the confusing context, it will be seen as the squares reflecting the same ratio of wavelengths and degree of brightness.

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.

You want to eliminate perception from the equation (for some reason) so the only difference you can see is in the conclusion. Therefore, using the evidence available to you, you conclude that somehow the ones who have come to a different conclusion than you have are confusing their conclusion with their evidence. This just isn't the case.

Repeatability, reproducability, and eliminating the variables are all part of the scientific method, a method derived at and intended to eliminate, or at least reduce, observational error- not to set a orthodoxy as to what objects "really" are, what evidence is acceptable and what conclusions must be drawn. Which is the only conclusion I can come to with regards to what you're saying- that the object has some trancendant truth to it that will override somehow errors in perception, or even somehow render perception unecessary at all.

I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?
I would say that's obvious from their definitions, a non-sequitor, and does not explain how the same "evidence" can lead to different conclusions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.....In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

The facts do not change, the opinion does. "You are welcome to your own opinion, not your own facts", is a way of describing the fact that the evidence is the reality, the perception is subject to distortions of many types. No matter what influences how you perceive the evidence (again with the exception of quantum phenomena) the evidence is not changed by whatever influences your perception.

I understand what you are saying, but you are in essence trying to claim that perception influences reality. If that were true we would be in at least some kind of Matrix where reality was in out minds. But reality is not in our minds. Reality exists and we observe and interpret it.

In Beth's example it is even more clear than the squares. She claims if you feel god that is evidence gods exist. But it is not. It is only evidence people have some sensation they believe is evidence. That belief is not evidence of anything except a belief which is a mental process. Again, dreaming something is not evidence of reality, it is evidence of brain activity and nothing more. By your reasoning, dreaming would be evidence of the things in the dream actually existing. That alone should tell you your reasoning is flawed.

[Piscivore]

In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

The facts do not change, the opinion does. "You are welcome to your own opinion, not your own facts", is a way of describing the fact that the evidence is the reality, the perception is subject to distortions of many types. No matter what influences how you perceive the evidence (again with the exception of quantum phenomena) the evidence is not changed by whatever influences your perception. This all agrees with what I said, only you are changing the names of the terms.

I understand what you are saying, but you are in essence trying to claim that perception influences reality.
No, I'm claiming that perception influences how we percieve reality. And we cannot get past peception, all we can do is limit the errors in perception as best we can. Which is what science is for. But there is no way for a human being to remove that layer of perception between him and the universe. Trying to ignore that can only lead to error.

In Beth's example it is even more clear than the squares. She claims if you feel god that is evidence gods exist. But it is not.
Right. It is only evidence that something exists. We need additional evidence to know what it is.

It is only evidence people have some sensation they believe is evidence. That belief is not evidence of anything except a belief which is a mental process.
It is evidence, they are just jumping to a conclusion about what it means. That makes them wrong, but it does not mean that the evidence is the conclusion. Or that they are confusing the evidence with the conclusion.

Again, dreaming something is not evidence of reality, it is evidence of brain activity and nothing more.
Right. It is evidence the dream- the pattern of neuronal activity- exists.
By your reasoning, dreaming would be evidence of the things in the dream actually existing.
You are mistaken, my reasoning does not inidicate that. The dream exists, but not the content of the dream.

[Beth]

Right. It is only evidence that something exists. We need additional evidence to know what it is.

Actually, I said something very similar to this pages ago and added in that people usually call that unknown something 'god'. In fact this entire conversation you're having with sg is giving me deja vu. Good luck!

[ImaginalDisc]

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God? Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity? That's just a god of the gaps, and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.

So, what the hell are you getting at?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God? Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity? That's just a god of the gaps, and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.

So, what the hell are you getting at?

I was actually thinking the same. The god-concept seems to be so diluted that one cannot soon recognize it from having some sensations of the initial stages of a fart. What’s the deal here? If god is some kind of personal relation with the universe, then it’s not meaningful to talk about god in the first place – just settle for ‘a weird feeling’, or something.

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God?
No.

Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?
None of them, including supernatural versions of "god".

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity?
No. I do not believe there is any evidence for anything supernatural, nor, baring some radical reassesment of our current understanding of how the universe works, can we reasonably expect any evidence for anything supernatural to be forthcoming.

That's just a god of the gaps,
Indeed so.

and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.
Quite so.

So, what the hell are you getting at?
The only thing I was discussing in this thread was the nature of what "evidence" is.

As for what my ideas were in the other thread about "god"- honestly, I'm sick to death of trying to explain it. It is all in the "Ask a Radical Atheist" thread. If you have some specific questions I'd be happy to discuss them in PM, but I'm getting tired of the clusterhumping it generates from the anti-theists who won't bother to comprehend anything past "god = bad".

[ImaginalDisc]

The only thing I was discussing in this thread was the nature of what "evidence" is.

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.

As for what my ideas were in the other thread about "god"- honestly, I'm sick to death of trying to explain it. It is all in the "Ask a Radical Atheist" thread. If you have some specific questions I'd be happy to discuss them in PM, but I'm getting tired of the clusterhumping it generates from the anti-theists who won't bother to comprehend anything past "god = bad".

Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with other people with whom you have had previous disagreements, I just don't undersrtand the thrust of your arguement at all. Perhaps it's a failing on my part.

[Piscivore]

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.
You wouldn't think so. Yet apparently there's a whole cadre of people on this forum with their own bizzare, private dictionary of English.

Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with other people with whom you have had previous disagreements.
Oh, I'm not. I'm just not inclined to bring it up in public right now.

I just don't undersrtand the thrust of your arguement at all. Perhaps it's a failing on my part.
No, I doubt it's your fault. I need to find a better way to clearly communicate it.

[Hokulele]

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening. Not knowing the source, someone might start labeling it as unicorn hoofbeats. The label is as good as anything else when further knowledge is unavailable. Of course, it would have to be an invisible, intangible unicorn.

Now, let's say some smart person finds out about the heart, blood vessels, and all that, and realizes that the sound really does have an internal source that is completely consistent with the physical laws of the universe as they are understood. So instead of labeling the sound "unicorn hoofbeats", they label it "your pulse". Same sound, different root causes.

Now let's say that the unicorn lovers do not want to lose their faith in their intangible unicorn (what the heck, let's make her pink). When confronted with the evidence that the sound is generated by the heart, these people may start to claim, "OK, the sound is generated by my heart. But why does it sound like unicorn hoofbeats? I believe the unicorn is making it sound like that just to show me that she is really there." What can you say against an argument like that? Does the sound of your pulse really need a reason to exist as the sound of hoofbeats in your ears, or is this just anthropomorphizing (sp?) the circulatory system?

I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.

[Piscivore]

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening. Not knowing the source, someone might start labeling it as unicorn hoofbeats. The label is as good as anything else when further knowledge is unavailable. Of course, it would have to be an invisible, intangible unicorn.

Now, let's say some smart person finds out about the heart, blood vessels, and all that, and realizes that the sound really does have an internal source that is completely consistent with the physical laws of the universe as they are understood. So instead of labeling the sound "unicorn hoofbeats", they label it "your pulse". Same sound, different root causes.

Now let's say that the unicorn lovers do not want to lose their faith in their intangible unicorn (what the heck, let's make her pink). When confronted with the evidence that the sound is generated by the heart, these people may start to claim, "OK, the sound is generated by my heart. But why does it sound like unicorn hoofbeats? I believe the unicorn is making it sound like that just to show me that she is really there." What can you say against an argument like that? Does the sound of your pulse really need a reason to exist as the sound of hoofbeats in your ears, or is this just anthropomorphizing (sp?) the circulatory system?

I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.

Well, the perception of the sound is evidence :), but yeah, that's it. Thank you.

[Hokulele]

Well, the perception of the sound is evidence...


Ah. A subtle difference, yet potent.

Kind of like a good fart.

[Piscivore]

Kind of like a good fart.

Which, it seems, I might just as well have done for all the effect it's had. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, I said something very similar to this pages ago and added in that people usually call that unknown something 'god'. In fact this entire conversation you're having with sg is giving me deja vu. Good luck!No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.It is indeed what 'evidence' is. Evidence is the thing that is real. How we perceive the evidence only becomes part of the evidence if you believe we live in some type of Matrix where our perceptions affect reality. (Again excluding quantum phenomena for any late thread readers who aren't following the discussion.)

I understand what Piscivore is saying. He just doesn't think I do. OTOH, he doesn't seem to understand this is just a semantic argument about defining 'evidence'. If he understood then he wouldn't be going on trying to convince me to change my definition of evidence as I am using it in this thread.

One uses words to communicate concepts. If you want to define 'evidence' as something other than how I am defining the word for the purpose of this discussion, that is a different argument than the one Beth is making. Beth is claiming that one can draw a false conclusion that a 'sensation' is evidence of god, therefore the sensation is evidence of god. She seems to think that as long as the conclusion is based on something, anything, that makes it evidence of whatever it is the person has concluded it is evidence of. It is a logical error that can be easily demonstrated with the unicorn dream example.

I would ask anyone defending the claim that the conclusion one is making is evidence for the conclusion to then make the same declaration substituting other things than god in that declaration. ImaginalDisc recognizes what I am referring to. But now it appears both Beth and Piscivore do not.

[Piscivore]

No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.

Only if you ignore the fact that the dream- the patterns of neurological activity- is not the content of the dream and you completely leave out the scientific process.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You wouldn't think so. Yet apparently there's a whole cadre of people on this forum with their own bizzare, private dictionary of English....Are you of the belief then, that words have pure anal retentive definitions?

Words are just a way of communicating concepts. Some concepts are clearly defined. A ball for example is pretty clear cut. You, OTOH, are having a philosophical argument about the definition of the concept of evidence. You are adding observation to the concept. I'll argue that with you but not until you recognize that not everyone defines evidence to include the observation and/or one might use the word, evidence, to mean different things.

I don't think you can discuss the philosophical problem you have created with your definition of 'evidence' until you recognize what it is we are viewing differently here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only if you ignore the fact that the dream- the patterns of neurological activity- is not the content of the dream and you completely leave out the scientific process.Are you arguing the fact one process is conscious and one not?

Did the incorrect perception of the colors of the checker squares change the evidence?

[Piscivore]

It is indeed what 'evidence' is. Evidence is the thing that is real. How we perceive the evidence only becomes part of the evidence if you believe we live in some type of Matrix where our perceptions affect reality. (Again excluding quantum phenomena for any late thread readers who aren't following the discussion.)

I understand what Piscivore is saying. He just doesn't think I do. OTOH, he doesn't seem to understand this is just a semantic argument about defining 'evidence'. If he understood then he wouldn't be going on trying to convince me to change my definition of evidence as I am using it in this thread. You don't understand. Semantics do matter, and your definition is wrong. If you don't care about that then you are just going to keep coming to wrong conclusions- like the one you repeat below.

One uses words to communicate concepts. If you want to define 'evidence' as something other than how I am defining the word for the purpose of this discussion...
...one is using English the way everyone else does, in order to communicate concepts.

I would ask anyone defending the claim that the conclusion one is making is evidence for the conclusion to then make the same declaration substituting other things than god in that declaration.
Great. I don't see anyone making that argument, so you might be waiting awhile. While you are waiting, you might try to figure out what you are trying to accomplish by reinventing the English language from scratch.

Of course, why bother? It's just "semantics". :oldroll:

ImaginalDisc recognizes what I am referring to.
Yeah, but do you recognise what he is referring to? "Independently examined" - What does that mean in Skeptigirl?

... actually, now that I look at it- he's only got half of it. He left off the bit about "useful to come to a conclusion". Lots of things can be examined without leading to any objective conclusion.

But now it appears both Beth and Piscivore do not.
I do. You're wrong.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening. There is no issue with this. But you included the key here, "the sound exists". If that same person was a schizophrenic and said they heard voices in their head, is that evidence of sound?

If god existed, taking the sensation Beth wants to call evidence of god (that I say is only evidence of a sensation), then just what is it that exists? If we were going to say the brain was experiencing a real sensation, instead of an imagined one, then you could do a few PET scans or MRIs and find some consistent neurological activity that other people also interpreted as god sensation. There isn't even evidence that goes that far, let alone to the next step which would be to confirm the sensation was actually caused by something external to the person's brain. Until you demonstrate something actually exists, all you have is the conclusion.


...I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.No one is arguing that the feelings are not evidence of feelings. We are saying that drawing a conclusion about what the feelings are doesn't make those feelings evidence of what you conclude they are evidence of.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.Pisci is arguing that the observation is part of the definition of evidence. It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence. If it were then give me another term to use for evidence that doesn't include the observation.

Reality exists. Things exist. If I want to discover what reality is I measure and observe reality and draw conclusions from that. What am I measuring and observing? What is it called? Pisci wants to include the observation in the word, evidence. Fine. What is being observed then?

[Beth]

No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more. I consider their experiences evidence of god, yes. I don't consider it convincing evidence. Neither do you. I really don't understand why you've been so insistent that I'm mistaken about what is evidence and what constitutes a conclusion regarding the matter, but you have come up with a rather odd definition of 'evidence' in order to claim I'm mistaken about it.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.
Well, some people do anyway, :) but I'm not one of them.

Beth

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Of course, why bother? It's just "semantics". :oldroll:Semantics matter when two people are communicating and they are using different definitions of the same word. That causes an error in communication. I explained to you how I was using the word, evidence, in this discussion. You want to argue about the definition of the word, evidence. That is arguing semantics while ignoring the discussion at hand.


...Yeah, but do you recognise what he is referring to? "Independently examined" - What does that mean in Skeptigirl?It means the evidence exists and can be observed by more than one person and/or more than one time. In doing so, the conclusions about that evidence do not change it.

...... actually, now that I look at it- he's only got half of it. He left off the bit about "useful to come to a conclusion". Lots of things can be examined without leading to any objective conclusion.Of course they can. Why would this have any significance in this discussion? The conclusion doesn't change the evidence and drawing no conclusion also does not change the evidence.


...I do. You're wrong.If you understood what I was saying, you could correctly paraphrase it and identify where it is we disagree.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I consider their experiences evidence of god, yes. I don't consider it convincing evidence. Neither do you. I really don't understand why you've been so insistent that I'm mistaken about what is evidence and what constitutes a conclusion regarding the matter, but you have come up with a rather odd definition of 'evidence' in order to claim I'm mistaken about it. Because you continue to identify the conclusion as evidence. That is a mistake. The experience is only evidence the person believes they had an experience. It is not evidence of the conclusion they draw. Conclusions are not evidence. I have given you many examples.

[Piscivore]

Semantics matter when two people are communicating and they are using different definitions of the same word. That causes an error in communication. I explained to you how I was using the word, evidence, in this discussion. You want to argue about the definition of the word, evidence. That is arguing semantics while ignoring the discussion at hand.
That's because your "definiton" is an equivocation. You are using the word "evidence" to stand for an object, regardless of whether it is observed or not, then equating that with "evidence" meaning something that hleps lead to a conclusion. It is an error, it is a fallacy, and it is not a trivial semantic difference.

What you are doing is calling apples on a tree "pie" and then claiming that they are baked goods because pie is a baked good. Poetically, metaphorically saying "look at that tree full of pie" is fine- but it doesn't work when someone ask for pie and you pick them an apple.

