1 3 5 6 7 8 9 29 30
Topic: Evidence...
Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 06:00 PM

Like Richard Feynman says: "Science is a belief in the ignorance of experts."


rub being of course, the word "belief" is not in the vocabulary of science. who the hell is this feyman anyway. ah crap never mind. can't imagine i want to know.frustrated


Dr. Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize for his work in Quantum Electrodynamics. He is also one of the most revered modern scientists and teachers of Quantum Physics.

You should trying reading some of his books. They say that he has a very unique gift of being able to put difficult concepts into layman's terms. :wink:



well here are my words. see if you can twist them to your advantage. YOU KNOW LESS ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAN MY TEN YEAR OLD GRAND DAUGHTER.


That will make things easy for you. Perhaps you can ask your granddaughter to tell you all about Richard Feynman and his work in Quantum Physics. flowerforyou


jrbogie's photo
Thu 12/10/09 06:12 PM
Edited by jrbogie on Thu 12/10/09 06:15 PM


Like Richard Feynman says: "Science is a belief in the ignorance of experts."


rub being of course, the word "belief" is not in the vocabulary of science. who the hell is this feyman anyway. ah crap never mind. can't imagine i want to know.frustrated


Dr. Richard Feynman won the Nobel Prize for his work in Quantum Electrodynamics. He is also one of the most revered modern scientists and teachers of Quantum Physics.

You should trying reading some of his books. They say that he has a very unique gift of being able to put difficult concepts into layman's terms. :wink:





well here are my words. see if you can twist them to your advantage. YOU KNOW LESS ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAN MY TEN YEAR OLD GRAND DAUGHTER.


That will make things easy for you. Perhaps you can ask your granddaughter to tell you all about Richard Feynman and his work in Quantum Physics. flowerforyou




hey great. here i thought you had nothing i could learn from. don't read much qm. boggles my mind. but if feyman really thinks that science is belief in anything and was not using the term tongue in cheeck then i doubt i'll bother. of course i'm sure you think he was actually serious. hey, do this. find how feyman defines a scientific theory. you know, like hawking did. let's see if they compare. of course we don't know what you think a theory is. you just complain about science theories. give us your spiritual theory. would feyman buy it?

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 06:28 PM
Gentlemen... please, act accordingly. I too, have been guilty of allowing my emotions overwhelm my consicous thoughts, so this is not a judgement of anyone personally. I want to continue this discussion on evidence...

Too many well developed threads get pulled as a result of people allowing responses to become personal in nature. I do not want this one to suffer the same 'fate'...

:wink:

drinker

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 06:47 PM
jrbogie wrote:

of course we don't know what you think a theory is. you just complain about science theories. give us your spiritual theory. would feyman buy it?


I don't complain about science theories. That's just your perception. I'm actually quite the supporter of science. I just tell it like it is, is all.

And I agree with you once more. A theory is not a conclusion, or a guess. It's just a theory that cannot be proven, just tested.

And therefore we can have a theory about anything, including boogiemen. And if you design your theory wisely you can force "evidence" for it.

For example, if I define the boogieman to be the ghoul who makes 'bumps in the night', and you hear a 'bump in the night' then you have experienced "evidence" for what I have defined simply because it fits with what I have defined a 'boogieman' to be.

Does it prove that the boogieman exists? Of course not. But if you heard a bump in the night at least you have some evidence that a boogieman "might exist". The "evidence" fits the description of what a boogieman does in this case.

You'd have to go and investigate every bump in the night and show precisely what caused it to rule out the boogieman. If you ever hear a bump in the night that you can't explain, then the boogieman will forever haunt you as a plausible explanation. laugh

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 06:59 PM

Gentlemen... please, act accordingly. I too, have been guilty of allowing my emotions overwhelm my consicous thoughts, so this is not a judgement of anyone personally. I want to continue this discussion on evidence...

Too many well developed threads get pulled as a result of people allowing responses to become personal in nature. I do not want this one to suffer the same 'fate'...

:wink:

drinker


Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not taking anything personally or becoming emotional or passing any judgements on anyone.

