1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 29 30
Topic: Evidence...
no photo
Sun 12/13/09 11:02 AM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 12/13/09 11:03 AM


No, evidence is not normally referred to as "knowledge." Having evidence of a crime is not the same as having knowledge of a crime.


JennieBean...name one thing in existence that has nothing to do with knowledge or isn't regarded as to being knowledge

in other words....give me some knowledge that isn't knowledge....or better yet give me some type of evidence that would not be considered as being knowledge ......as you try to do so you will begin to see that evidence and knowledge are the same


I am referring to the most efficient use of a word. Knowledge of evidence is knowledge of evidence but it is not knowledge of the crime, it is just knowledge of the evidence.

As I said before, knowledge of a crime does not have the same meaning as evidence of a crime.




no photo
Sun 12/13/09 12:17 PM



No, evidence is not normally referred to as "knowledge." Having evidence of a crime is not the same as having knowledge of a crime.


JennieBean...name one thing in existence that has nothing to do with knowledge or isn't regarded as to being knowledge

in other words....give me some knowledge that isn't knowledge....or better yet give me some type of evidence that would not be considered as being knowledge ......as you try to do so you will begin to see that evidence and knowledge are the same


I am referring to the most efficient use of a word. Knowledge of evidence is knowledge of evidence but it is not knowledge of the crime, it is just knowledge of the evidence.

As I said before, knowledge of a crime does not have the same meaning as evidence of a crime.



JennieBean...again you are avoiding the question....tell of one thing in existence that is not knowledge.....tell of one piece of evidence that would not be regarded as being knowledge

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 01:00 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 12/13/09 01:01 PM




No, evidence is not normally referred to as "knowledge." Having evidence of a crime is not the same as having knowledge of a crime.


JennieBean...name one thing in existence that has nothing to do with knowledge or isn't regarded as to being knowledge

in other words....give me some knowledge that isn't knowledge....or better yet give me some type of evidence that would not be considered as being knowledge ......as you try to do so you will begin to see that evidence and knowledge are the same


I am referring to the most efficient use of a word. Knowledge of evidence is knowledge of evidence but it is not knowledge of the crime, it is just knowledge of the evidence.

As I said before, knowledge of a crime does not have the same meaning as evidence of a crime.



JennieBean...again you are avoiding the question....tell of one thing in existence that is not knowledge.....tell of one piece of evidence that would not be regarded as being knowledge


If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.


no photo
Sun 12/13/09 01:21 PM
Edited by funches on Sun 12/13/09 01:22 PM

If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?

Atlantis75's photo
Sun 12/13/09 01:47 PM
you guys are fighting over the meaning of the word now?

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 01:56 PM


If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?


You are asking a question that has already been answered....

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:05 PM



If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?


You are asking a question that has already been answered....


Peter_Pan .....if it was answered then I wouldn't be asking....perhaps the question is beyond you ....so please allow JennieBean to answer it

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:07 PM

you guys are fighting over the meaning of the word now?


the same as "not" pregnant or a "little" pregnant

Shoku's photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:08 PM

Shoku wrote:

You can say that about everything we don't know. Get off your *** and work on advancing them if you care or you can just sit around complaining while other people do the work.


What makes you think I'm not working on advancing science? Major discoveries aren't made every day. I'm retired now, but during my career I've made plenty of contributions to technology if not science.
Nothing make me think that. We're speaking philosophy remember? You said that you thought the problem wasn't even worth working on because we're nowhere near the solution and I said you have to work on something to get anywhere near the solution. Too hard to understand?

Though I still haven't ever heard any mention of what exactly it is that you did. Care to share or do you just say that you used to be a scientist so that you sound more like you know what you're talking about?

Besides if modern scientists are to be given any respect whatsoever we must conclude that there is very much they don't know. They have proposed a whole new quantum field called the Higgs Field.

You say,

How do you need quantum fields to work out brain chemistry? Do you just start gibbering about quarks every time you want to talk about things we don't know?


What do you think a quantum field entails? The electron is a property of the quantum electromagnetic field of charge. Without that field electrons would not exist and we would not have electromagnetism and brains wouldn't work at all.
Without protons we'd never have the declaration of independence either but the properties of particles don't make much sense on the scale of government models.

If it's too hard to explain in layman speak go ahead and lay down the full technical explanation of what mysteries in neurology are waiting on quantum mechanics to become accessible, please.

I don't view quantum fields as 'quantum particles' that only exist on a tiny scale. The quantum fields give rise to those particles and all their effects. In fact, the "particles" we call bosons aren't really "particles" at all, they are considered to be force carring field.
How is this releveant to the questions I have raised?