It means the evidence exists and can be observed by more than one person and/or more than one time. In doing so, the conclusions about that evidence do not change it.
I've gone over this a dozen times and you've ignore me.

Of course they can. Why would this have any significance in this discussion?
Because if evidence is a thing, your "definition" fails to account for why some "things" are evidence and some are not. What makes an object or experience "evidence",a nd another object or experience "not evidence"? I've asked you variations of this question several times and you've refused to anser. Want to take a stab at it, or you just going to ignore it again?

The conclusion doesn't change the evidence and drawing no conclusion also does not change the evidence.
Evidence is evidence whether it is used to used to form a conclusion or not? :confused:

You've just defined "evidence" to mean "thing", no more no less. Used in this way, it signifies nothing to the scientific process.

Of coure, that's just "semantics" :oldroll:

If you understood what I was saying, you could correctly paraphrase it and identify where it is we disagree.

I did:
We have two squares on the checkerboard. Because of the context of the squares, most people, using their ordinary vision unaided by equipment, will percieve them as being different colours- reflecting light in different wavelengths or degrees of brightness. Measuring with a machine not subject to the same type of perception error, or removing the confusing context, it will be seen as the squares reflecting the same ratio of wavelengths and degree of brightness.

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.

You want to eliminate perception from the equation (for some reason) so the only difference you can see is in the conclusion. Therefore, using the evidence available to you, you conclude that somehow the ones who have come to a different conclusion than you have are confusing their conclusion with their evidence. This just isn't the case

Your response tells me you don't even understand your own argument, because you cannot explain it without describing the same process I do, even when that doesn't seem to be your intent.

In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

[Hokulele]

There is no issue with this. But you included the key here, "the sound exists". If that same person was a schizophrenic and said they heard voices in their head, is that evidence of sound?


I think you missed the point of the analogy. Yes, the sound exists to me. I can't prove it to anyone else since it resides solely in my head, although most people would agree that I am not crazy for hearing it, and we can find a mechanism to explain it. In fact, is the sound of my pulse really a sound in the traditional sense? I call it a sound, as that is how my brain registers the experience, but there are no compression waves coming through the air to my ear drum.

So in reality, it is my experience of a sound I am calling evidence, which may or may not really be a sound at all. I think is a bit closer to what Pisci means when he is talking about perception as opposed to reality.

Regarding your question to me, which may have simply been rhetorical but deserves a response, yes, the voices a schizophrenic hears would be evidence of sound (which no one else can hear) just as much as my pulse is evidence of sound (which no one else can hear). However, most people would use this evidence of sound to conclude schizophrenia, rather than demons. It does not reduce its status as evidence.

This is why I say that feelings of god is evidence, but not evidence for the existence of god. Which is really what you and articulett have been saying all along, this is just looking at the same thing from a slightly different direction, where evidence includes experience rather than excludes it. The conclusion does not change (at least not for me).

[Piscivore]

Pisci is arguing that the observation is part of the definition of evidence. It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence.
It isn't mandatory, because it is assumed. The universe does not make conclusions. Gravity, mangoes, bunny rabbits do not make conclusions. Rock, trees, birds, bees, light particles, water molecules, feet, Volkswagens, salmon, rivers, air, asteroids, and sheep do not make conclusions. Only humans.

Evidence is that which is helpful in making a conclusion- which is an entirely human activity. Evidence as a concept is only meaningful to humans. The idea of evidence means nothing to salmon, gravity, Volkswagens, etc.

Humans can only interact with the universe, with salmon, gravity, Volkswagens, etc., through their perceptions. In order to have evidence (meaningful only to humans) for human beings to come to conclusions (which can only be done by a human), about anything in the universe, the human has to observe something.

Think about it this way. There is a blind man, and he has a sack of keys. He is trapped in a locked room. The keys don't do him any good in the bag, right? They won't open the door in there. So he reaches in, pulls out a key, fumbles to the door and tries it in the lock. That key doesn't work. He keeps this up until he finds the one that fits the lock

The blind man is us, human beings. The keys in the bag are the things in the universe. The man's hand is our perceptions. Taking a key out of the bag is observing. The key in the man's hand is evidence. Trying it in the lock is the conclusion. Unlocking the door is the correct conclusion.

Sometimes, the hand pulls out a key that isn't the right one. That's the same as having a perception error. He has evidence, a key, but it will not lead to a correct conlusion- it won't open the door. Even if he thinks it will, his conclusion is wrong. The evidence doesn't fit. He still has the evidence- the key in his hand is evidence- but not the key itself. By holding it, observing it, does not change the key.

If it were then give me another term to use for evidence that doesn't include the observation.
"Imaginary entity that Skepticgirl wants to be true but can't even give a single example of, or even speak about"? :)

Seriously, such a thing does not exist.

Reality exists.
Yes.

Things exist.
Yes.

If I want to discover what reality is I measure and observe reality and draw conclusions from that.
Well, you cannot measure "reality", becuse that's an intangible concept, not a thing. But you can measure things in reality, yes.

But see what you are saying here? "I measure and observe [things], and draw conclusions from that."

See how well that fits the actual defintion for "evidence"- "That which is helpful in making a conclusion." "That" being "things measured and observed".

Which is what I've been saying all along.

What am I measuring and observing?
Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

What is it called?
Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Pisci wants to include the observation in the word, evidence. Fine. What is being observed then?
Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Geez, why was that so hard?

[articulett]

Yes, Hokulele--

UFOs might well be evidence of something...

They are not evidence of alien visitors from another planet or another dimension.

It takes a broad leap over many levels of proof to meet the evidence warranted to come to such a conclusion.

UFOs are evidence of something "unidentified". There are many potential identifications that would need to be ruled out before you could begin to even consider it evidence of Aliens from another planet.

Believers in gods never rule out delusion, wishful thinking, misperception, illusion, confirmation bias, indoctrination, etc. EVEN though they know for certain that other belief in other gods and fanciful notions have come about by those very same methods. They extrapolate whatever "evidence" there is to infer an unwarranted conclusion and never allow even the largest compendium of negating evidence sway them from their conclusion.

Beth's evidence would never be enough "evidence" for demons or something she did not want to believe in. It would not be enough evidence for anyone who wanted to actually understand whether any god beliefs were based on anything more than human imagination.

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I think is a bit closer to what Pisci means when he is talking about perception as opposed to reality.Yes, and I am talking about reality.

... Regarding your question to me, which may have simply been rhetorical but deserves a response, yes, the voices a schizophrenic hears would be evidence of sound (which no one else can hear) just as much as my pulse is evidence of sound (which no one else can hear). However, most people would use this evidence of sound to conclude schizophrenia, rather than demons. It does not reduce its status as evidence.The qualification 'evidence to the person drawing the conclusion' leaves one with the dilemma, is a conclusion evidence? But we know that a conclusion isn't evidence. In fact, in this example, the voices the schizophrenic hears is evidence of brain activity, it is not evidence of sound. All the misinterpreting in the world is not going to be evidence of real actual sound existing, it is only evidence of neural activity and a person interpreting the neural activity incorrectly as sound.

The semantic argument is just to say, well it is evidence to that individual. But that is not what the discussion is about at all. The discussion is claiming that something is evidence, not that something is believed to be evidence. The individual has some experience, whether or not it is hearing voices that are not there or believing an 'experience' is evidence of god. The 'evidence' in both of these cases is evidence that is misinterpreted. So the fact it is evidence to them is correct, but the fact it is evidence of the thing they conclude it is evidence of is not correct.

...This is why I say that feelings of god is evidence, but not evidence for the existence of god. Which is really what you and articulett have been saying all along, this is just looking at the same thing from a slightly different direction, where evidence includes experience rather than excludes it. The conclusion does not change (at least not for me).You lost me here.

To claim the evidence includes the experience is saying one of two things:

you are looking at the experience itself, in which case the experience is evidence of the experience, (this correctly identifies what the evidence is capable of representing)

or you are claiming that believing one perceives something is evidence the thing they believe in exists, (this incorrectly claims that a belief is evidence of the existence of what one believes).

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's because your "definiton" is an equivocation. You are using the word "evidence" to stand for an object, regardless of whether it is observed or not, then equating that with "evidence" meaning something that hleps lead to a conclusion. It is an error, it is a fallacy, and it is not a trivial semantic difference.And you are using the word, 'evidence', to stand for the observation, as if the object has no qualities unless it is observed.

What you are doing is calling apples on a tree "pie" and then claiming that they are baked goods because pie is a baked good. Poetically, metaphorically saying "look at that tree full of pie" is fine- but it doesn't work when someone ask for pie and you pick them an apple.

I've gone over this a dozen times and you've ignore me.It is common to assume one who does not agree with you is either not getting it or ignoring the discussion. I get what you are saying. If you would stop and just make that assumption for the sake of this 'discussion, we could get a little further along here.

...Because if evidence is a thing, your "definition" fails to account for why some "things" are evidence and some are not. What makes an object or experience "evidence",a nd another object or experience "not evidence"? I've asked you variations of this question several times and you've refused to anser. Want to take a stab at it, or you just going to ignore it again?Not all 'evidence' is in the process of being currently observed or actively used as evidence. You are failing to recognize words can be used in different contexts, words often have flexible meanings.

Were I discussing the 'thing' I may not be discussing it in the context of evidence. That would be a case where the 'thing' was not evidence, because there was no context in which the capacity of the thing to be evidence was involved in the discussion. But the 'thing' wouldn't change if I decided to discuss it in terms of it being evidence. Your observation would not change the 'thing'. Labeling the 'thing', 'evidence', simply means now I am discussing it in the context of it being evidence. The act of observing may be part of the context of the word 'evidence'. But I don't need to be in the act of observing it to speak of the 'thing' as 'evidence' because I am referring to a concept, a quality the 'thing' has.

Evidence is a concept, I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are confining that concept too narrowly, as if the object only has the quality of evidence if it is being actively used as evidence in the present. Consider the fact one can refer to an object as evidence if one is referring to a particular quality the object possesses.

...Evidence is evidence whether it is used to used to form a conclusion or not? :confused:

You've just defined "evidence" to mean "thing", no more no less. Used in this way, it signifies nothing to the scientific process.And what then do you call something if you want to discuss the "thing" in the context of its role as evidence? Are you claiming the thing loses all ability to be discussed as potential evidence unless one is actively observing it?

...Your response tells me you don't even understand your own argument, because you cannot explain it without describing the same process I do, even when that doesn't seem to be your intent.I will keep describing what I am saying to you until I find a way to describe the concept of evidence that allows you to see how one can use that term in a different way than the narrow way you are viewing the concept.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I answered most of your post above. I wasn't clear when I said, "It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence". What I meant was the act of observing didn't need to be in the definition of the word, evidence. Observing is in the concept of the word....Sometimes, the hand pulls out a key that isn't the right one. That's the same as having a perception error. He has evidence, a key, but it will not lead to a correct conlusion- it won't open the door. Even if he thinks it will, his conclusion is wrong. The evidence doesn't fit. He still has the evidence- the key in his hand is evidence- but not the key itself. By holding it, observing it, does not change the key.I see no relevance in the evidence being the wrong evidence or the conclusion being the wrong conclusion.

..."Imaginary entity that Skepticgirl wants to be true but can't even give a single example of, or even speak about"? :)

Seriously, such a thing does not exist. Mountains are evidence of plate tectonics. Are you saying they aren't? Are you saying my sentence is incorrect? Are you saying you do not get what I meant? Are you observing any mountain right now? Need I be referring to a specific mountain that anyone observed?


Skep:Reality exists.

Pisci: Yes.

Skep:Things exist.

Pisci: Yes.

...Well, you cannot measure "reality", becuse that's an intangible concept, not a thing. But you can measure things in reality, yes.If it is intangible, why did you agree it exists? I'm just trying to get at the point that evidence is akin the the 'fact' that doesn't change.

But see what you are saying here? "I measure and observe [things], and draw conclusions from that."

See how well that fits the actual defintion for "evidence"- "That which is helpful in making a conclusion." "That" being "things measured and observed".

Which is what I've been saying all along.Except you claim a narrow way evidence must be discussed as if the process of observation must be current at any time one discusses evidence and you don't see that a thing has the property of evidence along with other properties.


Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.


Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.


Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Geez, why was that so hard?Things have properties. Evidence is a property things have. Geez, why is that so hard?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm still following this thread (though it really seems to be seriously sidetracked) and still waiting for an answer. Would someone let me know when conclusive evidence for evidence is finally concluded? Thank you. :confused:

[articulett]

Piscivore jumped in to tell skepticgirl how wrong she is to not understand what evidence is.

She understands what evidence is... the question in the OP is about evidence for god. It appears that some people imagine they have evidence for some god via some semantics that justify their belief in that god (however nebulously they've defined it) and allows them to negate all those invisible entities and other gods they don't believe in.

We all understand that they believe that. We really want to know if it makes sense or if it's just their confirmation bias leading them to find "evidence" for the conclusion they want rather than assessing the evidence for what it is actually evidence for.

It appears that all evidence is of the "confirmation bias" variety. There is no good reason to believe in one god over another or one invisible entity over another from all I can tell. (But if you say that, you will receive a dose of pedantry and tsk-tsking from those who "believe" otherwise. You won't get any evidence though--just the usual word games and tangents and derision for "not understanding" that which only makes sense in the head of the one doing the "lecturing".)

The pedants believe they are being clear and it's you and I and skeptigirl who don't "get it". It's the usual nothingness we've all come to know and expect from the "defenders of faith."

[Piscivore]

Piscivore jumped in to tell skepticgirl how wrong she is to not understand what evidence is.

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence...

...And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.
:oldroll:

[Piscivore]

I answered most of your post above. I wasn't clear when I said, "It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence". What I meant was the act of observing didn't need to be in the definition of the word, evidence. Observing is in the concept of the word.
Then why were you insisting that observation had nothing to do with evidence?

I see no relevance in the evidence being the wrong evidence or the conclusion being the wrong conclusion.
The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.

Mountains are evidence of plate tectonics. Are you saying they aren't?
They are, because they've been observed, measured and studied. Are the mountains on Venus evidence of plate tectonics?

Are you saying my sentence is incorrect?
Grammatically, it is correct. As an ontological and epistimological statement it is incomplete. These shortcuts we use in English cannot be taken as shortcuts in thinking or understanding.

If I tell you "I replaced the thrmostat in my wifes' car", does that tell you anything about the process, what parts I had to remove, what conditions I had to measure to do so? It's factually accurate, it is grammatically correct, but that doesn't make it sufficient or complete.

Are you saying you do not get what I meant?
Your argument is contradicted by the statements you are making to support it, what does that tell you?

Are you observing any mountain right now?
I can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition_Mountain), just by walking out my front door. Guess what? The evidence that we have suggests that plate tectonics had little to do with its formation (which was, as far as current geological understanding goes, was effected by vulcanism and erosion)

You could study that mountain the rest of your life and never learn about plate tectonics.

Need I be referring to a specific mountain that anyone observed?
Are imaginary mountains evidence? Are unseen mountains evidence? How about those peaks of Venus?

Skep:Reality exists.