I'm just addressing the concept of 'evidence'.


creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 08:13 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Thu 12/10/09 08:23 PM
Sky wrote:

Sky wrote:

In other words, if evidence is to be applied to anything at all, there must first be an end to which is it applied. Any judgement about evidence is dependent on why one is applying the evidence. And thus, the import/value of any such evidence can only be judged against an individual’s purpose behind, and desired goal of, considering the evidence.


creative responded:

I am more interested in the proper form of examining evidence, in and of itself. Evidence is anything that constitutes an indication or a sign which provides proof. Evidence has certain attributes which help determine it's sufficiency. Evidence, in order to be considered as aequate, or reason enough to base a conclusion upon, must be sufficient enough. If the evidence in question can logically lead to different conclusions, then either of those conclusions is as valid as the other, and it can become a matter of liklihood. Relevance and adequacy need to be assessed whenever examining evidence.


Sky wrote:

So the question arises about what to do when there are two pieces of evidence that appear to be contradictory.

Well what can one do? One can throw out the evidence (e.g. deny it), or one can devise a (or revise an existing) world view such that the evidence is no longer contradictory, or one can simply label it as an anomaly and accept that it cannot be integrated into the existing world view.


creative responded:

Keep looking for more evidence. Determine it's adequacy and relevance by applying it to as many situations as possible in order establish warrant to draw a conclusion. Sometimes that conclusion may be to say that the evidence at hand is insufficient to be able to draw a firm conclusion.


The above is the context to which these responses are referring...


Sky wrote:

I appreciate your viewpoint. I really do. And in many circumstances I agree completely.


drinker And I, you... good start! :wink:

However, there are several key words you’ve used that are what I consider to be indicative of the subjectivity involved:

proper
sufficiency
aequate
reason enough
sufficient enough
relevance
warrant

These are all relative terms. That is, in order to determine any of them, they must be measurable. And therein lies the problem. Who determines what “ruler” to use for measurement? I see no reason to assume that everyone does, or must, use the same ruler. The only real reason for agreeing on a ruler is to provide for an agreement on the measurement. But if one does not desire to agree on a measurement, then there is no real reason to agree on the ruler.


Sky, I have read your words here many times over. I am being reminded of earlier words by you, which I - for one reason or another - consciously chose to avoid. It is time that I no longer ignore this point of view. While I respect that people have different opinions on matters, I am more interesting in what grounds those opinions.

You are bringing all methodology into question. Stating the fact that human perception is necessarily subjective does not place all methodology on equal footing. While I have acknowledged the subjective nature of human perception in past and will now once again, I find that to be inconsequential to this topic. It has already been dealt with. That is the reason for objective methodology.

Using an objective method cannot completely eliminate the possibility of subjective influence or error. It does, however, greatly reduce the chances of it. It is because of the fact that we are aware of the inherent erroneous nature of human subjectivity that we have devised objective procedures such as the scientific method and different forms of logic. That is why we created them, in order to avoid - as much as possible - the tendency for subjective human error.

Subjectivity is known to be prone to error. It also happens to be an unavoidable factor, but because we know this, it can be circumvented to a large extent. A large part of that also depends upon agreeing on word usage and meaning. I find that that alone often acts as a stumbling block between you and I. It is possible to avoid this. The only way to determine the value of evidence is to determine it's relevance and sufficiency through logical and/or reasonable application to that which is being considered.

I find it very interesting that you have just used an objective method to build a case against objective methods.


Sky wrote:

Just as evidence is meaningless without being compared to something, “sufficiency”, “adequacy” “reason enough”, etc. are meaningless without a standard by which to measure them. And possibly more importantly, there must be a purpose for performing the measurement. If there is no such purpose, then “evidence” and “sufficiency” are irrelevant from the outset.


Once again, I cannot understand your direction in thought here or your choice in analogy. It seems as though your attempting to logically build a case which places subjectivity and objectivity on equal grounds, simply because we, as humans, are necessarily subjective in perception.

Sky wrote:

In other words, consideration and evaluation of evidence has a prerequisite, which is most easily expressed by the question “Why is the evidence being considered/evaluated?”


True enough, even obviously so, yet why make the point? Isn't all evidence evaluated for it's truth value?