In fact, I don't think of quantum 'particles' as 'particles' at all anymore. And neither to quantum physicists. They are merely ripples in the associated 'fields'. That's what they are.
Now you're just repeating yourself.

Erwin Schrodinger attempting to put this into layman's terms for the non-physicist.

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." - Erwin Schrodinger

This isn't just some sort of off-the-wall metaphysical interpretation. This is what the mathematics is telling us directly translated into layman's terms.

In fact, it is believed that the Higgs Field is the field that gives rise to the dynamic property of mass called inertia.
What aspect of inertia do we not understand well enough to deal with electrons?

IF this is true then the existence of the Higgs Field (or the Higgs Particles if you like which is just a ripple in the Higgs Field), gives rise to the macro property of inertia.
Macro properties that we are already familiar with.

So to pass quantum physics off as merely having to do with the very small is to not understand quantum physics at all.
Yes, I've talked about this before.

Quantum phyiscs is all about the macro behavior of the world. I guess this is where we differ wildly in our views of quantum physics.
You're vague. Tell me specifically something we don't know but hope to find out with improved comprehension of quantum mechanics.

Thus, when I talk about undiscovered quantum "particles" I'm talking about entirely new quantum fields that bring with them macro properties that must necessarily affect everything in the macro world.
If they affected electrons in a significant way that we did not already understand why would we bother with particle accelerators instead of just observing electrons and extrapolating from that?

Moreover, scientists have not only proposed the yet undiscovered "Higgs Fields" but they have also proposed an entire family of "supersymmetric particles" (i.e. Supersymmetric fields) that have not yet been discovered.
Ya but the Higgs boson is the one that the standard model relies on.

They are searching for those particles in their particle accelerators. I don't have a particle accelerater at my cottage in the woods so I'll just have to wait for them to discover the particles.
Once again, what good will understanding those particles do for figuring out if walks lighten people's moods or not?

Besides, you say that I'm "complaining" about science not knowing everything. But it's not a "complaint" at all. It's merely an observation of the truth. An observation that you apparently don't fully understand.
I don't acknowledge it to people with a poor grasp of what it signifies. This is essentially an expert's detail that holds no meaning at a layman's level and is in fact counterproductive to their comprehension.

If everyone was excited by science and wanted to learn this would be a different story.

I'm just pointing out the facts sir.
As you've said to me: I already know about that.

That's not at all the same as complaining.
The issue here is not what you've chosen to say but the reason you've chosen to say it. What relevance do the newest frontiers of knowledge have on thoroughly explored ground?

From what I've seen of how you work it seems that they are just a scarecrow to divert attention from questions you do not want answered.

Scientists openly confess that they know every little about this universe that we live in.
Typo right? You left out the word don't somewhere in there I think.

They most certainly aren't in any position to be "ruling things out" when they have no clue what's even going on.
It's phrases like this that show your true character. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes it clear what you want.

We have a great deal of understanding of what's going on. Newtonian mechanics explain 99% of the things people will ever come across. To say that we didn't have a clue what was going on even back in his day would have been a bald faced lie.
Now we know 99.9999% of what there is to know about the world in the mechanical sense.

You seem to want to equate things like the knowledge of how many hairs are on a person's head with the comprehension of how hairs grow (inhibitor that is it's own promoter and promoter that inhibits the inhibitor by the way,) but the desire to justify belief trumps honesty I suppose.

That's the only point that I'm making. I'm just being practical and reasonable.
Replace both of those with hiding your motives if you value honesty.

Shoku's photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:24 PM
Creative
PeterPan wrote:

So you are only objecting to the evidence if it's presented by abra?

What diference does it make whoose mind is "verifying" it, it's all still subjective...


You are confusing your perception of actuality with actuality itself.

Abra being the one who is presenting the evidence has nothing to do with my assessment of that evidence. I am not focused upon who presents evidence, I am focused upon the concept of evidence, in and of itself. He is also not the only one I have responded to. I see no logical connection to what has transpired here and your first question.

That last question has already been answered. If you really want to know, you can look back through the thread and find it yourself.
But it's so much easier to say that you're just a biased jerk than to actually think about why a proposal has failed. Much easier to say that anyone that does not accept my arguments is only doing so because they subscribe to a false faith.

Atlantis75's photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:31 PM
Edited by Atlantis75 on Sun 12/13/09 02:32 PM


you guys are fighting over the meaning of the word now?


the same as "not" pregnant or a "little" pregnant


gotcha! rofl

Here is an example for "evidence".


I'll make a statement. In the Sirius star cluster, there is a planet just like Earth.

I have no evidence, because we don't have the technology yet to see what is in the sirius star cluster.

does it mean there is no Earth like planet in the Sirus cluster?

