100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Evidently we must first learn to distinguish fact from opinion.
That is the fact which you have been overlooking which my opinion is based upon. Your argument is weak and based upon loosely and freely chosen word usage. Common practice, I'll grant you that. I am not a common thinker though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative wrote:
There really is no way to know for sure exactly what actuality/reality is. We can only begin with what represents consist repeatable conditions and go from there. Abra responded: This was the philosophy that gave brith to the the scientific method. However, that philosophy ultimately breaks down. This is what science has taught us. If we begin with consistent repeatable conditions and 'go from there' (which is precisely what science did), we end up at the quantum level which tells us taht consistency and repeatablitiy ultimately break down. While I think that I understand your sentiment here, I disagree with how it is being presented. The philosophy itself has not broken down. We know that we are at a limit in measurement and we know why. We have temporarily compensated for those factors with the different solutions for QM. The field is not stagnant. Human resourcefulness is a beautiful thing. So when we place all are eggs in the basket of "determinism" (in the sense that everything can be based on the idea that everything is ultiamtely consistent and repeatable), then that philosophy leads to a dead end and circular paradoxes.
This is what science has shown us to be true. I disagree. Determinism does not say that everything is ultimately consistent and repeatable. Those are the necessary requirements for claiming scientific knowledge. They have led us a very long way in a relatively short period of time. So, if we choose to call it a philosophy, it is by far the most successful in terms of granting us a confident means of assessing the universe. This has been proven by using those assessments to promote our understanding and successful interaction of and within the universe. I find no reason to call that a dead end. Many people have a very difficult time accepting this. Einstein rejected this notion in favor of having utter 'faith' that "God does not play dice".
But the evidence clearly shows the contrary. The evidence shows that 'God' plays dice? That is a new one on me. The pure objective approach to seeking any "truth" about actuality is dead. It's an old-fashioned belief system that evidence no longer supports. In fact, the evidence (obervations of reality) support that just the opposite to be true.
That's my current world view. I can find no clear meaning in the above claims. 1.)There is no pure objective approach. 2.)'Truth' is not about actuality. 3.)Evidence is an objective element in the sense that it must be shown as such. Define "just the opposite" in terms other than those. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 12/19/09 10:51 AM
|
|
Pan wrote: 1. I am looking for an "indication of proof".
2. I am looking for an "outward sign". 3. I am looking for "evidence". Can any of the "things" in the quotes exist outside of the mind? Yes. That is the wrong question though. The right one would be can any of those things exist independent of the mind? No. Main Entry: outside Function: preposition Date: 1826 2 : beyond the limits of <outside the scope of this report> <outside the law> Right question, wrong semantic game... That posistion places one squarely at the center of the universe. Care to answer the question about the tree again??? So, the "outward sign" of light radiating from the sun never existed before someone could perceive it? How was Earth able to sustain life then? I know, the inteligent designer was able to perceive it. It is time for one to venture outside of one's universe and realise that things, outward signs, indications of proof and evidence exist regardless of one's ability or willingness to perceive them. Pesonally, I'll take the general concensus here that evidence does exist before one connects it to anything... The evidence is on the pages, as long as one perceives it and accepts the truth. The "stuff" and the "things" exist, but it is not called "evidence" unless there is something for which it is used as "evidence for." If I found a dead cat in my yard and told you that this dead cat was "evidence" you would probably ask or wonder.. "Evidence for what?" If I said, "Oh nothing, its just evidence." That would not make any sense. But if I explained that I was trying to prove that people are going around killing cats and dumping them in my yard, then you would understand why I might call this dead cat "evidence." It is evidence because I am connecting it to the thing I am trying to prove or investigate. If I was not investigating or if I had not made a statement that people were killing and dumping dead cats in my yard, the the dead cat is just a dead cat. It is not "evidence." The meaning of the word "evidence" does not refer to the actual "stuff;" it refers to the fact that the "stuff" is being used to prove something. I hope this helps. A thing is not called "evidence" if it is not being used to prove something. It is just a thing. Is a tree evidence? No, its just a tree. But if I am investigating a hanging and that tree has a branch with a rope hanging from it, that could be called "evidence." If a tree does not have a rope hanging from it, does the tree still exist? Of course it does. But it is not evidence if there is no reason to call it or use it as evidence. If it was, then every tree in town would be called evidence. But only the tree with the branch and the rope hanging from it is called evidence because it appears (more than the other trees) that someone was hung there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan,
I went back through this thread and have taken the time to address the things which I did not already. In addition I am going to deliberately accentuate the reality aspect which admittedly grounds your opinion. I am confidently assuming that no matter what evidence I provide, you will reject it based solely on your opinion.