Pisci: Yes.

Skep:Things exist.

Pisci: Yes.

If it is intangible, why did you agree it exists?
Because some intangible things exist. Dreams (the patternsof neuronal activity, not the image content) exist, but you can't touch them. Conciousness exists, but is intangible.

I'm just trying to get at the point that evidence is akin the the 'fact' that doesn't change.
And in that you are wrong. Different observations of the same objects can and have been used as evidence for different conclusions. Evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading. How can this be if "evidence" never changes? Oh, wait...

The objects don't change, but the interpretation of observations of those thing do.
Right. Which is why the evidence is not the object. This explanation does explain why evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading.

Except you claim a narrow way evidence must be discussed as if the process of observation must be current at any time one discusses evidence and you don't see that a thing has the property of evidence along with other properties.
Because it doesn't. It's a "property" that humans give it. Like "beauty" or "value".

Things have properties. Evidence is a property things have. Geez, why is that so hard?
Because it is wrong. If evidence is a property that things have, why don't you explain how this "property of evidence" the mountain supposedly posesses impacts the lizard sunning itself on its slopes?

[Piscivore]

I'm still following this thread (though it really seems to be seriously sidetracked) and still waiting for an answer. Would someone let me know when conclusive evidence for evidence is finally concluded? Thank you. :confused:

:D

[Beth]

The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I've spent many pages trying to tell sg that. Somehow I doubt she'll believe you either, but's it's awful nice to have someone else in my corner, especially when I can't respond at length myself.


Hokulele, I found your explanation earlier to be excellent. I could quibble with minor aspects of wording, but only because I enjoy that sort of arguing. Not because of any serious fault with it.

Thanks to both of you for nice posts.

[Piscivore]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I've spent many pages trying to tell sg that. Somehow I doubt she'll believe you either, but's it's awful nice to have someone else in my corner, especially when I can't respond at length myself.

Well, technically, I'm in the corner of science, reason, and critical thinking, not "your corner"...



but that's just semantics. :)

Hope the finger is healing speedily.

[articulett]

So long as others feel god or have god experiences... believers consider this evidence for their god...("all these people must believe for a reason... and that reason is "god"")

If no one mentions anything specific about their god they can assume it's all the same one... if they hear of different gods who want different things then those people are delusional or wrong or misguided... the same with demons and assorted other woo... the evidence of "personal experience" is not evidence when it comes to gods they don't want to believe in or haven't been indoctrinated to believe in.

But so long as no one is specific about their beliefs..and god is poorly defined... they infer that those people claiming "evidence" of god IS evidence of the god they believe in. While similar evidence of stuff they don't believe in is just hearsay, confirmiation bias, lies, misperceptions, etc.

It's very clever. It's why no one defines their god... it makes it easier to pretend that everyone believes in the same one and those claiming to get messages that you think a god would give... are getting messages from the god you believe in... and those getting messages you don't believe are being fooled or lying or whatever.

It's a way to prove to yourself that the voices in your head are coming from the god that everyone is talking about... it's just like those who catch a glimpse of the emperor's clothes imagine they are "in on" the mystical secrets of divine clothes.

I think they are afraid not to believe or they feel special or righteous or good for believing... and so they manufacture "evidence" for god which they would not accept as evidence for any other invisible clothing or being or supernatural thing.

[Beth]

Well, technically, I'm in the corner of science, reason, and critical thinking, not "your corner"... Aren't we all?
but that's just semantics. :)

Hope the finger is healing speedily.

Doing better. Thanks. I even managed a little gardening today. It was too glorious a day not to take advantage of it that way.

[Skeptic Ginger]

:oldroll:Sorry, I would have told articulett I invited you though.

Piscivore and I needed to elaborate on a related discussion in another thread and it seemed to fit in here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then why were you insisting that observation had nothing to do with evidence?Because you are taking the concept of evidence and incorrectly applying the following:The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.Let's again back up here to the problem.

Beth is claiming the 'experience' is evidence of god.
We are not denying the 'experience' is evidence.
We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.

And now you can't seem to see the error you are making either. The fact the 'experience' in this case is the evidence, does not mean the observation is included in all the things we label evidence. It means the observation is the evidence if you are looking at observations. But the thing you are observing is the evidence if you are looking at the thing.

Again, you don't think I get what you are saying about the observation being part of the evidence. I get that. But the observation is not included when one says a mountain is evidence. It is the mountain that is the evidence. Yes, one has to observe it because the concept of the word evidence means we are using the evidence for something. But that observation is not the evidence. The observation is what you do with the evidence to make it evidence.

This is so interesting because I know exactly what the issue is here but it is difficult to convey because the words are limited.


They are, because they've been observed, measured and studied. Are the mountains on Venus evidence of plate tectonics?Regardless of what they are evidence of, the mountains are still evidence. The experience Beth is describing is evidence. But not evidence of god.


Grammatically, it is correct. As an ontological and epistimological statement it is incomplete. These shortcuts we use in English cannot be taken as shortcuts in thinking or understanding. Then why are you not recognizing the fact a conclusion is not evidence?

If I tell you "I replaced the thrmostat in my wifes' car", does that tell you anything about the process, what parts I had to remove, what conditions I had to measure to do so? It's factually accurate, it is grammatically correct, but that doesn't make it sufficient or complete.Try again, you are missing the point.

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.
Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.
Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No. The mountains are defined as more than evidence.

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No. And that is where you are missing the mark in this discussion.

I get what you mean about the things that go into the concept of evidence. You do not get the fact Beth is claiming anyone drawing the conclusion about their inner experience being evidence of god means it is evidence of god.

And this I cannot understand why you don't understand.

[Piscivore]

Sorry, I would have told articulett I invited you though.

I know you would have.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Because some intangible things exist. Dreams (the patternsof neuronal activity, not the image content) exist, but you can't touch them. Conciousness exists, but is intangible.Actually both consciousness and dreams are tangible and there is overwhelming evidence they exist. This is a sidetrack however. An imaginary unicorn does not exist in reality. It is not real for the very reason there is no evidence unicorns exist. One's imagination exists. Does imagining god exists mean there is evidence for the existence of gods beyond one's imagination? Is there evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns beyond one's imagination? (Not images of these things, the actual things).

If you believe that imagining gods exist is actually evidence they do, then you have to apply the same logic to imagining you are able to walk through solid walls with no opening. Are you able to do that? Can you imagine doing it? Does that mean there is evidence you can?


...And in that you are wrong. Different observations of the same objects can and have been used as evidence for different conclusions. Evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading. How can this be if "evidence" never changes? Oh, wait...Using the word, 'evidence', defined this way ignores the fact one can use the word, 'evidence' defined another way.


...Right. Which is why the evidence is not the object. This explanation does explain why evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading.All of these statements involve conclusions about evidence. The conclusions do not change the evidence. Nor do false conclusions about evidence make the evidence into something else.


...Because it doesn't. It's a "property" that humans give it. Like "beauty" or "value".


Because it is wrong. If evidence is a property that things have, why don't you explain how this "property of evidence" the mountain supposedly posesses impacts the lizard sunning itself on its slopes?You're way off base here. You go along fairly well then you totally blow it.

Why should the fact the mountain has a property mean that property affects everything in contact with the mountain? How does the property of a mountain with iron rich ore on the south side buried under 20 feet of granite affect the lizard sunning itself on its north side?

The fact you find a mountain beautiful may require your opinion, but the mountain still possesses the thing you find beautiful.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you missed the point of the analogy. Yes, the sound exists to me. I can't prove it to anyone else since it resides solely in my head, although most people would agree that I am not crazy for hearing it, and we can find a mechanism to explain it. In fact, is the sound of my pulse really a sound in the traditional sense? I call it a sound, as that is how my brain registers the experience, but there are no compression waves coming through the air to my ear drum.

So in reality, it is my experience of a sound I am calling evidence, which may or may not really be a sound at all. I think is a bit closer to what Pisci means when he is talking about perception as opposed to reality.Your experience is evidence. It is not evidence of sound.

Regarding your question to me, which may have simply been rhetorical but deserves a response, yes, the voices a schizophrenic hears would be evidence of sound (which no one else can hear) just as much as my pulse is evidence of sound (which no one else can hear). However, most people would use this evidence of sound to conclude schizophrenia, rather than demons. It does not reduce its status as evidence.Now you are merely redefining sound as the nerve impulse instead of the pressure wave. The nerve impulse is evidence of the nerve impulse. It is not evidence of the pressure wave.

This is why I say that feelings of god is evidence, but not evidence for the existence of god. Which is really what you and articulett have been saying all along, this is just looking at the same thing from a slightly different direction, where evidence includes experience rather than excludes it. The conclusion does not change (at least not for me).Since you get it here, I'm not sure why you are calling it slightly different. Hopefully what I said above will clarify it.

[Piscivore]

Because you are taking the concept of evidence and incorrectly applying the following:Let's again back up here to the problem.

Beth is claiming the 'experience' is evidence of god.
We are not denying the 'experience' is evidence.
We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.
Right. And I don't think anyone disputes that. Not even Beth.

And now you can't seem to see the error you are making either. The fact the 'experience' in this case is the evidence, does not mean the observation is included in all the things we label evidence. It means the observation is the evidence if you are looking at observations. But the thing you are observing is the evidence if you are looking at the thing.
No, the observation is the evidence, no matter if you are observing a mountain or a feeling or any "thing"

Again, you don't think I get what you are saying about the observation being part of the evidence. I get that.
It isn't part of the evidence, it is the evidence. Just like baking is the process by which apples, flour and sugar become a pie, observation is the process by which a thing or an experience becomes evidence.

But the observation is not included when one says a mountain is evidence.
That's just the way we use English, and it has no bearing on what it is. i've already said that English is a poor language for science or philosophy, this is another reason why.

It is the mountain that is the evidence. Yes, one has to observe it because the concept of the word evidence means we are using the evidence for something. But that observation is not the evidence. The observation is what you do with the evidence to make it evidence.
Right here is where you are making your error of equivocation. You are using the same word to mean two different things.

"The observation is what you do with the the object to make it something useful to making a conclusion."
If you try to correct the equivocation, it doesn't work...
"The observation is what you do with the the object to make it the object."
"The observation is what you do with the something useful to making a conclusion to make it something useful to making a conclusion."

This is so interesting because I know exactly what the issue is here but it is difficult to convey because the words are limited.
:)

Regardless of what they are evidence of, the mountains are still evidence.
So you claim. What are they evidence of?

The experience Beth is describing is evidence. But not evidence of god.
I tend to agree. All the evidence available thus far says otherwise.

Then why are you not recognizing the fact a conclusion is not evidence?
I never disputed that, with the caveat that a conclusion can be evidence for a different conclusion.

Try again, you are missing the point.

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.
In your statement, yes. And grammatically it is correct. As a casual, colloquial, incomplete and innacurate way of shortening an explanation to someone who you are confident knows enough of the necessary background information to comprehend it, it works. As an accurate and complete summation of the logical process by which one arrives at that conclusion from which one can draw accurate inferences about that process, it does not work:

Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.
Maybe, but you cannot tell where the error lies, or even if the conclusion is false from that statement.

Your statement doesn't say how you determined the mountains are evidence, it doesn't say how the mountains are evidence, it does not say anything except a simple, unverified assertion that may or may not be true.

It's exactly the same as someone saying "Feelings are evidence of god." You and I can judge that as grammatically correct but factually incorrect because of our knowledge of the background information to conclude otherwise. But what if someone said to us "Quantum mechanics is evidence time travel is possible"? I can't dispute that right off. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The statement isn't sufficient to draw any inferences from it.

Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.
Only in a casual, colloquial, incomplete and innacurate usage. One that leads to all sorts of errors.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!
If evidence is that which is helpful for making a conclusion, no, they aren't. It's not exactly true that you "haven't yet", it is more proper to say that you cannot. Until something happens, and you already know what that it.

If "evidence" is meant to mean an object, you are making the error of equivocation again:
"What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are objects of? Are the mountains still objects?"
"What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what conclusion the mountains are helpful for making? Are the mountains still helpful for making a conclusion?"

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No.
No, of course not. It puts the mountains in context of our understanding in order to make a conclusion.

The mountains are defined as more than evidence.
The mountains are defined as more than a lot of things, but not evidence. :)

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.
Agreed. Because "evidence" isn't a quality they posess, but a human judgement made about them.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No. And that is where you are missing the mark in this discussion.

I get what you mean about the things that go into the concept of evidence. You do not get the fact Beth is claiming anyone drawing the conclusion about their inner experience being evidence of god means it is evidence of god.

Even if this were true, it just means that Beth is making two different conclusions, that you are mistaking for one conclusion.

1. The feeling is helpful in making a conclusion if god exists or not, and
2. The feeling is helpful in making the conclusion that god exists

In less complicated language, the feeling can be used to show god exists, and the feeling does show god exists.

A semantic difference, but an important one. :)

[Piscivore]

Actually both consciousness and dreams are tangible and there is overwhelming evidence they exist.
Are they really? I thought they were emregent properties of patterns of neuronal activity, in consant flux. How can such a thing be tangible? How about the date, or the time? Are they tangible? Maybe "April twentieth" is a product of human imagination, but not the fact that this 24-hour period is not the same as the previous one.

This is a sidetrack however.
Correct, this is an element of the other discussion.

Using the word, 'evidence', defined this way ignores the fact one can use the word, 'evidence' defined another way.
You can, certainly, but does work? You useage leads straight into an error of equivocation.

All of these statements involve conclusions about evidence.
Right, but conclusions about the value of the human jugement of observations of things, not about things in and of themselves. and these conclusions are not the ones that the evidence is intended to help make. In fact, to make the conclusion about the evidence, you need other evidence. You're just going to end up arguing for "first causes"- or "first evidences", I guess- by this route.

Why should the fact the mountain has a property mean that property affects everything in contact with the mountain? How does the property of a mountain with iron rich ore on the south side buried under 20 feet of granite affect the lizard sunning itself on its north side?
Alright, that's a fair point. That example is flawed, I withdraw it. :)

If evidence is a property that the mountain possesses, does it affect anything except human percetions and human judgements? Is this a property we can independently idetify apart for using it make a conclusion? Can it be deected, measured?

If evidence is a property that the mountain posesses, and that property can me mispercieved and misjudged when observed, what is the difference between the object and the "property of evidence"?

The fact you find a mountain beautiful may require your opinion, but the mountain still possesses the thing you find beautiful.
What if what I find beautiful is the way that the light is striking it just at this moment because of the combination of the softly falling rain it filters through, highlighting the normally ugly and barren crags?

What if my neighbor seels the whole thing as jsut an ugly eyesore that should be mined for its iron ore and then used for upscale tract housing.

"The thing I find beautiful" is a human judgement, not a property.

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post,Skep:We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.
Piscivore: Right. And I don't think anyone disputes that. Not even Beth.
is not what Beth has been saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god, and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.

...I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated.I[..] never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's. If other people find the evidence convincing, well, that's also a reasonable conclusion for certain concepts of an non-material god - such as yours. ...