No, but neither the opposite. With the lack of evidence, but also the lack of necessary tools and technology we cannot tell what is going on there.

So how should we treat this statement?

"A possibility".

Unfortunately it's hard for many people to process this, because we are used for the "yes" or "no" and that's it and whether you say "yes" or you say "no", you just sided yourself and laid back comfortably, and locked out curiosity and interest and became either a "believer" or a "denier" never realizing that both sides are wrong, due to the lack of evidence to support, whether it's a "yes" or "no".


Abracadabra's photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:43 PM
Shoku wrote:

From what I've seen of how you work it seems that they are just a scarecrow to divert attention from questions you do not want answered.


With all due respect sir, you have never even seen me work. So you have absolutely no clue what you are even talking about. All you have ever seen is my sharing of my profound wisdom on an internet dating sight and not charge for it. bigsmile

Believe whatever you like about science and quantum mechanics. I couldn't care less. I perfer to think like the most brilliant scientists in history have to say:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Most truly brilliant scientists recognize that there is far more going on than just the dry mathematical description of non-existent billiard balls. laugh

So I'm in great company and the way I work is in perfectly harmony with the way the greatest minds in all of science have worked. flowerforyou

Someday you may also become enlightened to the fact that nature is far more than just a mathematical description of non-existent billiard balls. And, after all, science is the studying of nature. So to ignore things like human intuition, emotion, and psychic wisdom would be silly since that too is very much a part of nature.

Get your head out of the microscope and look around at the big picture. Smell the roses and realize that the very experience of that is undefinable by the scientific method. bigsmile

Without spirituality, science is lame. flowerforyou

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 02:50 PM



you guys are fighting over the meaning of the word now?


the same as "not" pregnant or a "little" pregnant


gotcha! rofl

Here is an example for "evidence".


I'll make a statement. In the Sirius star cluster, there is a planet just like Earth.

I have no evidence, because we don't have the technology yet to see what is in the sirius star cluster.

does it mean there is no Earth like planet in the Sirus cluster?

No, but neither the opposite. With the lack of evidence, but also the lack of necessary tools and technology we cannot tell what is going on there.

So how should we treat this statement?

"A possibility".

Unfortunately it's hard for many people to process this, because we are used for the "yes" or "no" and that's it and whether you say "yes" or you say "no", you just sided yourself and laid back comfortably, and locked out curiosity and interest and became either a "believer" or a "denier" never realizing that both sides are wrong, due to the lack of evidence to support, whether it's a "yes" or "no".


it would not be referred to as a possibility because as you said you have no evidence therefore it would be assumption and/or faith

also you have nothing to lose by making such an assumption ...for example....let's say that there were a billion clusters and only one of them contained an Earth-like planet that you could survive on and you had to leave Earth immediatly ....now explain out of all the billions of clusters why would you pick the cluster "sirus" to go to

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 03:07 PM


If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?



If it is not known of that question becomes a moot point.



no photo
Sun 12/13/09 03:22 PM



If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?



If it is not known of that question becomes a moot point.





therefore anything not known or revealed can not be used as proof until it is known and/or revealed and this is why "Unrevealed Evidence" is not proof but faith ...

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 03:32 PM




If it is known, then it is knowledge. If it is not known, then it is not knowledge.

I cannot tell of a thing that is not known.




so if evidence is not known is it still evidence?



If it is not known of that question becomes a moot point.





therefore anything not known or revealed can not be used as proof until it is known and/or revealed and this is why "Unrevealed Evidence" is not proof but faith ...


Wrong. As expressed earlier, if someone is shot, there is a gun that did the shooting. The bullet is the proof of the gun, along with chemical traces of the gunpowder and the bullet wound of the one who was shot.

SkyHook5652's photo
Sun 12/13/09 04:23 PM
I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography.

Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it.

In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it.

Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man...

As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means.

So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”?

In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer.

In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.)

So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man?

Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.)

Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.)

Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.)

Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all?


Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it.

bedlum1's photo
Sun 12/13/09 04:32 PM
blue pill or red pill?
the question you should ask yourself is how far down the rabbit hole your willing to go.....

no photo
Sun 12/13/09 04:33 PM

blue pill or red pill?
the question you should ask yourself is how far down the rabbit hole your willing to go.....


I am willing to go all the way. smokin tongue2 shades :wink: laugh

SkyHook5652's photo
Sun 12/13/09 04:39 PM
blue pill or red pill?
the question you should ask yourself is how far down the rabbit hole your willing to go.....
I am willing to go all the way. smokin tongue2 shades :wink: laugh
Ditto. I'm always interested in what's at the bottom - if there is any bottom.

So I'll take both pills if you please. :laughing:

1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 29 30