We'll see. So, do you accept my evidence?
I accept that you present things which you call evidence. Our disagreement is had when determining the sufficiency and relevancy of it. Your claiming that the evidence you have presented provides sufficient reason to believe that evidence itself exists independently of the mind. I am showing otherwise. Here's a few thoughts...
Is an airplane an airplane if it hasn't flown yet? Yes. How does that support the idea that evidence exists independently of the mind? Is the people mover at the airport a people mover if it's not in motion?
Yes. How does that support the idea that evidence exists independently of the mind? If an alien visits you an gives you a tissue sample to prove to the world that it exists and you loose it, is it still evidence?
Assuming that the above is fact. The sample is lost evidence. How does that support the idea that evidence exists independently of the mind? If you go searching for a new species of frogs and you find it, did it exist before you found it?
Yes, the frog existed before it was found. We know this because a frog, in and of itself, exists independently of the mind. Our knowledge of the frog does not. Evidence exists independently of the mind does not follow from frogs exist independently of the mind. The frog is not evidence of *anything* until it is found and used as grounds for a conclusion. Before it was found, we know it existed because it has been found. It does not acquire the additional attribute of being evidence until it is used as a means to logically conclude something else. This isn't about "evidence" it's about your perception of what "evidence" should be.
I do not argue from 'what is' to 'what ought'. However, your arguments are doing just that. Your giving examples of things which do not exist independently of the mind - such as airplanes and people movers - things that do - such as actuality, frogs, sunshine, etc., and incorrectly claiming that those all ought to be placed into one group(reality). Then your attempting to conclude that because *some* things exist independently of the mind, then all things must. Some things in reality do not exist independently of the mind. Human knowledge is one. Inference is another. Reason is yet one more. Evidence is an element of knowledge and is completely contingent upon logical inference. Therefore, it does not -cannot - exist independently of the mind. Planes, people movers, and anything else man-made, including evidence, would not exist if it were not for the mind. That is not the case with the universe, frogs, sunshine, and other things which exist independently of the mind. Showing frogs exist before being found does not prove that evidence does. It ignores the differences between a frog, in and of itself, and a frog which is being used as evidence. It ignores that one is a man-made concept and the other is not. It ignores the fact that a frog not being used as evidence is not evidence, it is just a frog. Ribbit! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidently we must first learn to distinguish fact from opinion. That is the fact which you have been overlooking which my opinion is based upon. Your argument is weak and based upon loosely and freely chosen word usage. Common practice, I'll grant you that. I am not a common thinker though. "We" implies plural, so I think you should reevaluate that statement. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing the two. Calling my argument "weak" doesn't make it so, there's a whole universe out there that is objective. If my argument was truly "weak", then there would have been no need to resort to name-calling. I chose the words based on what was written, you gave the definition, not I. My definition and usage of the words didn't see-saw. I also didn't ad-lib any definitions of any words. The definition is a sign or indication of proof. The fact is that use is what makes a thing evidence, until then it is just a thing, in and of itself. The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence. Actually, the definition is an outward sign or indication of proof. You've used the term "evidence" when looking for "evidence" before it was found, so has everyone in this thread except for 1 person. In fact, like I said, bing(dot)com has over 87 million entries when you search for the phrase "search for evidence". Now, let's use your opinion of what constitutes evidence. "The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence." Once it's been established that one desires evidence, the correlation is there. Even if it's never found, the correlation exists, so evidence exists before it's used as such. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan Wrote:
Now, let's use your opinion of what constitutes evidence. "The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence." Once it's been established that one desires evidence, the correlation is there. Even if it's never found, the correlation exists, so evidence exists before it's used as such. Now there's a true understanding of how to apply abstraction properly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 12/19/09 08:58 PM
|
|
Now, let's use your opinion of what constitutes evidence. "The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence."