And that is why I think different people come to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence. Their purpose behind evaluating it is different. And I also think that may be the source of much conflict – too often people assume that others have (or should have) the same purpose in evaluating evidence. But they simply don’t.


While I agree with this, it does not cover all situations. Although I can imagine cases in which this applies, I find more reason to believe that the same evidence is evaluated in different ways, because of the fact that humans are necessarily subjective. Many people, if not most, allow their emotional desires to affect their ability to assess evidence, this notion was expressed earlier by another poster with the 'lucky penny' example.

The subjective nature of human perception is prone to error, that is the very reason why we developed objective means.

That is an irrefutable fact.




Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 08:53 PM
Creative wrote:

Using an objective method does not completely eliminate the possibility of subjective influence. It does, however, greatly reduce the chances of it. It is because of the fact that we are aware of the inherent erroneous nature of human subjectivity that we have devised objective procedures such as the scientific method and different forms of logic. That is why we created them, in order to avoid - as much as possible - the tendency for subjective error.


I am in completely agreement with what has been stated here. This is indeed the goal of the scientific method. And it has panned out tremendously over the year, and will hopefully continue to do so in terms of technology for many years into the future.

However, I would like to add that these methods were introduced and built upon over a period of time when most of science was indeed within the reach of seemingly "absolute" epirical evidence.

However, that wonderful ideal no longer holds true today. And the very well-tested "theory" of Quantum Mechanics is indeed the reason for this. There is no getting around it.

Quantum mechanic is the most precisely verified and well-tested theory in all of modern science. It has predicted empirical results out as far as we can measure precisely and potentially far beyond that.

This theory was indeed constructed via 'evidence'. In fact, Quantum Mechanics is a very good example of a theory where the 'evidence' actually let to the theory directly. Evidence forced us to consider Quantum Mechanics (unlike something like String Theory which is more of a guess)

Max Planck, the first one to discover the quantized nature of the unvierse did so by accident. He thought he'd try using a discrete solution to a physics problem and it worked. His hope was to then go back to a continuum once he had discovered the 'solution'. However, there was no "going back". It only works if it's quantized and it won't work as a continuum. So he was stuck with the quantizied solution.

Over the years this grew into what we know call "Quantum Mechanics".

The entire theory was "forced onto us" via empirical observations. In fact, scientists were trying everything they could dream up and imagine in the hopes of breaking the theory and making it "go away".

This was what the Einstein-Bohr debates where all about. Einstein was trying hard to poke a hole in quantum theory, and Bohr, having accepted the theory, showed how it's not possible to poke any holes in it.

Much later, Richard Feynman worked extensively on Quantum Theory, and I'm sure that he too tried to blow a hole in it. And he had the following to say about it:

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard Feynman

So here we have a 'theory' that was basically forced onto us by nature, via the empirical 'evidence', yet very few people are willing to accept it. They are still out to 'explain it away'.

It was Bohr's position that it's simply not going to be 'explained away'. He accepted the overwhelming 'evidence' for it.

It appears that Richard Feynman had finally accepted that it's not going away either since he's basically saying in his quote above, don't even try.

I have personally accepted Quantum Theory. And Quantum Theory states that there are some things that are simply unknowable. Some properties of this universe are complementary and if you know one of those properties precisely, then you can't know anything about it's complement.

For us, this is totally "illogical". And therefore many people reject the notion on intuitive grounds. Like Einstein they can't accept that some properties of the universe are necessarily in a state of limbo. "God does not play dice!"

It's too "mystical". And they can't accept that. They demand something that they can pin down and put their finger on. So they continue with various esoteric subjective interpretations.

But why? If what you say is true. If 'evidence' speaks for itself and must be accepted "objectively" then we have no choice but to accept that the universe is mystical (i.e. unknowable, forever a mystery) Because this is what the theory of Quantum Mechanics demands.

So if we accept the 'empirical evidence' objectively, then we must accept that this universe is ulimately mystical.

That's what the evidence demands.

Shoku's photo
Thu 12/10/09 08:59 PM

Shoku wrote:

But more alarmingly is that someone with your professed knowledge of science doesn't understand how to apply the scientific method. I can't imagine how you could have missed it.