And while I had hoped you were just arguing a limited understanding of what evidence was while recognizing underneath what evidence is, this statement from the above post says you are indeed as wrong as Beth.No, the observation is the evidence, no matter if you are observing a mountain or a feeling or any "thing"


That couldn't be more wrong. I understand why you are making the error. But there is no way to see the error as having any merit when you put it in those terms.

Notice the bolded words below vs the italicized words in the numerous definitions of the word, evidence. The link contains a list of sources for these definitions of the word, evidence (http://www.answers.com/evidence&r=67)A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.

That which confirms

Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else:

In law, something (e.g., testimony, documents, or physical objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact.

in law, material submitted

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses

IN BRIEF: Something that shows or proves, or that gives reason for believing.

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

Proof presented at a trial by the parties through witnesses, records, documents, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing the court or jury to believe their contentions.

Any thing properly presented to a court which will assist it to make a decision in a case. Testimony is evidence given orally. There are two I left out for discussion in the next post because they go to the heart of Beth's and now your discussion and I think we need to resolve this matter of what evidence is and isn't before going on to the next problem which is looking at what personal experience is evidence of.

In each and every one of these definitions, 'evidence' is the noun. It is separate from the observation and/or the conclusion and/or the purpose of calling it evidence. The observation is what you do with or to the evidence. You can argue all you want that the purpose in inherent in the concept of evidence. But you cannot make the case that the observation is the evidence except when one is actually looking at observations and then the observations become the evidence for what you are looking at.

[Beth]

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post, is not what Beth has been saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god, Correct about my view to this point.

and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.
No.

I[..] never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's.

The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them. It's a made up example without any actual testimonial evidence in support of it.

From the definition you posted:
The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses

Why shouldn't the testimony of witnesses be considered evidence when they are testifing for the existance of god? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, it certainly doesn't have to be believed as people can be mistaken or deliberately lying, but it IS evidence. That has been my sole contention throughout this thread.

[Egg]

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.
Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.
Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No. The mountains are defined as more than evidence.

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No.
Hi SG

I was reading this part and it sounds to me like you're saying that a thing can only be said to be evidence for a certain conclusion if that conclusion is correct. That would seem to be problematic in that you need the evidence to draw the conclusion in the first place.

We can't discover if a conclusion is correct without the evidence and we don't have any evidence because we don't know if the conclusion that it might be evidence for is correct.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hi SG

I was reading this part and it sounds to me like you're saying that a thing can only be said to be evidence for a certain conclusion if that conclusion is correct. That would seem to be problematic in that you need the evidence to draw the conclusion in the first place.

We can't discover if a conclusion is correct without the evidence and we don't have any evidence because we don't know if the conclusion that it might be evidence for is correct.

Ah. Now we are getting somewhere! No. Wait I'm just as lost as when this thread started. :o

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them. It's a made up example without any actual testimonial evidence in support of it.The IPU is used to illustrate a hypothetical point, it isn't used as a literal example. Change it then to a schizophrenic who hears voices. Are they evidence of sound external to his brain?

...Why shouldn't the testimony of witnesses be considered evidence when they are testifing for the existance of god? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, it certainly doesn't have to be believed as people can be mistaken or deliberately lying, but it IS evidence. That has been my sole contention throughout this thread.You are again confusing "what is evidence" for "what is it evidence of"

The testimony and the experience are evidence, they just are not evidence of anything you falsely conclude from that evidence.

It's really not that hard of a concept, a conclusion is not evidence.

[Beth]

The IPU is used to illustrate a hypothetical point, it isn't used as a literal example. Then stop using it and claiming there is no more evidence for god than the IPU. It's not a true statement.

Change it then to a schizophrenic who hears voices. Are they evidence of sound external to his brain?

You are again confusing "what is evidence" for "what is it evidence of"

The testimony and the experience are evidence, they just are not evidence of anything you falsely conclude from that evidence.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that the conclusion is false in this case? It seem to me that you are assuming their conclusion is wrong because you've already come to the conclusion that no god exists, regardless of the definition and therefore, they must be mistaken about what their experience is evidence of. That seems more than a bit circular in my opinion.

You might also want to check out this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111908 on the subject we've been discussing here.


It's really not that hard of a concept, a conclusion is not evidence.

It's not a hard concept, just an erroneous one IMO. A conclusion in a peer-reviewed paper is usually considered evidence. Do you disagree? Can a conclusion never be evidence? Because if you claim that, then no matter how many studies one cites with results in agreement, they could not be considered evidence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Invisible Pink Unicorns is a hypothetical illustration, Beth. I had no idea you didn't understand that and weren't grasping the analogy.

The circular argument is claiming a false conclusion means the evidence is evidence of both the false conclusion and whatever it is the evidence is really evidence of.

Again, the point you are missing is the difference between evidence and evidence of.

As to the conclusion in a peer reviewed paper, no, that is not evidence, the study provides the evidence. If you claimed the conclusion of the study drawn by the researchers was evidence, you'd be using the logic of argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority) and that is considered a fallacy.

[Mobyseven]

The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them.

I am. I have experienced the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Mobyseven]

People here are having trouble with Skeptigirl's point about evidence, and I honestly am not sure why.

Having an 'experience of god' is not evidence for the existence of god.

Having an 'experience of god' is evidence for something, but only in some situations. In others, it wouldn't be evidence at all.

This doesn't have anything to do with presupposing the conclusion that god does not exist and then saying that the experience cannot be evidence because of that.

This has to do with the fact that anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence for anything - even in a court of law, where the standard of evidence is significantly lower than what is required by science - one would not prosecute a person based on the account of a single witness, unbacked by corroborating evidence. Indeed, it wouldn't matter how many witnesses you had - unless there is some kind of evidence independant of the anecdotes of a group of witnesses, you can't prosecute a person. To use murder as an example: A thousand people can swear they saw me shoot a man, but if there is no evidence aside from their say so (e.g. No body, no weapon, no blood, no sign of disturbance, no missing person, etc.) then I'm not going to be going to jail.

[Piscivore]

People here are having trouble with Skeptigirl's point about evidence, and I honestly am not sure why.

Having an 'experience of god' is not evidence for the existence of god.
Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Having an 'experience of god' is evidence for something,
It is also that. And probably better.

but only in some situations. In others, it wouldn't be evidence at all.

This doesn't have anything to do with presupposing the conclusion that god does not exist and then saying that the experience cannot be evidence because of that.
Yes it is exactly to do with that. SG says that "evidence" is the thing observed. Since the "thing observed" does not exist, it cannot help one make a conclusion.that the thing observed exists.

This rests entirely on the error of equivocation SG creates with her redefinition of evidence.

This has to do with the fact that anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence for anything - even in a court of law, where the standard of evidence is significantly lower than what is required by science - one would not prosecute a person based on the account of a single witness, unbacked by corroborating evidence.
That fact does not negate the fact that the witness tesimony is still evidence. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion"

Indeed, it wouldn't matter how many witnesses you had - unless there is some kind of evidence independant of the anecdotes of a group of witnesses, you can't prosecute a person.
Really? I hardly think that's true.

To use murder as an example: A thousand people can swear they saw me shoot a man, but if there is no evidence aside from their say so (e.g. No body, no weapon, no blood, no sign of disturbance, no missing person, etc.) then I'm not going to be going to jail.
No, but the poilce are still going to investigate you on that basis. A thousnad people's testimony isn't sufficient evidence, isn't conclusive evidence, isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion".

[Piscivore]

Sorry, SG, I was way too tired yesterday to engage in anything but frippery.

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post, is not what Beth has been saying.
Well, with Beth still posting, I'm not going to argue over her head about what she's saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god, and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.
And she's right. As I just told Moby, it isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that helps one make a conclusion.

That couldn't be more wrong. I understand why you are making the error. But there is no way to see the error as having any merit when you put it in those terms.
Is it possible that's because it isn't an error?


Notice the bolded words below vs the italicized words in the numerous definitions of the word, evidence. The link contains a list of sources for these definitions of the word, evidence (http://www.answers.com/evidence&r=67)
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion
I've already addressed the problem with the word "thing". It inclused both your "physical object" and my "observation". It is fraught with potential for eqivocation and as such is a poor version of the defintion to use scientifically or rationally.

Further, this definition says nothing at all about the conclusion being "correct".

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.
Indeed. and the unobserved mountains of Venus do neither for the proposition that plate tectonics occurs on Venus.

Contrariwise, a feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can raise the probability of the proposition "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that raises the probability of the proposition.

This definition says nothing at all about the proposition being "correct" either.

"That" does not say anything about "that" being a physical object.

That which confirms
A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can confirm the idea "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that confirms.

"That" does not say anything about "that" being a physical object.

Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else:
"Visible" is a property of an object. "Being seen" is not.

In law, something (e.g., testimony, documents, or physical objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact.

in law, material submitted

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

Proof presented at a trial by the parties through witnesses, records, documents, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing the court or jury to believe their contentions.

Any thing properly presented to a court which will assist it to make a decision in a case. Testimony is evidence given orally.
Do you want to talk about law, or science? The two use different usages of the word, and to switch between them is an error of equivocation. We've already discussed that.

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses.
"the testimony of witnesses" is an observation, not a thing.

IN BRIEF: Something that shows or proves, or that gives reason for believing.
There's that word "thing" again.

A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can show, "prove" or give reason for someone to believe "god exists". It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that can show, prove or give reason for someone to believe.

Something "proven" with bad evidence or faulty logic may be incorrect, but that does not change the fact that evidence was used.

"belief" does not have to be correct to be a "belief".

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

"Thing", again. Worst word in the English language.

A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can determine or demonstrate the "truth" of the assertion "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that can be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Something determined or demonstrated to be true with bad evidence or faulty logic may be incorrect, but that does not change the fact that evidence was used.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

You highlighted the wrong bit. I have no idea what you imagine highlighting "evidence is accumulated" shows.

There are two I left out for discussion in the next post because they go to the heart of Beth's and now your discussion and I think we need to resolve this matter of what evidence is and isn't before going on to the next problem which is looking at what personal experience is evidence of.
Waiting.

In each and every one of these definitions, 'evidence' is the noun.
Not all nouns are physical objects. "An observation (http://www.answers.com/observation&r=67)" is a noun too.

It is separate from the observation
No, the observation is assumed. We've been over that.

and/or the conclusion
Well, without a conclusion being derived from it the word "evidence" is meaningless.

and/or the purpose of calling it evidence.
No, the purpose of calling it evidence is to note that it has been used to make a conclusion.

The observation is what you do with or to the evidence.
No, the conclusion is what you do with the evidence.

You can argue all you want that the purpose in inherent in the concept of evidence.
It is. It's in the definitions you posted.

But you cannot make the case that the observation is the evidence except when one is actually looking at observations and then the observations become the evidence for what you are looking at.
What?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".So there must be evidence for ghosts, homeopathy, astrology, demonic possession, and visitations by fairies according to your position, just not sufficient evidence.

Pisci, I think you need to re-think what is means to say something is evidence for something. It implies that it actually represents the thing. Sufficient or not, to say something is evidence for something it has to be evidence for that thing. It can't just be that someone believes it.

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on. Articulett gets it, Mobyseven gets it, I get it. What more can I say?

It isn't my redefinition of evidence. It's the definition of evidence in a dozen sources straight from the standard sources. You and Beth are the ones with your personal redefined versions. I posted a dozen sources. Those were not my paraphrased versions.

[Piscivore]

So there must be evidence for ghosts, homeopathy, astrology, demonic possession, and visitations by fairies according to your position, just not sufficient evidence.
There is. Respectively: Bumps in the night/paraideola/inexplicable movements of small objects, "feeling better" after taking the treatment, recognising yourself in losse generalities, seizures/abberant behaviour, Paraideloa/mushroom rings/inexplicable movements of small objects.

People don't just believe thses things for no reason, because they like being deluded.

Pisci, I think you need to re-think what is means to say something is evidence for something.
I have. In depth.

It implies that it actually represents the thing.
No, it doesn't say, imply, or allude to that at all. Evidence for something only means that it is "that which helps on make a conclusion" about the thing.

Sufficient or not, to say something is evidence for something it has to be evidence for that thing.
If by "has to be" you mean "can only be", that's not correct. As has already been shown, a light in the sky is, for one person, evidence of alien spacecraft and for another an Air Force flare. Or Venus. Or swamp gas. Or epilepsy.

Neither the definition of "evidence" nor the definition of "conclusion" specify which conclusions are correct.

It can't just be that someone believes it.
It isn't. It is "did this help someone make a conclusion?"

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on.
Very well. I've enjoyed this discussion, thank you.

Articulett gets it, Mobyseven gets it, I get it.
Is that Appeal to Authority or Appeal to Popularity?

What more can I say?
"I'm sorry, I've been wrong all this time?" :)

It isn't my redefinition of evidence. It's the definition of evidence in a dozen sources straight from the standard sources. You and Beth are the ones with your personal redefined versions. I posted a dozen sources. Those were not my paraphrased versions.
And not one of those sources limited the idea of "evidence" to a physical object (in fact, they only made it possible to consider it a physical object by way of an egregiously equivocal word), only the legal ones called it a physical object specifically, and the scientific definition to which you linked specifically contradicted you, and mirrored mine. Without interpretation, refinment, or paraphrasing.

[Beth]

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on.

Perhaps you'll have more success with Athon and Dr. H on the subject in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111908

:D

[articulett]

I am. I have experienced the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
I AM the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

(ha. I win.)

[Mobyseven]

Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Except, by such a standard of evidence, one would have to accept that if I have a dream about leprechauns, that dream is evidence that leprechauns exist.

I would concede that in the past such anecdotes may well have been considered evidence. But that was before we found out just how worthless anecdotal evidence is - nowadays, when we better understand how falliable human memory and observation is, anecdotes cannot be called 'evidence' for anything.

Yes it is exactly to do with that. SG says that "evidence" is the thing observed. Since the "thing observed" does not exist, it cannot help one make a conclusion.that the thing observed exists.

If that is indeed the case, then I have misunderstood SG's argument. She seems to be in agreement with me, however,

That fact does not negate the fact that the witness tesimony is still evidence. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion"

By the standards of the courtroom it would be called evidence, yes. However, the standards for something to class as evidence in science or philosophy must be and are set at a higher level than those of the courtroom.

Really? I hardly think that's true.

It's really true. At least in Western countries...I don't know much about the judicial system of, for instance, Saudi Arabia, but I'd hardly be holding it up as a shining example of a legal system. You can't prosecute someone for a crime based entirely on the say so of witnesses, however. You need at the very least, for example, independant evidence that a crime actually took place!

No, but the poilce are still going to investigate you on that basis. A thousnad people's testimony isn't sufficient evidence, isn't conclusive evidence, isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Ah, but the testimony isn't evidence in situation. Indeed, you imply it in your own post - the police might find it a suitable basis to investigate me, but that doesn't make it in and of itself evidence. It makes it a starting point from which evidence can then be sought after. If I tell you that Billy shot Joe, that isn't evidence that Billy shot Joe, but it might well pique your curiousity enough that you investigate and discover the evidence for the crime (Joe's body, a gun with Billy's fingerprints, etc.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Piscivore and Beth wish to define magical evidence as actual evidence just because they say it is, then there is nothing a rational critical thinker can say to rationally address this magical thinking.