Once it's been established that one desires evidence, the correlation is there. Even if it's never found, the correlation exists, so evidence exists before it's used as such. The desire for evidence does not establish any correlation between anything. If it is never found, it would not be known to even exist, nor could it be used to prove anything, hence it is a moot point and it is not evidience. If anything is to be called "evidence" it must be found and in your possession and it must be connected to the assertion, statement or crime in question that needs to be proven, and then presented as evidence. (Hey, I got it. Why is this so difficult to understand? If I could get it, then ... anyone should get it.)  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan wrote:
"We" implies plural, so I think you should reevaluate that statement. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing the two. 
Calling my argument "weak" doesn't make it so, there's a whole universe out there that is objective. If my argument was truly "weak", then there would have been no need to resort to name-calling. I chose the words based on what was written, you gave the definition, not I. My definition and usage of the words didn't see-saw. I also didn't ad-lib any definitions of any words.
Your argument changed phrasings a number of times, that does not make it invalid. Your failure to acknowledge the fact that the concept is necessarily man-made does. Name calling is an indication of impatience, not the strength of your argument or the weakness of mine. Yours is weak for the logical reasons already shown. You have not logically addressed what I have given. You have cherry-picked the easiest semantic terms without addressing the actual substance. The definition is fine. I have clearly shown that the concept of evidence is man-made and necessarily requires logical inference, and that those things do not contradict the given definition. My earlier frustration was well grounded. creative wrote:
The definition is a sign or indication of proof. The fact is that use is what makes a thing evidence, until then it is just a thing, in and of itself. The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence. Actually, the definition is an outward sign or indication of proof. Actually, I gave it. Therefore I am aware of it. Do you not recognize the argument being presented? It does not contradict the definition you've accepted, it necessarily follows from it. You've used the term "evidence" when looking for "evidence" before it was found, so has everyone in this thread except for 1 person. In fact, like I said, bing(dot)com has over 87 million entries when you search for the phrase "search for evidence".
There are almost 19 million entries for 'Zeus', 613 thousand for 'the flying spaghetti monster', 780 thousand for 'dog poo', 18.5 million for 'false evidence'... so what??? The number of times someone searches the phrase 'looking for evidence' does not prove that evidence exists independently of the mind any more than the 19 million entries of 'Zues' proves his existence independent of the mind. Like I said, your argument is weak... and getting weaker. Now, let's use your opinion of what constitutes evidence. "The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence."
Once it's been established that one desires evidence, the correlation is there. Even if it's never found, the correlation exists, so evidence exists before it's used as such. Is that supposed to make sense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pan wrote:
Now, let's use your opinion of what constitutes evidence. "The correlation to another thing or idea is what constitutes it being evidence." Let's do. To show this false would be easy, right? 
Give me one example in which that is not the case. Google it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me save you the trouble. I just Google advance searched the exact wording "evidence without logical inference".
ZERO results found... 
Do you still want to use that form of searching as evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My intuition tells me that the next move is going to be arguing over the term 'outward', as in 'outward sign'.