But you've just recognized that I do indeed have a perfect understanding of the scientific method and how to apply it.

And it's in your following words:

Shoku wrote:

though with all things human there are a great many factors in play so it is no easy task to isolate them


I simply recognize that we currently don't have the ability to apply the scientific method to something as immensely complex as the human spirit. So I don't even pretend that it could be done.

Pretending that it could be applied would be a display of someone who doesn't understand how to apply the scientific method.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scientific method is an extremely elementary and very limited reductionistic view of the world. As a professional, I'm fully aware of this. I would suggest that most of the truly credible professional scientist are indeed aware of this.

"Science is a belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman.

It really is true if you stop and think about it. The scientific method is extremely crude, and quite limited about what it can actually say. Most of what scientists think they know actually represents large leaps of intuitive conclusions that may or may not have any validity at all.

The Big Bang. A Conclusion? Or a Guess?

Take the Big Bang for example. We observed that light coming from what appears to be very distant galaxies is red-shifted and this red-shift increases as the galaxies appear to be further away. From this we conclude that the universe is expanding.

Do we have any evidence that the universe is expanding? No. All we have is evidence that light is red-shifted. We must jump to the conclusion that this is caused by an expanding universe, which seems to be reasonable. However, this assumption also assumes that the physics of the intergalactic space is the same as the physics we experience here on Earth and that it has been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time*.

*Keep this lst thought in mind because it's going to play a huge role in just a minute.

Next we devise a 'theory' based on the idea that the universe is most likely expanding due to the evidence that light is red-shifted. And that assumption was based on the above assumption that the laws of physics have been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time.

Moreover the theory crashes and cannot be made to work if we stick to our guns assuming that the laws of physics have been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time. The theory has major problems and basically fails.

So then a New Idea is proposed that the laws of physics have not been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time, and there was actually a time when the universe underwent a major period of unprecedented Inflation. Keep in mind that there is no evidence for this New Idea. On the contrary this New Idea is entirely fabricated to salvage a theory that wasn't working!

There is no evidence that any such thing as "inflation" ever took place. That is purely an idea that was created to salvage a theory that wasn't working.

Moreover, even the theory of Inflation has its own problems because there is no way to "shut down" the inflationary process evenly throughout space without also having non-local faster-than-light communication. So as ironic as it sounds, the Inflationary Theory just took the non-local problem that caused the original Big Bang theory to fail, and moved it from the first instant of explosion to the end state after Inflation. laugh

In any case, there is no evidence for Inflation. Inflation is merely a plausibility argument to salvage a theory that wasn't working. And that theory wasn't even based on evidence that the universe was expanding, but rather it was merely based on the evidence that light is red-shifted. And that also included a need to assume that that the laws of physics have been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time. But now to save that theory we must assume that that the laws of physics have not been homogeneous and isotropic over all of time because we now need a period of Inflation that would have represented a different physical situation.

So how much of the "Big Bang" theory is actually based on "evidence" and how much is based on a biased desire to simply "save a theory"? spock

Now you might argue that there is also the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) that also supports the "Big Bang". But this isn't necessarily true at all. The CMBR would exist in any case. It's simply a measurement of the temperature of the universe as a whole. It doesn't necessarily point to a "Big Bang". The real argument there boils down to an idea of pure logic that suggests that IF the universe were infinitely old, and also static, that it would today then be infinitely hot. However, that's an argument that's also based on many unprovable assumptions as well.

In short, the only "real evidence" that we have for a "Big Bang" is the red-shifted light and the belief that this means that the universe is expanding and has always been expanding and that the laws of physics are homogenous and isotropic over time.

In fact, if you stop and think about this, it even gets more interesting!

The most recent cosmological observations suggest (from observing red-shifted light, again) that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion. Well this throws a whole wrench into everything!

The entire picture of the "Big Bang" was originally proposed in the belief that the expansion was fairly constant, or at best, slowing down due to gravity. But now we see that the physics of the universe is indeed changing. The universe is accelerating in it's expansion at least based on the 'evidence' of observations of red-shifted light.