It would seem Beth believes the evidence has actual value and Piscivore believes it has to do with the definition of evidence requiring the inclusion of the preposition "of" or "for" even though if that were true, one would need to always include one of those prepositions. But one doesn't have to include one of those prepositions because evidence is a noun and as such describes the thing without regard to what it is evidence of or for.

I understand Beth's magical thinking because it is a common human view of the world. Lots of people believe in magical things.

I don't understand Piscivore's inability to comprehend the English language definition of 'evidence' unless he is just rationalizing his magical thinking and wording it differently than Beth is.

Nothing personal to either of you guys. This is just my version of how the world is constructed. I think it also happens to be the rational version, but I'll leave that to consensus of opinion. I do think though, Piscivore, that you would be hard pressed to find many skeptics defining evidence the way you are defining it.

[Piscivore]

Except, by such a standard of evidence, one would have to accept that if I have a dream about leprechauns, that dream is evidence that leprechauns exist.
Well, dreams were once considered evidence, as you say below. They still are, to some people. It's pretty crappy evidence, especially for someone who knows the first thing about... well, anything, but nonetheless is it "that which helps form a conclusion"

I would concede that in the past such anecdotes may well have been considered evidence. But that was before we found out just how worthless anecdotal evidence is - nowadays, when we better understand how falliable human memory and observation is, anecdotes cannot be called 'evidence' for anything.
Except that they are. Even in science, anecdotal evidence can cause someone to look at something in a new way, or formulate a new hypothesis. Even if it isn't strong enough to rigorously support a scientific conclusion, it is still evidence.

And again, there are hundreds of thousands of people that rely on just this kind of evidence, every day. The neighbor telling Mrs Smith that she saw Mr. Smith smooching the babysitter in the driveway. Your best friend telling you that a mutual acquaintence cheats at bridge. The tabloid headline screming about Brittney Spears.

It isn't scientific, but it is evidence.

By the standards of the courtroom it would be called evidence, yes. However, the standards for something to class as evidence in science or philosophy must be and are set at a higher level than those of the courtroom.
Indeed, and I thought I made that point somewhere.

It's really true. At least in Western countries...I don't know much about the judicial system of, for instance, Saudi Arabia, but I'd hardly be holding it up as a shining example of a legal system. You can't prosecute someone for a crime based entirely on the say so of witnesses, however. You need at the very least, for example, independant evidence that a crime actually took place!
Well, that must be a fairly recent development, because I'm pretty sure a black man could get hung on no better evidence than that within my lifetime- or at least my parents'.

Ah, but the testimony isn't evidence in situation. Indeed, you imply it in your own post - the police might find it a suitable basis to investigate me, but that doesn't make it in and of itself evidence.
It's evidence there is something to look at in the first place, isn't it?

It makes it a starting point from which evidence can then be sought after. If I tell you that Billy shot Joe, that isn't evidence that Billy shot Joe, but it might well pique your curiousity enough that you investigate and discover the evidence for the crime (Joe's body, a gun with Billy's fingerprints, etc.)
The other, better, corroborating evidence strengthens the probability the conclusion is correct, but that doesn't demote the inital evidence to something else.

[Piscivore]

If Piscivore and Beth wish to define magical evidence as actual evidence just because they say it is, then there is nothing a rational critical thinker can say to rationally address this magical thinking.
I nowhere said anything about "magical" anything, let alone magical thinking.

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I nowhere said anything about "magical" anything, let alone magical thinking.I realize you didn't make your claim using the terminology, magical thinking.

But tell me how what you are saying differs? You are claiming evidence is evidence for or of anything the person magically thinks it is evidence for or of.

If you are not saying that then what evidence is not some evidence of a magical thing? According to you, if I think it, therefore it is.

[Skeptic Ginger]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?You have defined the essence of the problem. Once you have discovered the thing is not evidence of what you believed it to be evidence of, does the evidence somehow now change? It is no longer evidence of your false conclusion.

[westprog]

You have defined the essence of the problem. Once you have discovered the thing is not evidence of what you believed it to be evidence of, does the evidence somehow now change? It is no longer evidence of your false conclusion.


If evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof" then there's a problem. If it's taken in it's normal way - as information helping one to form a conclusion - then there's no conflict whatsoever.

If someone is found not guilty, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses doesn't suddenly cease to be evidence. When Einstein brought out the General Theory, the observations which Newton relied on didn't suddenly cease to be evidence.

What happens is that what a piece of evidence points to will be qualified by another piece of evidence.

[Mobyseven]

This really is no more than a semantic quibble about what the definition of a word should be. It's reached the stage where we understand eachother's positions, but are arguing over which usage is preferable. I'm going to try something novel, and explain why I think the definition used by me is preferable to the one used by Piscovore. Up until this point the debate has focused upon the negative traits of the other definitions, and I think this might get things straightened out.

First, I believe my definition to be preferable because (not despite) it is a narrower definition. It does not admit as evidence that which is highly likely to lead to an incorrect conclusion, nor does it admit anything that could be used to support any conclusion. A less constrained definition such as is being used by Piscovore leads to a situation where anything and everything can be considered 'evidence', and a definition by which anything can be considered 'evidence' is next to useless, as it fails to distinguish 'evidence' from 'non-evidence'.

Second, my definition is preferable because it prevents people (such as Beth) from artificially strengthening their position by appealing to anecdotes and the like. When a person asks someone for evidence that supports their position, they are not requesting an anecdote - anecdotes, if accepted as valid, could be used to 'prove' anything, and therefore really prove nothing. The common catch cry that 'anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence' is quite misleading, and, quite frankly, incorrect. It has, in fact, been used many times on this very thread - the idea that, in the conspicuous absence of any real evidence, we should accept as 'evidence' things that are known to be worthless, is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

In other words, my definition is preferable because it is a definition that admits only useful information, where other definitions admit all information.

[Piscivore]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place?
Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.

Or is it evidence of a lie?

Yes, actually.

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.

Bad and misleading evidence of what? How can there be evidence (good or bad) of something that didn’t exist? A shooting didn’t take place.

Or is it evidence of a lie? Yes, actually.

I agree. I agree because someone actually said something that wasn’t true, and Bill & Joe are getting drunk.

[Piscivore]

I realize you didn't make your claim using the terminology, magical thinking.

But tell me how what you are saying differs? You are claiming evidence is evidence for or of anything the person magically thinks it is evidence for or of.
It doesn't matter if the person "magically" thinks it is evidence or not. From Wiki (Magical Thinking):
Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation. For example, someone who wore a particular shirt to a bowling competition that they then won, may then come to believe that shirt is lucky. Such a person might well then wear the shirt to subsequent bowling competitions and attribute success to the "lucky" shirt, despite sustaining some tournament losses in addition to victories.
Now the way I think you'd interpret what was going on here is the shirt is evidence, but only because the bowler already believes in luck does he think that it is evidence for luck. Since there is no such thing as luck, the shirt is really evidence that there isn't any, since properly tested scientifically, the shirt will show no effect on bowling scores not accountable by chance. Is that correct?

Well, here's my interpretation. The shirt is not evidence of luck, the observation the guy made that he won the game while wearing the shirt is evidence of luck. He aready believes in luck becasue he's gotten other evidence (statments by friends, family, media, similar erroneous observations, etc.) that have led him to this hypothesis and/or conclusion. He then collects further evidence- "wear[ing] the shirt to subsequent bowling competitions", but uses a bad methodology to give those observations weight, or even consideration at all- attributing success to the "lucky" shirt, ignoring some tournament losses.

In other words, Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #1 is evidence that the shirt is lucky.

Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #3, 5, 7, & 9 (which he won) is evidence (if considered) that the shirt is lucky.

Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 (which he lost) is evidence (if considered) that the shirt is not lucky.

The "magical thnking" comes in, not because the bowler is using the conclusion he comes to as evidence for that conclusion, but because he is ignoring the observations he makes that lead away from a possible conclusion he wants to be true.

If you are not saying that then what evidence is not some evidence of a magical thing? According to you, if I think it, therefore it is.
As Westprog said, only "if evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof"". Bad evidence will be revealed as such by other evidence. If those observations are not made- or if they are ignored- they are not evidence, they are just data.

[Piscivore]

Bad and misleading evidence of what? How can there be evidence (good or bad) of something that didn’t exist? A shooting didn’t take place.
"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.

I agree. I agree because someone actually said something that wasn’t true, and Bill & Joe are getting drunk.
Evidence can't only be evidence if it agrees with the conclusions we come to.

[Piscivore]

In other words, my definition is preferable because it is a definition that admits only useful information, where other definitions admit all information.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the definiton of "confirmation bias".

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

[lupus_in_fabula]

"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.

So it seems to boil down to what Mobyseven said in post #1420. I would submit that the initial utterance – Joe was shot – is not evidence but simply an assertion; a signal leading to an investigation (not directly to a conclusion). Clearly we use the term evidence in a different way. I’m not sure if your usage of the term is very fruitful, especially if the discourse is scientific.

On the other hand, I suppose it’s possible to say that evidence is simply something like testimony. But that doesn’t tell us much, especially if that which it is supposed to be evidence “of” is lacking. Heck, I could say that the itching feeling I just had is evidence for Melek Taus farting - keeping all doors open! :D

[Mobyseven]

I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the definiton of "confirmation bias".

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not, and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me. An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence. For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept. Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion, as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?

[MarkCorrigan]

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

Wow that's....novel.

How, exactly, is your definition not worthless? If you apply such a low standard for what you term evidence there is no point in being a sceptic. I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion, but that does not make it evidence, it simply means they do not know what evidence is.

You might as well ask for zxxpt to show something, since you have watered down evidence so much that it is effectively meaningless.

[articulett]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?

It's evidence of a delusion, misperception, mistaken identity, false memory or an illusion... It's also evidence that humans are very prone to such things--particularly those who think they aren't.

[articulett]

If evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof" then there's a problem. If it's taken in it's normal way - as information helping one to form a conclusion - then there's no conflict whatsoever.

If someone is found not guilty, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses doesn't suddenly cease to be evidence. When Einstein brought out the General Theory, the observations which Newton relied on didn't suddenly cease to be evidence.

What happens is that what a piece of evidence points to will be qualified by another piece of evidence.

I think you missed the point that evidence has to be something "tangible"... a noun-- it can't be an "essence". There is nothing about a god that is materially measurable to be counted as evidence for god the supposed immaterial entity... which magically does or doesn't effect the material world.

Someone can swear up and down that god told them to do something or that the devil told them something... but neither thing CAN be evidence for an "immaterial entity" that communicates with material entities. We have no reason to posit the existence of such things... no matter how many people think they are getting messages from such things.

[articulett]

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.



If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not, and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me. An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence. For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept. Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion, as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?

Beautifully said Moby.

[Piscivore]

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.
Yeah, you know, I think I might have misunderstood you. I have drifted into the broader definition, not the scientific. My apologies.

If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.
Well, first off, not everything can be considered evidence, because things unobserved cannot be used to make a conclusion.

Second, evidence used to make a conclusion stops being evidence for that conclusion when and if that conclusion is invalidated, but it doesn't stop being evidence.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not,
It is that word "legitimate" that we are comming to loggerheads about. You and I (and science) have already seen plenty of cases where dreams and hallucinations- or more specifically the content of such- were used to make conclusions that were later invalidated. This is why "in scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world", of which the content of dreams isn't really a part.

However, if several unrelated people unknown to each other were to report the same dream content, that would still be evidence of something. It won't be (at least, it is extrememly unlikely) that the content of the dream is accurate. Still, it's not a category of experience I think we can dismiss out of hand, even if we think it is likely that they are either playing a hoax, having a trick played on them. It could be a new kind of virus. We dismiss it the woo conclusion (the content of the dream is accurate) when other evidence suggests a better conclusion or invaldates the "woo" explanation.

and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias
I see that, it is withdrawn.

and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me.
Well, evidence can be led, too. That's why we have scientific standards, classes of misleading, erroneous, and manipulated evidence.

And even then evidence that looks good, looks robust, looks incontorvertable can lead to erroneous conlusions. Look how many paradigms have been hoisted up and torn down- Aristotelian physics, Newtonian Physics, Geocentrism, Lamarckian Evolution... the list goes on.

An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence.
Yes, indeed. Which is why we have science, to validate these claims against other evidence (evidence which includes conclusions supported by other evidence)

For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!
Only if you are willing to accept that evidence as sufficient and conclusive. Some people do, science does not. This does not mean we have to redifine evidence to exclude the dream. We just need to look at the entirety of the evidence available and we'll see that that one bit of evidence does not countermand the mountains of evidence otherwise. The conclusion that white people are inferior is invalidated, the evidence is not.

Let's say you write that dream down, present it to a scientist, he invalidates your conclusion, and you go home dejected and file it away. Fifty years later, the guy that buys your house finds it stuck in the back of a broom closet, reads it, comes to a conclusion, and it's evidence again.

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept.
By itself, yeah, it is. That's why science is valuable. As I told skepticgirl earlier in the discussion, if "evidence" were an inherent, imutable property of any object, we wouldn't need science, because the truth would be self-evident. It isn't. Evidence can be misused, misinterpreted, and manipulated. That's why we need science.

Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion,
Rationally? Not on its own. That's why we came up with science, to validate and error correct the conclusions.

as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?
Yeah, I was using the broader definition, which includes all the unscientific evidence.

[Piscivore]

I could say that the itching feeling I just had is evidence for Melek Taus farting - keeping all doors open! :D
It could be. The questions to ask next is "what process do you think connects the itch with Mr. Taus' rectal emmisions" and "what other evidence is there to substantiate this?"

I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion,
That's what evidence is, in the broad sense.
but that does not make it evidence, it simply means they do not know what evidence is.
It does not make it evidence if evidence is only that which conclusively or sufficiently proves the conclusion. It also may not fit the scientific definition of evidence.

You might as well ask for zxxpt to show something
It depends on what process connects "zxxpt" with "something" and what other evidence is there to substantiate this relationship.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm reading is people thinking of evidence as some kind of reliable, dependable authority. It just isn't. That's why we have science.

[Piscivore]

It's evidence of a delusion, misperception, mistaken identity, false memory or an illusion... It's also evidence that humans are very prone to such things--particularly those who think they aren't.

That's still evidence.

[lupus_in_fabula]

It could be. The questions to ask next is "what process do you think connects the itch with Mr. Taus' rectal emmisions" and "what other evidence is there to substantiate this?"

Well, since Melek Taus is said to be the Peacock Angel I’m not so sure I can ever find a connection. Thus I’m in pretty much in the same situation as people professing their weird feelings as “evidence” for god.



I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek, more like a ludicrous assertion.

[Piscivore]

Well, since Melek Taus is said to be the Peacock Angel I’m not so sure I can ever find a connection.
I'm just going to pretend that makes sense to me. :) Is that an anime thing?

ETA: I just looked him up. That's fascinating, I'd never heard of him before. Thanks.

On point, the lack of any trace of a connection is evidence also, just as 19th century scientists not finding phogiston when they looked for it was evidence the hypothesis was unsound. In this case, the evidence that Melek Taus is (presumably) imaginary is stronger, more compelling evidence than the evidence that the itch is connected to his gaseous waste products.