Shall I place another quarter in your ride? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Sat 12/19/09 11:55 PM
|
|
jb wrote:
In a general terms, yes everything perceived is evidence of something. All "stuff" is evidence of something. But if you are looking for evidence of a particular thing, assertion, statement, crime, etc. everything perceived is not evidence of that. The point I am making is that if something is true, then evidence exists. That the evidence has not been discovered, found, presented or accepted does not mean that the thing in question is "not true." I just means that the evidence has not been discovered to support that as being true. AND reaffirmed it with this statement: I have not actually changed my position, I am just getting a better understanding of what the term "evidence" actually means. If anything is to be called "evidence" it must be found and in your possession and it must be connected to the assertion, statement or crime in question that needs to be proven, and then presented as evidence.
creative wrote: What you think about other people is an ad hominem argument and is fallacious. Fallacious arguments are illogical. Illogical means no logic.
and then see-sawed to this: Name calling is an indication of impatience, not the strength of your argument or the weakness of mine. Yours is weak for the logical reasons already shown.
Don't hate me because my conviction is stable... I have shown the evidence refuting your logic using your own words. I have shown evidence where you have used the term "evidence" for something not in your possesion. I have shown an indication of proof of your unwillingness to accept evidence unless you get to evaluate and assess it's importance. I have shown the outward signs that you see-saw on the use and acceptability of evidence as well as the definition. You're more than welcome to reject the evidence provided, just remember that it will be your oppinion that it's unacceptable. I've said it before, be careful of what you write, it shows more about your character than the one it's about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You talk alot. You've shown nothing. You actually believe that my calling you an idiot was a part of my argument?
Address the substance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You talk alot. You've shown nothing. You actually believe that my calling you an idiot was a part of my argument?
Address the substance. There is NO substance... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time for schooling...
Very nice display of an ad hominem argument. Evidently you know little about them, because your attempting to equate your form of argument with the fact that I called you an idiot earlier. An ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. In other words all ad homs are not fallacious simply because they are ad homs. An ad hominem is fallacious if, and only iff the argument rests it's grounds upon it. That is why yours is a complete ad hom and mine is not. Your presenting an argument about evidence for the sole purpose of judging me personally while offering your own 'evidence' which causes you to feel that way. My calling you an idiot was not a part of my argument. Do I really need to explain all of this to you? Your opinion of me has nothing to do with the concept of evidence. As soon as your done bolstering your own ego by presenting your case against me, show me one example of evidence which does not require logical inference. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time for schooling... Very nice display of an ad hominem argument. Evidently you know little about them, because your attempting to equate your form of argument with the fact that I called you an idiot earlier. An ad hominem is not necessarily fallacious. In other words all ad homs are not fallacious simply because they are ad homs. An ad hominem is fallacious if, and only iff the argument rests it's grounds upon it. That is why yours is a complete ad hom and mine is not. Your presenting an argument about evidence for the sole purpose of judging me personally while offering your own 'evidence' which causes you to feel that way. My calling you an idiot was not a part of my argument. Do I really need to explain all of this to you? Your opinion of me has nothing to do with the concept of evidence. As soon as your done bolstering your own ego by presenting your case against me, show me one example of evidence which does not require logical inference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the dialogue Pan.
Best of luck to you in your pursuits. I do not usually continue to have debates in which the opposing party refuses to acknowledge the points I make. I would rather argue 'in good faith'. It certainly seems that you are not interested in that and would rather offer your opinions about me personally while pompously believing that you are somehow winning. Your self-absorbed posturing does not impress me.
Invincible ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the dialogue Pan. Best of luck to you in your pursuits. I do not usually continue to have debates in which the opposing party refuses to acknowledge the points I make. I would rather argue 'in good faith'. It certainly seems that you are not interested in that and would rather offer your opinions about me personally while pompously believing that you are somehow winning. Your self-absorbed posturing does not impress me.
Invincible ignorance. Ad hominem: Fail!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said...
Thanks for the dialogue, and best of luck to you. I'm not interested.
|
|
|
|
|