Well, if this is true then why should we assume anything about the rate of expansion in the past? spock

Yet, we must make assumptions about the rate of expansion in the past for the Big Bang theory to hold.

So, in truth, we actually have basically no evidence that there was ever a Big Bang. All we have is some observations about red-shifted light a whole bunch of assumptions and guesses after that. flowerforyou

Like Richard Feynman says: "Science is a belief in the ignorance of experts."


Most of your post looks like you copies it out of the first result of a yahoo search so I'm just going to respond to the part that looked relevant: that doesn't make any sense. With the scientific method you've got options other than "I need to explain everything there is."

I don't see how you could have missed that part where I listed off the ranges all of the time, most of the time, rarely, and never. That's what the scientific method can easily produce for you without funding and devotion. There are levels and when you say that a question is too hard you are only saying that you do not have enough interest, time, and money to work on it.

It's not just hard to understand how you could not already know this but to understand how you could ignore it when I have placed it right in front of you.

Shoku's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:05 PM
Edited by Shoku on Thu 12/10/09 09:06 PM
jrbogie:

rub being of course, the word "belief" is not in the vocabulary of science. who the hell is this feyman anyway. ah crap never mind. can't imagine i want to know.frustrated

Actually he's a pretty amazing guy. Excellent physicist but he applied his knowledge to all kinds of things and-

Well, he was the type to walk into a project and figure out what dozens of experts had been unable to.

The way that quote was used totally misses the point. For a better impression of him you can just find some made for public clips up on youtube and if you've got the time there's plenty more worth looking into.

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:12 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Thu 12/10/09 09:23 PM
Abra wrote:

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." - Dr. Richard Feynman


That has always been my point!

I have personally accepted Quantum Theory. And Quantum Theory states that there are some things that are simply unknowable. Some properties of this universe are complementary and if you know one of those properties precisely, then you can't know anything about it's complement.

For us, this is totally "illogical". And therefore many people reject the notion on intuitive grounds. Like Einstein they can't accept that some properties of the universe are necessarily in a state of limbo. "God does not play dice!"

It's too "mystical". And they can't accept that. They demand something that they can pin down and put their finger on. So they continue with various esoteric subjective interpretations.

But why? If what you say is true. If 'evidence' speaks for itself and must be accepted "objectively" then we have no choice but to accept that the universe is mystical (i.e. unknowable, forever a mystery) Because this is what the theory of Quantum Mechanics demands.

So if we accept the 'empirical evidence' objectively, then we must accept that this universe is ulimately mystical.

That's what the evidence demands.


Self contradictory, and a one-word distortion of the evidence at hand regarding QM wrongfully being used as a crutch for claiming an illogical universe.

Unknowable is not mystical.

Equivocation between two entirely different words with entirely different meanings.

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:13 PM

There are levels and when you say that a question is too hard you are only saying that you do not have enough interest, time, and money to work on it.


No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying that our scientific knowledge and empirical capabilities simply aren't advanced enought yet. It's doesn't matter what I want, or have enough time, money or interest to invest.

Surely, if you're a professional scientist yourself you are fully aware that science if far from complete.

Beside, many scientists are proposing new dimensions, new quantum fields such as the Higgs Field, etc. How many more fields and hidden dimensions might there be?

How can you sit there and pretend that science already has complete knowledge of everything well enough to be used for any possible arbitrary study?


It's not just hard to understand how you could not already know this but to understand how you could ignore it when I have placed it right in front of you.


What has been placed in front of me other than your own subjective opinion of what you imagine science should be capable of?

I simply disagree with your opinion sir. That's all.

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:19 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Thu 12/10/09 09:20 PM
Evidence is the topic at hand. Stay on track by keeping what you present as evidence regarding the topic of evidence in that context.

drinker

Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:20 PM
Creative wrote:

Self contradictory, and a one-word distortion of QM.

Unknowable is not mystical. The evidence does not demand mystical as a label. Mystical presupposes purpose, reason, and intent. Unknowable is known of those.


To each their own.

For me, mystical simply mean mystery. If something is unknowable, then it must forever remain a mystery. Therefore it's mystical.

That's not a distortion of anything, it's just the way I see things.