Thus I’m in pretty much in the same situation as people professing their weird feelings as “evidence” for god.
Indeed.

I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek, more like a ludicrous assertion.
It is an assertion if the itch did not happen.

Going back to the "murder" of Joe: if the witness did see someone shoot someone else- whether that person was hit or not, whether the shot killed the person or not, Whether there were bullets in the gun or blanks, whether the person was Joe or not, whether the "person" was even a person (instead of a rock or a cactus) or not, the witness made an observation and came to a conclusion based on that (and probably other) evidence.
If the person went into the police station without having seen anything, that is an assertion.

[lupus_in_fabula]

It is an assertion if the itch did not happen.

And how do you, in retrospect, determine if there really was an itch or not?

The “itch” is just an example of an almost infinite set of variables that can be said as being “evidence”. It could be an odd smell in the room, a sound or whatever.

Going back to the "murder" of Joe: if the witness did see someone shoot someone else- whether that person was hit or not, whether the shot killed the person or not, Whether there were bullets in the gun or blanks, whether the person was Joe or not, whether the "person" was even a person (instead of a rock or a cactus) or not, the witness made an observation and came to a conclusion based on that (and probably other) evidence.
If the person went into the police station without having seen anything, that is an assertion. But from another persons perspective there’s no way to directly tell if he actually saw anything. Thus the report is a signal for an investigation (not evidence of a shooting). It’s easy with these kind of though experiments because we have the whole scenario played out, i.e. there’s no time aspect or perspective involved.

An extremely general usage of the term evidence is not very useful in my opinion; it might just lead to more confusion. Obviously it’s possible to say that anything is evidence of something – writing that and saying it out loud is also some kind of evidence. But obviously it’s also a pretty meaningless approach.

[Piscivore]

And how do you, in retrospect, determine if there really was an itch or not?
You can't. Only the person experiencing the sensation can tell, and they may be mispercieving, they may be imagining it, or they may be tricked. That's why for a conclusion to be considered valid it must be vetted scientifically. It does not change the evidence into "something else". Have you seen Hokulele's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3633016#post3633016)?

And just because it is inaccessable to us in its pure form does not mean it isn't evidence. Historians use this kind of evidence all the time.

The “itch” is just an example of an almost infinite set of variables that can be said as being “evidence”. It could be an odd smell in the room, a sound or whatever.
If they are observed, and then are used to make a conclusion, yes. And?

But from another persons perspective there’s no way to directly tell if he actually saw anything.
That's why we gather more evidence. That's why we (science) don't rely on only one peice of evidence.

Thus the report is a signal for an investigation...
Right, "gathering more evidence", not "discarding what we have and starting from scratch".
(not evidence of a shooting)
Evidence of something.
It’s easy with these kind of though experiments because we have the whole scenario played out, i.e. there’s no time aspect or perspective involved.
Indeed.

An extremely general usage of the term evidence is not very useful in my opinion; it might just lead to more confusion. Obviously it’s possible to say that anything is evidence of something – writing that and saying it out loud is also some kind of evidence. But obviously it’s also a pretty meaningless approach.
By itself, yes. That's why there's science. This kind of statement is why I'm suspecting that you guys are wanting "evidence" to be sufficient and conclusive and only leading to correct conclusions on their own, without analysis and without error. Why you want to expunge those observations that aren't sufficient and conclusive and lead to incorrect conclusions from the definition of "evidence". Is that correct? If so, what are you going to call those other things that help one make an incorrect conclusion? How are you going to tell them apart?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.But it is good evidence for whatever it is evidence of or for. See what your problem is here? No one is arguing that the thing in question is not evidence.

We are however, saying it cannot be evidence of something it is not really evidence of.

If you want to keep your semantic argument you need to qualify it. X is evidence of god to someone. But X is not really evidence of god, the person is mistaken.

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.


Evidence can't only be evidence if it agrees with the conclusions we come to.You really cannot see what we are differing on here. Because no one is saying X is not evidence. No one is saying X is not evidence of Y to Joe.

What we are saying is X is not evidence of Y, unless it really is evidence of Y.

Regardless of any conclusions anyone draws about any evidence, the evidence is unchanged. You have the right to your own opinion but not the right to your own facts. The facts are the evidence. You can have all the magical beliefs you want and claim the evidence supports your beliefs. That does not make that evidence support those magical beliefs. The evidence is not evidence of magical conclusions. The person believes it is. It may be evidence to them. But it is not really evidence of the magical conclusions. Period.

And maybe if you hadn't already dug yourself into this hole, you could see the error you are making.

[Piscivore]

You really cannot see what we are differing on here. Because no one is saying X is not evidence. No one is saying X is not evidence of Y to Joe.
Lupus:"I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek"
MarkCorrigan: "I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion, but that does not make it evidence"

What we are saying is X is not evidence of Y, unless it really is evidence of Y.
I know. What I'm telling you is that vetted evidence ("unless it really is" evidence) is scientific evidence, but that doesn't make unvetted evidence "something else". It is still evidence.

Regardless of any conclusions anyone draws about any evidence, the evidence is unchanged.
So you keep insisting. That's only true if evidence is the object and that's simply never going to be true, unless you use the term in the colloquial, legal sense.

You have the right to your own opinion but not the right to your own facts.
Likewise.

The facts are the evidence.
No, the facts are what the evidence reveal. Eventually. If the evidence is vetted scientifically. After a long time sometimes. And even then they are subject to change if new evidence comes up.

You can have all the magical beliefs you want and claim the evidence supports your beliefs.
Yup. And other, stronger evidence probably will show otherwise.

That does not make that evidence support those magical beliefs.
Why? How can you even make that determination without knowing what the evidence is, or what the hypothesis is? Just because you "know" that anything "magical" has to be false?

Are you familiar with Clarke's law? Would a Seventeeth Century Skepticgirl be railing that evidence for the possibility of instantaneous intercontentinental communication wasn't evidence because such a concept was "magical"?

The evidence is not evidence of magical conclusions.
Except when it is. You don't get to toss it out just because you call the conclusion you don't like "magical".

The person believes it is. It may be evidence to them.
Indeed. that doesn't make it scientific evidence, but it is evidence. Beth's "feeling" isn't scientific evidence, but it is evidence. You don't get to say it isn't because you don't like the conclusion she comes to.

But it is not really evidence of the magical conclusions.
It is, but that doesn't mean the conclusion is valid, because evidence isn't infallible.

Period.
Full stop.

[Piscivore]

If you want to keep your semantic argument you need to qualify it. X is evidence of god to someone.
I did qualify it. I said exactly that. I also said it wasn't sufficient evidence or conclusive evidence.

But X is not really evidence of god, the person is mistaken.
It's not up to me, or you, to decide what it's "really" evidence for, that's for science and other evidence. Deciding it probably isn't evidence for god is a good starting hypothesis, nothing more. Beyond that you start throwing babies out with the bathwater.

"That's not "really" evidence for a heliocentric planetary model"
"That's not "really" evidence of evolution"
"That's not "really" evidence of invisible animals causing disease"

[Skeptic Ginger]

Vetted evidence? Scientific evidence? Nonsense! The meaning of the word evidence doesn't change. That is the same claim Beth tried to make, that the evidence wasn't of X quality. Quality has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem is claiming something is evidence OF or FOR something, when it isn't evidence OF or FOR that thing.

I don't know how Lupus or Mark worded their posts. I am telling you how articulett, myself and mobyseven are describing the definition of evidence. I'll have to go back and read the other entries to see what they meant in context.

Your very long discussion is not helping your case here, Piscivore. There is only one issue on the table. Evidence is evidence. Simply claiming it is evidence OF or FOR something does not make it evidence OF or FOR something. It is evidence OF or FOR whatever it really is evidence OF or FOR. You cannot draw a conclusion and then claim your conclusion is evidence. It is not. No one is talking about the scientific rigor of a valid conclusion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did qualify it. I said exactly that. I also said it wasn't sufficient evidence or conclusive evidence.That still does not make it evidence for something it is not evidence of. You really are missing the point.


It's not up to me, or you, to decide what it's "really" evidence for, that's for science and other evidence. Deciding it probably isn't evidence for god is a good starting hypothesis, nothing more. Beyond that you start throwing babies out with the bathwater.

"That's not "really" evidence for a heliocentric planetary model"
"That's not "really" evidence of evolution"
"That's not "really" evidence of invisible animals causing disease"You are missing the point here. What you are saying here is the conclusion may or may not be correct. The evidence does not change.

And there are many things for which the evidence is irrefutable. So to say it isn't up to anyone to decide is bull. The evidence is irrefutable I have a heart beating inside my chest. Of course I can decide that. If I couldn't then how could any of us determine reality? But that is a side issue.

Either we correctly conclude what evidence is evidence of or we are incorrect. But incorrectly concluding something doesn't magically make the evidence into evidence for the incorrect conclusion.

You really need to rethink the difference between conclusion and evidence. You have them very blurred just as Beth does.

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you want to qualify your position we could resolve this. You are arguing semantics if all you are saying is X is evidence as far as the person drawing the incorrect conclusion is concerned. We know that. We know that people believe they have correctly concluded whatever it is they are basing their god beliefs on is evidence for their god beliefs.

Just take it one step further. They believe X is evidence of gods, but that belief does not make X actual evidence of gods.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I kind of understand Piscivore’s position, where everything is evidence and then after a rigorous examination some evidence is regarded as better evidence than other. I think it’s unnecessary to go that route thou. It doesn’t mean data leading to an investigation are tossed out, more like pending an elevation to become evidence of something. Only after having created a feedback loop between signals and conclusions – i.e. having a sufficient framework for interpreting stuff – can we start talking about actual evidence of something. Within the framework we need to show a relationship between data and conclusions and that they indeed correspond, thus we can say there is evidence for conclusion X1, X2…, Xn.

I assume Pisci’s point is something of a crime scene investigator’s: By sealing off a house where a murder has taken place it’s possible to say that “don’t touch anything, everything in there is evidence”. Although what that statement in actuality means is: “don’t touch anything because something therein could be used as evidence” for a) finding out how the murder took place; b) who committed the murder; c) for convicting the murderer in a trial. A, b and c are different contexts and use different kinds of data – what might be evidence for conviction is not the same evidence as showing how the killing took place (context is key).

He is simply saying that before we start creating a framework for understanding a limited set of data, everything is evidence, although only some specific data is evidence of a particular conclusion. But in reality we must always restrict the framework beforehand; this is done by using a set of predetermined knowledge about the world and a specific interpretive point of view. Thus, a dim cloud seen through a lens is not regarded as evidence for hardly anything of interest in the field of astrobiology; what’s required is a framework, a particular set of observations and a limited set of possible conclusions, before astrobiologist’s can begin to talk about evidence – before that, it’s simply data, or potential evidence if the cloud is somehow predicted. To-meh-toe, to-ma-toe… I however think there is a difference between potential evidence for anything and actual evidence for something. Potential evidence for anything is so dim that I would not call it evidence at all, more like data. We can re-evalute some data as evidence at some later time anyway.

When it comes to god-beliefs, and based on what we already know about the world with some certainty, I suspect the question is: should a framework for taking any supernatural force into account be considered at all; is it even meaningful to begin an investigation from that point of view? The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion. People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Beth and Piscivore are both confusing evidence and conclusions. It is a pretty simple matter. I don't think there is any other way to view it.

He ignores the dozen Net definitions of evidence, ignores how one uses it in a sentence which tells you OF and FOR are added to the word, they are not included in the word or mandated to be in the word, common sense examples like what changes when you find out evidence you thought was evidence OF X turns out not to be? Why was it evidence of X one minute and not evidence of X the next minute?

Sorry, I like the guy but this is too basic and too obvious, evidence exists. It is a thing, even if only when being used as evidence. Belief in god is not evidence of god.

[Piscivore]

I kind of understand Piscivore’s position, where everything [observed and used to make a conclusion] is evidence and then after a rigorous examination some evidence is regarded as better evidence than other.
That's an important element you left out. Otherwise, yeah.

I think it’s unnecessary to go that route thou. It doesn’t mean data leading to an investigation are tossed out, more like pending an elevation to become evidence of something.
If it is used to come to a conclusion, it is evidence. Nowhere, anywhere, does it say that it has to be good evidence, or that the conclusion has to be correct. If it is not used to make a conclusion, then it is data, as you say.

Only after having created a feedback loop between signals and conclusions – i.e. having a sufficient framework for interpreting stuff – can we start talking about actual evidence of something.
"Actual" evidence? If by that you mean scientific evidence, sure.

Within the framework we need to show a relationship between data and conclusions and that they indeed correspond, thus we can say there is evidence for conclusion X1, X2…, Xn.
In science, yes indeed. Not all people are scientists, though, and the word applies to them as well.

I assume Pisci’s point is something of a crime scene investigator’s: By sealing off a house where a murder has taken place it’s possible to say that “don’t touch anything, everything in there is evidence”. Although what that statement in actuality means is: “don’t touch anything because something therein could be used as evidence”
Correct. Because before it is observed, it's just stuff.

for a) finding out how the murder took place; b) who committed the murder; c) for convicting the murderer in a trial. A, b and c are different contexts and use different kinds of data – what might be evidence for conviction is not the same evidence as showing how the killing took place (context is key). If I follow you correctly, yeah, sort of. I'm not entirely sure I do.

He is simply saying that before we start creating a framework for understanding a limited set of data, everything [observed and used to make a conclusion] is evidence, although only some specific data is evidence of a particular conclusion.
Yeah. More or less.

But in reality we must cannot help but always restrict the framework beforehand; this is done by using a set of predetermined knowledge about the world and a specific interpretive point of view.... formed through a lifetime of other conclusions made with evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence (including conclusions made with other evidence ))) etc., fractaling back to the first time we opened our tiny eyes and made our very first conclusion based on an observation (when and what that is I'll leave to the Psychology department :))

Science is one way to limit the pejoritive effects (and I'm not using that word, well, pejoritively) of that framework.

Understanding that science itself builds a framework of its own, a lot of people mistake the one they were born with for the scientific one.

Thus, a dim cloud seen through a lens is not regarded as evidence for hardly anything of interest in the field of astrobiology; what’s required is a framework, a particular set of observations and a limited set of possible conclusions, before astrobiologist’s can begin to talk about evidence
But understand that religion, conviction bigfeet exist, "wanting to believe" in alien visitors, pathalogical distrust of the government- they all provide a framework. It's not our framework, but they still make observations, and make conclusions with those observations. We can qualify it wither way (theirs is "poor" evidence, ours is "scientific" evidence) but they use the same process as we do to make their conclusions and so get to use the same word.
– before that, it’s simply data, or potential evidence if the cloud is somehow predicted. To-meh-toe, to-ma-toe… I however think there is a difference between potential evidence for anything and actual evidence for something. Potential evidence for anything is so dim that I would not call it evidence at all, more like data. We can re-evalute some data as evidence at some later time anyway.
What you are describing here is very close to what I'm saying. Data, "potential evidence", are those observations that have not been used to make a conclusion. And not only can we re-evaluate data, we can and do re-evaluate evidence and we can and do re-evaluate conclusions.