If you see things differently that's your subjective view. flowerforyou

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:36 PM
Edited by creativesoul on Thu 12/10/09 09:40 PM
Creative wrote:

Self contradictory, and a one-word distortion of QM.

Unknowable is not mystical. The evidence does not demand mystical as a label. Mystical presupposes purpose, reason, and intent. Unknowable is known of those.


Abra responded:

To each their own.

For me, mystical simply mean mystery. If something is unknowable, then it must forever remain a mystery. Therefore it's mystical.

That's not a distortion of anything, it's just the way I see things.

If you see things differently that's your subjective view.


I am not interested in quibbling over commonly known definitions. It is a distortion and it can be shown as such. The evidence you have presented required changing the common meanings of words. In doing so you have falsely equated two completely different things. Therefore, your argument is invalid, based upon the following objective assessment of the evidence you have presented which requires using the correct meaning of the terms which you have chosen to present your opinion on this matter.




Main Entry: mys·ti·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈmis-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century

1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light




Main Entry: un·know·able
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈnō-ə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
: not knowable; especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding


Those two terms are nothing alike and using them incorrectly invalidates the argument presented.


Abracadabra's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:37 PM

Evidence is the topic at hand. Stay on track by keeping what you present as evidence regarding the topic of evidence in that context.

drinker


I'm not sure who's post you were refering to here, but it seems to me that our ability to know what evidence is available would be pertinent to the topic of evidence.

I'm not sure if there is any 'evidence' for things like, as of yet undetected quantum fields, or hidden dimensions, but since science has proposed them and is actively performing experiments to search for them I would imagine they must have some sort of 'evidence' that they at least 'might be plausible'.

In fact, I think this truly brings home the question of whether science requires 'evidence' for anything before it creates theories or conducts experiments.

What is the point of this thread anyway?

I just re-read the OP and realized something from the following:

Without getting into any major detail(s) concerning any specific situation or idea, I would like to attempt to discuss the importance and/or value of evidence.


As far as I can see, without getting into any specific situation or idea the very concept of 'evidence' is meaningless. I guess this was already suggested by both Sky and myself.

So, since that's the goal of this thread, then I guess I've already given my view on that.

IMHO, the very concept concept of "evidence" is meaningless outside of a specific situation or idea. And I also agree with Sky that it's also meaningless outside of a purpose which would also require a specific situation or idea.

So as far as I'm concerned 'evidence' is meaningless outside of a specific situation or idea and would therefore have no importance or value at all. In fact, it could hardly even be called evidence becuase the very next natural question would then be, "Evidence for what?". But without refering to a specific situation or idea that question couldn't be answered.

So, please accept my apologies. I was working under the assumption that it had already been well-established that some specific situation or idea must be considered before the concept of 'evidence' even makes any sense at all.

So I'll leave this thread now and please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings. flowerforyou

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 09:46 PM
There is no need to go into great detail concerning any specific idea. Evidence is the topic at hand, and that can be covered by examining the idea of it, in and of itself.

Relevance and sufficiency, and how they are determined and/or applied does not necessarily require an involved discussion of any particular idea, because the underlying element is covered by the concept of evidence itself.

Examples need not go outside of that context.

SkyHook5652's photo
Thu 12/10/09 11:31 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Thu 12/10/09 11:34 PM
Sky wrote:

Sky wrote:

In other words, if evidence is to be applied to anything at all, there must first be an end to which is it applied. Any judgement about evidence is dependent on why one is applying the evidence. And thus, the import/value of any such evidence can only be judged against an individual’s purpose behind, and desired goal of, considering the evidence.


creative responded:

I am more interested in the proper form of examining evidence, in and of itself. Evidence is anything that constitutes an indication or a sign which provides proof. Evidence has certain attributes which help determine it's sufficiency. Evidence, in order to be considered as aequate, or reason enough to base a conclusion upon, must be sufficient enough. If the evidence in question can logically lead to different conclusions, then either of those conclusions is as valid as the other, and it can become a matter of liklihood. Relevance and adequacy need to be assessed whenever examining evidence.


Sky wrote:

So the question arises about what to do when there are two pieces of evidence that appear to be contradictory.

Well what can one do? One can throw out the evidence (e.g. deny it), or one can devise a (or revise an existing) world view such that the evidence is no longer contradictory, or one can simply label it as an anomaly and accept that it cannot be integrated into the existing world view.


creative responded:

Keep looking for more evidence. Determine it's adequacy and relevance by applying it to as many situations as possible in order establish warrant to draw a conclusion. Sometimes that conclusion may be to say that the evidence at hand is insufficient to be able to draw a firm conclusion.
The above is the context to which these responses are referring...
Well, ok then it becomes a never-ending quest. Either that or one draws a line somewhere and says “I am satisfied with this.” And really, that’s the bottom line in the search for evidence. At some point one must eventually stop – or admit that no evidence is “sufficient”.

However, there are several key words you’ve used that are what I consider to be indicative of the subjectivity involved:

proper
sufficiency
aequate
reason enough
sufficient enough
relevance
warrant

These are all relative terms. That is, in order to determine any of them, they must be measurable. And therein lies the problem. Who determines what “ruler” to use for measurement? I see no reason to assume that everyone does, or must, use the same ruler. The only real reason for agreeing on a ruler is to provide for an agreement on the measurement. But if one does not desire to agree on a measurement, then there is no real reason to agree on the ruler.
Sky, I have read your words here many times over. I am being reminded of earlier words by you, which I - for one reason or another - consciously chose to avoid. It is time that I no longer ignore this point of view. While I respect that people have different opinions on matters, I am more interesting in what grounds those opinions.

You are bringing all methodology into question. Stating the fact that human perception is necessarily subjective does not place all methodology on equal footing. While I have acknowledged the subjective nature of human perception in past and will now once again, I find that to be inconsequential to this topic. It has already been dealt with. That is the reason for objective methodology.

Using an objective method cannot completely eliminate the possibility of subjective influence or error. It does, however, greatly reduce the chances of it. It is because of the fact that we are aware of the inherent erroneous nature of human subjectivity that we have devised objective procedures such as the scientific method and different forms of logic. That is why we created them, in order to avoid - as much as possible - the tendency for subjective human error.

Subjectivity is known to be prone to error. It also happens to be an unavoidable factor, but because we know this, it can be circumvented to a large extent. A large part of that also depends upon agreeing on word usage and meaning. I find that that alone often acts as a stumbling block between you and I. It is possible to avoid this. The only way to determine the value of evidence is to determine it's relevance and sufficiency through logical and/or reasonable application to that which is being considered.

I find it very interesting that you have just used an objective method to build a case against objective methods.
Well, one uses whatever tools are available to achieve one’s ends. drinker

Yes, I am “bringing all methodology into question”. That is a very astute observation.

Consider this statement: “Subjectivity is known to be prone to error.”

But what is the methodology for determining “error”? Unless I miss my guess, the implication is that objectivity is the methodology for determining subjective error. But how can that be??? Measuring subjectivity by objective standards is like measuring weight with a yardstick. The units are completely different and don’t apply to the same phenomena. The most that can be said about subjectivity is that it doesn’t always align with objectivity. But “error”? No – at least not by subjective measure.

How about this: Wouldn’t it be just as valid to judge objectivity by subjective standards? Wouldn’t be just a valid to say that objectivity is “in error” when it doesn’t align with subjectivity?

Sky wrote:

Just as evidence is meaningless without being compared to something, “sufficiency”, “adequacy” “reason enough”, etc. are meaningless without a standard by which to measure them. And possibly more importantly, there must be a purpose for performing the measurement. If there is no such purpose, then “evidence” and “sufficiency” are irrelevant from the outset.
Once again, I cannot understand your direction in thought here or your choice in analogy. It seems as though your attempting to logically build a case which places subjectivity and objectivity on equal grounds, simply because we, as humans, are necessarily subjective in perception.
Well I think placing subjectivity on equal grounds with objectivity is a start. But in fact, I think subjectivity should be placed ahead of objectivity. Not “because we, as humans, are necessarily subjective in perception.” But because subjectivity is the source of importance and value and relevance and all those other subjective terms you used to define and describe how evidence should be evaluated.