When it comes to god-beliefs, and based on what we already know about the world with some certainty, I suspect the question is: should a framework for taking any supernatural force into account be considered at all; is it even meaningful to begin an investigation from that point of view?
It depends on what the new evidence is, doesn't it? With a scientific framework in place, the evidence is going to have to be extraordinary, yes. That's not to say we should leave ourselves open to every outlandish possibily, but it also doesn't mean if someone says they have some extraordinary evidence that we just shoo them off and say "no you don't, you can't possibly, it's not scientific, it's not "really" evidence." Scientifc thinking has changed- sometimes radically- enough times to show that attitude is mistaken. IMO.

The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion.
Could be. Probably is. But data used to make a conclusion is evidence, no mater what the conclusion is, or what other evidence is (or is not) considered.

People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no.
Well, there you're judging the context, the framework. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the people using the framework aren't using evidence.

[Piscivore]

Vetted evidence? Scientific evidence? Nonsense! The meaning of the word evidence doesn't change.
No, but the weight the evidence has, does.

That is the same claim Beth tried to make, that the evidence wasn't of X quality. Quality has nothing to do with the problem here. The problem is claiming something is evidence OF or FOR something, when it isn't evidence OF or FOR that thing.
Which is a conclusion you make based on other evidence, not because of something you "just know" or "just is" or some magically inherent quality you want the evidence to have.

If someone sees a light in the sky, and concludes that it must be aliens, his observation of the light in the sky is evidence for him supporting that concusion. Just because we don't agree with the conclusion doesn't change that fact.

Evidence is evidence. Simply claiming it is evidence OF or FOR something does not make it evidence OF or FOR something.
No, coming to a conclusion using the evidence makes it evidence OF or FOR that conclusion.

It is evidence OF or FOR whatever it really is evidence OF or FOR.
...which is a separate conclusion you make with separate evidence.

You cannot draw a conclusion and then claim your conclusion is evidence.
No one did. You are confusing two different conclusions to come to that conclsuion.

No one is talking about the scientific rigor of a valid conclusion.
I am, to moby and lupus.



That still does not make it evidence for something it is not evidence of.
I didn't say it was. I said it was evidence for the conclusion that was made with it. That does not say anything about whether the conclusion is correct or not.

You are missing the point here. What you are saying here is the conclusion may or may not be correct. The evidence does not change.
In the respect that it is still evidence regardless of whether the conclusion is correct, I agree.

And there are many things for which the evidence is irrefutable. So to say it isn't up to anyone to decide is bull. The evidence is irrefutable I have a heart beating inside my chest. Of course I can decide that. If I couldn't then how could any of us determine reality? But that is a side issue.
Indeed.

Either we correctly conclude what evidence is evidence of or we are incorrect.
But that's a separate conclusion from the conclusion the evidence helps us make, correctly or incorrectly.

But incorrectly concluding something doesn't magically make the evidence into evidence for the incorrect conclusion.
You are correct only in that it is not "magical". Using evidence to come to an incorrect conclusion makes the evidence one used evidence for the incorrect conclusion. You need to make a different conclusion with other evidence to conclude that the evidnce is better used as evidence for another conclusion than the incorrect conclusion.

You really need to rethink the difference between conclusion and evidence. You have them very blurred just as Beth does.
No, I don't.

[lupus_in_fabula]

The framework could be so outlandish that it might equate to being a waste of time and recourses, without any hope for finding any connection between data and the conclusion. Could be. Probably is. But data used to make a conclusion is evidence, no mater what the conclusion is, or what other evidence is (or is not) considered. People can say that it’s as valid as any other context, but is it really? I would say no. Well, there you're judging the context, the framework. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the people using the framework aren't using evidence.

This is why I probably come across as an elitist, but I personally do think that there’s a difference between using data leading to any conclusion versus data leading to a conclusion where it can be shown that it’s actually evidence for that conclusion. I cannot say that people who are using data in order to come to conclusion aren’t using the data as evidence, but I can say that they are abusing the term evidence – I really think they abuse the term. But I cannot prove I’m right about this issue.

[Piscivore]

This is why I probably come across as an elitist, but I personally do think that there’s a difference between using data leading to any conclusion versus data leading to a conclusion where it can be shown that it’s actually evidence for that conclusion. I cannot say that people who are using data in order to come to conclusion aren’t using the data as evidence, but I can say that they are abusing the term evidence – I really think they abuse the term. But I cannot prove I’m right about this issue.

Well, explain how one determines whether the data is "actually evidence" or not.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, explain how one determines whether the data is "actually evidence" or not.

…by using a scientific standard which possibly has been subjugated to a peer review process, especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural. Hence the self-proclaimed elitism.

[Piscivore]

…by using a scientific standard which possibly has been subjugated to a peer review process, especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural.
Well, as I said to skepticgirl, that's a process of making conclusions about evidence, adjusting its weight and value as a means to making a conclusion. Science and the peer review process don't dictate the conclusions to which one should come with the evidence, and they don't change the fact that the observation of the light in the sky (or what have you) can and has been used as evidence of alien spacecraft (or whatever). Science and peer review don't say "you didn't see anything", it says "what you saw may have been an alien spacecraft, but it's much more likely that it was an airplane" (or a comet, or what have you).

Maybe we do need a different word for evidence that has been through the grinder. But we don't have one yet, and trying to cut off the "country cousins" by ignoring them or dismissing them or pretending they aren't evidence is just asking for errors. Errors like thinking that evidence is unalterable and infallible, therefore the only way to come up with a bad conclusion is by way of petitio principii.

Hence the self-proclaimed elitism.
That's not elitism, that's just following the least error-prone method we've come up with so far.

[Mobyseven]

Yeah, you know, I think I might have misunderstood you. I have drifted into the broader definition, not the scientific. My apologies.


Well, first off, not everything can be considered evidence, because things unobserved cannot be used to make a conclusion.

Second, evidence used to make a conclusion stops being evidence for that conclusion when and if that conclusion is invalidated, but it doesn't stop being evidence.


It is that word "legitimate" that we are comming to loggerheads about. You and I (and science) have already seen plenty of cases where dreams and hallucinations- or more specifically the content of such- were used to make conclusions that were later invalidated. This is why "in scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world", of which the content of dreams isn't really a part.

However, if several unrelated people unknown to each other were to report the same dream content, that would still be evidence of something. It won't be (at least, it is extrememly unlikely) that the content of the dream is accurate. Still, it's not a category of experience I think we can dismiss out of hand, even if we think it is likely that they are either playing a hoax, having a trick played on them. It could be a new kind of virus. We dismiss it the woo conclusion (the content of the dream is accurate) when other evidence suggests a better conclusion or invaldates the "woo" explanation.


I see that, it is withdrawn.


Well, evidence can be led, too. That's why we have scientific standards, classes of misleading, erroneous, and manipulated evidence.

And even then evidence that looks good, looks robust, looks incontorvertable can lead to erroneous conlusions. Look how many paradigms have been hoisted up and torn down- Aristotelian physics, Newtonian Physics, Geocentrism, Lamarckian Evolution... the list goes on.


Yes, indeed. Which is why we have science, to validate these claims against other evidence (evidence which includes conclusions supported by other evidence)


Only if you are willing to accept that evidence as sufficient and conclusive. Some people do, science does not. This does not mean we have to redifine evidence to exclude the dream. We just need to look at the entirety of the evidence available and we'll see that that one bit of evidence does not countermand the mountains of evidence otherwise. The conclusion that white people are inferior is invalidated, the evidence is not.

Let's say you write that dream down, present it to a scientist, he invalidates your conclusion, and you go home dejected and file it away. Fifty years later, the guy that buys your house finds it stuck in the back of a broom closet, reads it, comes to a conclusion, and it's evidence again.


By itself, yeah, it is. That's why science is valuable. As I told skepticgirl earlier in the discussion, if "evidence" were an inherent, imutable property of any object, we wouldn't need science, because the truth would be self-evident. It isn't. Evidence can be misused, misinterpreted, and manipulated. That's why we need science.


Rationally? Not on its own. That's why we came up with science, to validate and error correct the conclusions.


Yeah, I was using the broader definition, which includes all the unscientific evidence.

Okay, I understand your position. A big issue where we come to clash is that I don't consider information (such as an anecdote) evidence, even if it leads to an investigation (and indeed, even if the investigation turns up evidence that confirms the anecdote). An anecdote is a point from which we can begin an investigation, but is not itself evidence for what is being investigated.

That out of the way, how do you apply your definition to a situation such as we have had in this thread? To explain:

Beth has claimed that anecdotes relating to experience of god should be given some weight as evidence for the existence of god.
However, such anecdotes are entirely uncorroborated. This makes them undesirable.
But, we have not (and indeed cannot) falsify the existence of god. By your explanation above, because we have not falsified the conclusion obtained from the anecdotes, the anecdotes can still be considered evidence for the existence of god.

I think I see what you will say: That because 'god' is unfalsifiable, the anecdote cannot be considered evidence of a scientific standard. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect - I thought I'd take a stab to see if I properly understand your argument.

I would advocate my position for two reasons: First, using my definition of evidence, people who disagree with Popperian falsification can still 'sort the wheat from the chaff', so to speak - inductivists, Kuhn proponents, and others, who disagree with the idea of falsification and thus would not take falsifiability as a good criteria to demote evidence to non-evidence, can still recognise the anecdote as being worthless.

Second, I advocate my position because your definition only classes as non-evidence anecdotes that have had their conclusions falsified (or are unfalsifiable, if I understand you correctly), whereas it is undesirable for any anecdote to be considered evidence. Anecdotes are so unreliable that they should not be considered evidence - even if they are later discovered to be true, for their truth is not a function of the anecdote itself, but of the evidence external to the anecdote that vindicated the anecdote. In a Popperian model (for example - this could be stated differently in other ideas of method) the anecdote can be thought of as a hypothesis, and evidence can either falsify or corroborate the hypothesis - the hypothesis, however, cannot corroborate itself (that would be begging the question).

So while I think I understand where you are coming from, I still believe that your definition is too broad, and that my definition is more appropriate.

[Piscivore]

Okay, I understand your position. A big issue where we come to clash is that I don't consider information (such as an anecdote) evidence, even if it leads to an investigation (and indeed, even if the investigation turns up evidence that confirms the anecdote). An anecdote is a point from which we can begin an investigation, but is not itself evidence for what is being investigated.
Well, like I mentioned to Lupus, in some cases- like in History- anecdotal evidence is the best we have sometimes. We don't always get so lucky as to find the buried ruins of a Troy, we've got to go on what little people wrote down. It's not the best evidence, but it is still evidence.

That out of the way, how do you apply your definition to a situation such as we have had in this thread? To explain:

Beth has claimed that anecdotes relating to experience of god should be given some weight as evidence for the existence of god.
Only for the person that had the original experience. I don't think Beth suggested anything beyond that.

However, such anecdotes are entirely uncorroborated. This makes them undesirable.
Undesirable for those of us who value scientific methods, yeah. Did you see my last post to Lupus?

But, we have not (and indeed cannot) falsify the existence of god. By your explanation above, because we have not falsified the conclusion obtained from the anecdotes, the anecdotes can still be considered evidence for the existence of god.
For the person who doesn't value science, sure.

I think I see what you will say: That because 'god' is unfalsifiable, the anecdote cannot be considered evidence of a scientific standard. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect - I thought I'd take a stab to see if I properly understand your argument.
I agree with that.

I would advocate my position for two reasons: First, using my definition of evidence, people who disagree with Popperian falsification can still 'sort the wheat from the chaff', so to speak - inductivists, Kuhn proponents, and others, who disagree with the idea of falsification and thus would not take falsifiability as a good criteria to demote evidence to non-evidence, can still recognise the anecdote as being worthless.
"An" anecdote, in the singular, sure. What is your opinion of many corraborating anecdotes? Twelve people who all report the same phenomenon, which we cannot otherwise observe or measure? Hundreds?

Second, I advocate my position because your definition only classes as non-evidence anecdotes that have had their conclusions falsified (or are unfalsifiable, if I understand you correctly), whereas it is undesirable for any anecdote to be considered evidence.
Why? Just beacuse they are unreliable on their own? Doesn't that hold true for any evidence, though?

Anecdotes are so unreliable that they should not be considered evidence - even if they are later discovered to be true, for their truth is not a function of the anecdote itself, but of the evidence external to the anecdote that vindicated the anecdote.
Doesn't that hold true for almost any evidence, though? There aren't many observations that will, on their own, produce a scientifically verifiable conclusion, are there?

[quote]In a Popperian model (for example - this could be stated differently in other ideas of method) the anecdote can be thought of as a hypothesis, and evidence can either falsify or corroborate the hypothesis
Taken this way any initial evidence could be considered just an hypothesis. I find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf- my initial observaion- the toilet seat- is the evidence, the conclusion I come to- there might have been a plane crash- is the hypothesis. How is that different from somone running up to me on the beach saying "I saw a plane crash"? My toilet seat could just as easily been washed off a garbage barge, or floated over from Japan for all I know. Until more evidence is gathered, neither one is very good evidence. Right?

- the hypothesis, however, cannot corroborate itself (that would be begging the question).
Quite so.

So while I think I understand where you are coming from, I still believe that your definition is too broad, and that my definition is more appropriate.
For science, sure.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anecdotes are evidence, mobyseven. We use systematically collected anecdotes in medical research all the time.

I will repeat my position again because I see these long drawn out explanations about drawing conclusions and weak and strong evidence, yadda yadda.

How many times must I say, I am not arguing that any of these things are evidence? Why do you all ignore the fact I have said this over and over?

But no matter how you cut it, you cannot say something is evidence OF something it is not evidence OF.

[Mobyseven]

Well, like I mentioned to Lupus, in some cases- like in History- anecdotal evidence is the best we have sometimes. We don't always get so lucky as to find the buried ruins of a Troy, we've got to go on what little people wrote down. It's not the best evidence, but it is still evidence.

Which is why there are many things in history that one should take with a grain of salt - not to mention that things that are mentioned very few times and are uncorroborated are generally called 'myths' not 'history'.

Only for the person that had the original experience. I don't think Beth suggested anything beyond that.

No - if something is evidence for something, it is not observer dependant. If something is evidence for something, then it is evidence for something regardless of who the observer is.

Undesirable for those of us who value scientific methods, yeah. Did you see my last post to Lupus?

For the person who doesn't value science, sure.

Not for the person who doesn't value science. For the person who doesn't value reality. That science is the only known method by which we can model reality is not my problem, it is the problem of those who wish to class as evidence experiences which are extremely unreliable, and are useless if one wishes to accurately model reality.

"An" anecdote, in the singular, sure. What is your opinion of many corraborating anecdotes? Twelve people who all report the same phenomenon, which we cannot otherwise observe or measure? Hundreds?

The plural of 'anecdotes' is not 'data'. There are some situations (as Skeptigirl has mentioned) where subjective evaluations (which I would class as different to anecdotes, and is where I differ in my position to Skeptigirl) may be systematically collected and analysed. It is important to note the difference between a subjective evaluation of discomfort or pain (which can be roughly quantified) that is systematically collected and analysed, and a dream about god; it is also important to note the difference between information collected in order to better understand objective reality, and information collected in order to better understand subjective human experience.

Why? Just beacuse they are unreliable on their own? Doesn't that hold true for any evidence, though?

It is not because they are worthless and unreliable on their own that anecdotes should not be considered evidence. It is because they provide no reliable or important information even when taken alongside a body of evidence. Information in an anecdote can only be judged as having merit in light of confirmation by evidence external to the anecdote. Even if one part of an anecdote is corroborated by evidence, it does not tell us anything about the truth value of the remaining parts of the anecdote. Because of this, anecdotes can only be considered 'true' once all the parts of the anecdote have been corroborated.

This does not work the same in reverse, however - if evidence exists, it can corroborate a hypothesis without also corroborating an anecdote. It is this inequality that gives reason for anecdotes to not be considered evidence.

Doesn't that hold true for almost any evidence, though? There aren't many observations that will, on their own, produce a scientifically verifiable conclusion, are there?

See above. You have things back to front.

Taken this way any initial evidence could be considered just an hypothesis. I find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf- my initial observaion- the toilet seat- is the evidence, the conclusion I come to- there might have been a plane crash- is the hypothesis. How is that different from somone running up to me on the beach saying "I saw a plane crash"? My toilet seat could just as easily been washed off a garbage barge, or floated over from Japan for all I know. Until more evidence is gathered, neither one is very good evidence. Right?

Wrong, and again, it has to do with what I talk about above with you having things back to front. If you find a toilet seat from an airplane bobbing in the surf, that piece of evidence can corroborate the hypothesis that a plane crashed independent of any anecdote about crashing planes. Moreover, upon further investigation the hypothesis can be further corroborated: A plane went missing in the area two days ago; A passenger on the plane is found washed ashore the next day; Luggage from the plane is found floating in the ocean. But even with all the extra evidence, the toilet seat you originally found still carries weight as evidence. It does not stop being important because extra evidence has been found.

However, if someone runs up to you on the beach and says, "I saw a plane crash," their anecdote is not evidence. In the situation where no evidence is found that would corroborate their story, we would consider their story to be a worthless fiction. However, if the story is followed by the discovery of all the evidence mentioned above, we no longer require their anecdote, and again it becomes worthless!

To further explain, imagine for a second that there is evidence of a plane crash - but instead of the person on the beach having said, "I saw a plane crash," they said, "I saw a plane collide with an alien spaceship - the plane crashed and the spaceship flew away!" Would the evidence of the plane crash increase the overall likelyhood of the entire anecdote being true, or is it only the parts of the anecdote that have already been corroborated by the evidence that can be considered likely or true?

For science, sure.

Not for science. For reality.

[Mobyseven]

Anecdotes are evidence, mobyseven. We use systematically collected anecdotes in medical research all the time.

As I mention in my reply above, this is where we differ. Best to see above than for me to repeat myself.

[articulett]

I agree across the board mobyseven...

"feeling pain" is a conclusion about evidence-- sensory messages to a brain...

Someone's expression of pain can be used as evidence in regards to what is going on and what treatment can help. Feeling god is a similar conclusion... but it isn't a warranted conclusion since there is no evidence that one can "feel" or experience a god... that there is anything material or physical which a person can "feel" which would make sense to label god. People can have transcendent feelings from a variety of inputs... none of them warrant a god conclusion since they are all based on the brains interpretation...or conclusions about what a given neural pattern represents or "feels like"... and god is immaterial and has never been demonstrated to be able to affect the material or even to exist. "I feel transcendent and at one with the universe" is evidence of a feeling-- not evidence of a god making that feeling. Something might cause that feeling just as something caused a toilet seat in the ocean... but a conclusion of a plane crash or a god is unwarranted by the evidence thus far. A hundred people seeing a toilet seat in the ocean is still not evidence of a plane crash.

Feeling "possessed" does not ever add up to evidence that anyone ever is actually possessed just as "feeling god" can never add up to evidence that there is a god. Perceiving the earth as flat can never be evidence that the earth is flat. Not being able to understand something is not evidence of anything-- except that you don't understand. It's never evidence that a god does, or that aliens explain it, or that we are in a matrix. All such conclusions require a leap over tons of evidence-- a leap of "faith" as it were. It's a conclusion unwarranted by the evidence... Feeling pain appears to be a normal conclusion based on rather mundane evidence. Anecdotal evidence (a report of pain) can be used as evidence that a person is feeling pain or that we should check their appendix etc. It cannot be evidence for someone having put a curse on that person.

Evidence in the real world is axiomatic... a toilet seat in the ocean is evidence of a toilet seat in the ocean... it can be indicative of a plane crash or something else... but it can't be "evidence for" something it is not "evidence for". If there was no plane crash, then it's evidence for some other means of toilet seats in the ocean.

Skepticgirl is right that Beth is mistaking her interpretation (conclusion) as evidence for god. If no god exists (and none has ever been demonstrated), then there can be no evidence for god. Just as if there was no plane crash, a toilet seat in the ocean cannot be evidence of a plane crash... even if you interpret it as evidence for a plane crash... it is not... nor never can be. Evidence can lead people to a wrong conclusion or interpretation... but it can not be evidence for something something which has not been demonstrated to exist... it cannot be evidence for something it is not evidence for.

In the fact based world anyhow. If you are talking about opinions... then there can be things that we use to determine evidence of "good" or evidence of "efficacy"...

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I mention in my reply above, this is where we differ. Best to see above than for me to repeat myself.From the above reply in questionThe plural of 'anecdotes' is not 'data'. There are some situations (as Skeptigirl has mentioned) where subjective evaluations (which I would class as different to anecdotes, and is where I differ in my position to Skeptigirl) may be systematically collected and analysed. It is important to note the difference between a subjective evaluation of discomfort or pain (which can be roughly quantified) that is systematically collected and analysed, and a dream about god; it is also important to note the difference between information collected in order to better understand objective reality, and information collected in order to better understand subjective human experience....However, if someone runs up to you on the beach and says, "I saw a plane crash," their anecdote is not evidence. In the situation where no evidence is found that would corroborate their story, we would consider their story to be a worthless fiction. However, if the story is followed by the discovery of all the evidence mentioned above, we no longer require their anecdote, and again it becomes worthless!...We are not that far apart here.

Subjective experience was what I had in mind in reference to the medical research. But the real difference lies in someone telling you something, which is simply unreliable, and systematic collection of anecdotal evidence usually with controls of some kind that make anecdotal evidence of value.

First, the definition of 'evidence' includes anecdotes. Again, as with Piscivore and Beth only defining evidence in terms of what it is evidence for or of, you may be doing the same in reverse when you say an anecdote is not evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence OF the thing described in the anecdote. So in that sense it might be unreliable evidence, and it certainly isn't evidence of something, unless it turns out to be a valid anecdote. But it is correct to call something anecdotal 'evidence'.

Systematically collecting anecdotal evidence is most often used to evaluate subjective experiences such as pain. But really, anytime a study relies on subjects and controls to relate historical evidence of any kind, that is anecdotal evidence. So, for example, if I want to look at people who successfully lost weight and kept it off and compare them to people who tried to lose weight but were not successful, I might administer the same questionnaire to the two groups about what they did and compare the groups. That would be systematically collecting anecdotal evidence not related to subjective experience. What makes the data useful is having two groups to compare. If it turns out, as it does in the case I am using as an example, that the group who lost weight and kept it off did 3 things differently than the group failing to lose weight, and all the other answers in the questionnaire were answered similarly, then it is valid to conclude those three things were indeed relevant.

(BTW, the three things were, 1) weighing oneself daily, 2) counting calories consumed, and, 3) increasing one's activity level, (in particular, fidgeting more, walking more, and things which increased activity all around like taking the stairs rather than the elevator.)

So you can see that anecdotes themselves are not the problem. It is single anecdotes which are unreliable while systematically collected anecdotes with controls can be very useful evidence in some studies.

[Mobyseven]

We are not that far apart here.

Subjective experience was what I had in mind in reference to the medical research. But the real difference lies in someone telling you something, which is simply unreliable, and systematic collection of anecdotal evidence usually with controls of some kind that make anecdotal evidence of value.

First, the definition of 'evidence' includes anecdotes. Again, as with Piscivore and Beth only defining evidence in terms of what it is evidence for or of, you may be doing the same in reverse when you say an anecdote is not evidence. It is evidence. It may not be evidence OF the thing described in the anecdote. So in that sense it might be unreliable evidence, and it certainly isn't evidence of something, unless it turns out to be a valid anecdote. But it is correct to call something anecdotal 'evidence'.

Systematically collecting anecdotal evidence is most often used to evaluate subjective experiences such as pain. But really, anytime a study relies on subjects and controls to relate historical evidence of any kind, that is anecdotal evidence. So, for example, if I want to look at people who successfully lost weight and kept it off and compare them to people who tried to lose weight but were not successful, I might administer the same questionnaire to the two groups about what they did and compare the groups. That would be systematically collecting anecdotal evidence not related to subjective experience. What makes the data useful is having two groups to compare. If it turns out, as it does in the case I am using as an example, that the group who lost weight and kept it off did 3 things differently than the group failing to lose weight, and all the other answers in the questionnaire were answered similarly, then it is valid to conclude those three things were indeed relevant.

(BTW, the three things were, 1) weighing oneself daily, 2) counting calories consumed, and, 3) increasing one's activity level, (in particular, fidgeting more, walking more, and things which increased activity all around like taking the stairs rather than the elevator.)

So you can see that anecdotes themselves are not the problem. It is single anecdotes which are unreliable while systematically collected anecdotes with controls can be very useful evidence in some studies.

Interesting. Again, I don't think we really disagree here in terms of what can be considered evidence - we disagree as to why it is considered evidence.

A single anecdote, as you pointed out, is unreliable. As are a large number of anecdotes, if not collected systematically and controlled. However, I would still not call a single anecdote 'evidence', because there is no way to tell if it really is evidence at all. Any particular anecdote can be evidence for anything, and is therefore really evidence for nothing - and if something is evidence for nothing, can we really be justified in calling it 'evidence' at all?

To return to a slightly different point (which hopefully will better explain my position), think of the weight loss study you mentioned. The anecdotes were systematically collected through a questionnaire, controlled for, and analysed. No one would suggest that due rigor hadn't taken place, nor that the results were worthless or meaningless.

But the anecdotes, in a sense, existed before the participants filled out the questionnaire - they had already had the experience. Were a participant to have relayed their experience to another person prior to filling out the questionnaire, it would have been worthless as evidence - evidence for nothing, and so as I said above, not evidence at all.

And yet, a number of these worthless anecdotes, systematically collected in the right way, can produce meaningful results. Does this mean that the process of systematically collecting and controlling the anecdotes somehow changes their nature - that the anecdote itself becomes somehow meaningful in light of the study?

I would say no, and my reason is as follows: Say that a participant involved in the study tells a person his anecdotal experience after the completion of the study. Is the anecdote worth any more now than it was prior to the completion of the study? No - it would still be wrong to consider the anecdote evidence (again, as per above), as the only way to justify the anecdote would be in light of the study, and once one has the information from the study the anecdote is entirely irrelevant once again.

So if the anecdote cannot be considered evidence (as per above) either prior to the completion or after the study, what makes it valuable? The answer is not the anecdote itself, but instead the controlled systematic collection of the anecdotes! It is the data that exists after the anecdotes have been collected and controlled for that is the evidence, and not the anecdotes themselves. Only in conjunction with the methodology can we derive evidence from the anecdotes. Remove the methodology and the anecdotes are worthless.

It's a subtle difference in our positions - I hope I have managed to make myself clear.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see what you are saying Moby and agree with a caveat. The evidence as you say is actually the act of what the people are reporting occurred. So in that sense the actual evidence is what occurred not the report of what occurred.

However, in medicine, we actually need to use the patient history as the actual evidence. Because we cannot observe directly in retrospect. When a patient comes to see me, I collect a history. I also take that history for what it is, it is a memory and an interpretation. By that, it is flawed. But I cannot observe what the patient is telling me so I actually have to consider all the factors that are involved in the history the patient relates.

I make the diagnosis based on what I observe and on what the patient tells me. I do not make it based on what the patient actually experienced.

This is easiest to demonstrate with a child's medical report. If a child tells me they had a stomach pain, I know that could mean they had chest or abdominal pain. So the evidence is not what occurred because I cannot obtain that evidence. The evidence in this case is what the child actually says. I would look for chest, GI and GU tract problems.

In this case, it isn't just subjective pain, it isn't the actual pain event, it is the specific things a child says in answer to a question that I use as the evidence. And maybe because this is so common in medicine and in medical research, I can see the distinction fairly clearly.

Another example is what we call a 'positive review of systems'. That is when the patient says yes to every symptom you ask if they have. That 'anecdote' is a classic patient history and tells you something about the diagnosis. In these cases I am actually using the anecdote as the evidence.

For another example, when we do retrospective research, a lot of trouble is gone to to validate a questionnaire. So the patient is reporting on the thing that happened. And the thing that happened could be seen as the actual evidence. But because memory of what happened is so subject to interpretation and selection, we actually study the responses, we measure the responses, and we compare the responses. We consider it indirect evidence. It is more than just an anecdote of what happened.

[Mobyseven]

I'm too busy with uni, work and other stuff right now to properly address the use of anecdotal evidence in medical diagnostics, but I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion at a later date - if this thread is still active or if we start a new one. Sorry - it's certainly been interesting, but threads such as these (y'know...where I actually have to think :p) take a fair bit of time, which I don't have right now.

I would say, just to give you an idea of my position, that I see medical diagnostics as containing inbuilt error checking mechanisms, and also that for many medical conditions evidence other than the patient's complaint must be used to validate the anecdote.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No hurry, Moby, answer when you have time. But don't confuse the validity or reliability of the evidence with the evidence. This is what I have been adamantly posting about here for the last dozen or so pages.

The Evidence: the thing, it's properties, whatever about the thing that one is using to determine something from.

The Observation: the observation, measurement, or whatever means one has to obtain the information from the evidence.

Communicating: communicating the observation, measurement, etc., which is actually separate from the observation itself.

The Conclusion: the thing one determines from the evidence, including concluding you cannot draw a conclusion from the evidence, or you can only say the evidence suggests something, etc.

These really are distinct entities despite Piscivore's belief the term, 'evidence', requires one include all the things together. You can see the confusion that causes in these discussions. If one just recognized the parts here, we wouldn't be having such discrepant opinions. We'd likely find with a few exceptions that we mostly agreed with the underlying principles.

I tried to describe to you how the anecdote in the medical history actually was the direct evidence even though it is a patient relating indirect evidence. We take into consideration lots of things that come directly from the anecdote such as the 'positive review of systems' evidence. Other times, you are correct, the evidence was collected by the observer (whether they are a formal or informal observer) and the information about the evidence is then communicated in the questionnaire. In that case we are using the patient as a proxy observer. We may take into account such things as the reliability of patient's memory, observation skills, and so on. But the person answering the questions is, in essence, a proxy observer.

In the case of the patient's medical history, it is a combination of proxy observer and the medical provider's direct observation of the anecdotal account.

The conclusions drawn from the anecdotal evidence is a separate matter.