The subjective is, in fact, the target of evidence. It is why evidence is even considered in the first place.

Sky wrote:

In other words, consideration and evaluation of evidence has a prerequisite, which is most easily expressed by the question “Why is the evidence being considered/evaluated?”
True enough, even obviously so, yet why make the point? Isn't all evidence evaluated for it's truth value?
I’m not sure that is necessarily the case. Witness now the Young Earther’s use the evidence of carbon dating. In that case the evidence is most definitely not evaluated for it’s truth value. (Although, admittedly I may not understand what you mean by “truth value”.)

And that is why I think different people come to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence. Their purpose behind evaluating it is different. And I also think that may be the source of much conflict – too often people assume that others have (or should have) the same purpose in evaluating evidence. But they simply don’t.
While I agree with this, it does not cover all situations. Although I can imagine cases in which this applies, I find more reason to believe that the same evidence is evaluated in different ways, because of the fact that humans are necessarily subjective. Many people, if not most, allow their emotional desires to affect their ability to assess evidence, this notion was expressed earlier by another poster with the 'lucky penny' example.
The simplest reply to this is “Why should people not let their emotions affect their ability to assess evidence?"

Subjectivity is what determines the purpose behind the evaluation of evidence. And if emotions are a part of the process that results in a purpose, then in such a case abandoning all emotion would necessitate abandoning the purpose. Thus there would be no reason to evaluate the evidence at all.

The subjective nature of human perception is prone to error, that is the very reason why we developed objective means.

That is an irrefutable fact.
I’m not sure I agree with that. It seems to me that the purpose behind the development of the objective means has as its foundation the desire for a means of attaining agreement. Really, the only measure of “error” is the framework of objectivity itself, which in truth, is a creation of the subjective.
(Oh the irony! :laughing:)

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 11:33 PM
Abra wrote:

In any case, when I perform ritual "magick" as it's called, I don't expect 100% results every time. That would be utterly foolish of me. It would be just as foolish of me to think that my ritual "magick" is going to work 100% of the time as it would be for a quarterback to expect to make a successful play 100% of the time in a football game. He knows what he's doing. He has an entire team working with him in sychronicity. If they work well they perform "magically". If they work poorly they fail a lot.

So spiritual magick is like playing football. It's a hit and miss type of thing. It depends on a lot of factors, some of which are beyond the control of the magi. You just have to have faith and do the best you can't.


Two questions which comply with the topic at hand...

1.) Is this presented as evidence to support what your proposing here?

2.) Can we pursue a logical assessment regarding how it applies to the proposition in question in order to determine it's relevancy and adequacy? This would also necessarily pursue an avenue to integrate and utilize the idea of sufficiency.

No need for apologies and an excusing of one's self Abra, I am just trying to develop a little more insight by addressing the evidence at hand because it seems to be a good example to apply either methodology to the situation. I would like to offer an objective method. I would also be interested in reading a subjective one. We could then actively compare the two, and assess the value of each... and why that is the case.

flowerforyou

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/10/09 11:42 PM
Sky,

Everything is subjective in the sense that you are using the term. So then I propose this to you...

Because both points of view are necessarily subjective, let's compare the evidence from both sides of any specific situation. I gave an earlier proposition to Abra, you have the same invite. I would like to grow beyond semantics concerning the 'subjective' and get into the meat of the topic, even if the only way to do so is to agree with your definition, first. That truly is no problem.

flowerforyou

SkyHook5652's photo
Fri 12/11/09 12:57 AM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 12/11/09 12:57 AM
Sky,

Everything is subjective in the sense that you are using the term. So then I propose this to you...

Because both points of view are necessarily subjective, let's compare the evidence from both sides of any specific situation. I gave an earlier proposition to Abra, you have the same invite. I would like to grow beyond semantics concerning the 'subjective' and get into the meat of the topic, even if the only way to do so is to agree with your definition, first. That truly is no problem.

flowerforyou
Ok, that's cool with me. shades

Now I am not sure what the proposition was that you gave Abra, so I'm not sure where to go from here.

I'll follow your lead.

1 3 5 6 7 8 9 29 30