Wrong. If someone is shot then there has to be a gun somewhere. That is logic. There has to be a bullet somewhere. If the gun or the bullet has not been found, it cannot be used as evidence but it still exists. The job is to find it.

Okay according to the prosecution, there "is no evidence" in the case simply because they can't find it. I get that. But not having the evidence in your possession does not mean it does not exist. It just means that you do not have it.

I don't think I am "over thinking" anything. I am a private investigator. It is one thing to tell me that I don't have any evidence, and another thing to tell me that the evidence does not exist. These are two different things.

no...reason.. bible is written by man stolen from pagan ideals(except the one god thing)if you want to get technical the evidence points to that...
truth is people blindly believe what they are raised to believe(with some exceptions)........politics/religion/morals examples of belief systems to start..
but it seems to me people mostly get information from one source latch on to it and decide to make it solid fact instead of taking it ALL in and making informed educated decisions from there

supposation without evidence = theory

Because by its very definition "knowledge" is something that is known. Therefore the term "unknown knowledge" is meaningless.

All "knowledge" is "known."

Evidence, on the other hand, exists. If it did not exist, nobody would be looking for it.

When an investigator arrives at the scene of the crime he or she looks for evidence. Evidence that is not found cannot be presented, but that does not mean it does not exist it just means that they don't have it or did not find it.

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.

I think I see how the miscommunication in this one occurred.
Your original statement was:


Let me repeat what I think your meant for me to understand from the above statement.

You are saying that before the data gathered can be tested “objectively” that agreement must be made on the terms and conditions that would qualify as an objective test. Is that correct?

If that’s what you meant than I agree – but that was not how I interpreted your statement the first time, mostly because I figure that’s a given. In fact, IF I have finally captured your meaning, then much of my post after that was based of a false premise. But I’ll keep reviewing, I certainly owe you that much.

Yep, - bad post on my part. Allow me to re-address from a different position the following:
You stated


I have a better understanding of that statement now. Please let me clarify that there is no singularly valid scientific “methodology” for every hypotheses. There are however certain standards which have been proven to diminish the possibility of subjective error. On the other hand, just because one standard has been proven to be an effective tool in one area does not mean it will be as effective when applied in a completely different area of research which supports your statement that “agreement” is required in the choice of tools/methods to be used.

Having said that, I have to agree that when it comes to metaphysical evidence current ‘scientific’ methodologies are difficult to apply, simply because of the subjective nature through which data must be attained. In some cases consistency in correlations may be considered valid ‘evidence’ but only so far as predicting similar changes between variables and not in establishing cause.

The field of philosophy has its own toolbox through which evidence is logically supported but most ordinary folks are not that adept in the philosophical discipline.

What this all boils down to is that I see your point and it has been recognized both through science and the field of philosophy. In both fields there are tools and methods which are applied in an effort to limit the purely subjective (ie. only opinion) from the more substantial qualities in the argument that can be construed as evidence.

So while the terms/definitions and conditions surrounding the methods used requires agreement, agreement will invariably relate back to some form of objectivity. And I think we are close to being in agreement on this. OF COURSE that all depends on if I got the first part of this post right.

This is how science has always worked as far as I'm aware. Theories are suggested that hypothesis the existence of some object of behavior, then experiments are performed to see whether or not the any 'evidence' and be found. If it's found then it's considered to be a discovery since it was discovered to actaully found to be true.

This was certainly true with some of the predictions of Einstein's theory of Relativity. Time dilation, the interchangeability of matter and energy, and various properties of gravity that different from the Newtonian view were all searched for after they had been proposed to exist.

We now assume that energy and matter have always been interchangeable, and that time has always dilated, and that gravity has always behaved differently from what Isaac Newton's formula had suggested.

So the 'evidence' was always there right before our eyes, we just never saw it until we tested for it.

Scientists today are searching for evidence for a Higgs Field. If they find it, then it was always there. We just weren't looking in the right places.

In fact, if the Higgs Field really is responsible for the property of inertia then it's been obvious all along and we just never realized what it was.

Everybody experiences inertia.

Similarly we may be staring at evidence for many things square in the eye and simply not realize the significance of it.

I like Jeannie's example of the murder weapon. Someone might actually know where the gun is, but they simply aren't aware that it was used in a murder therefore even though they are looking right at the evidence they have no clue that it even is evidence because they simply aren't aware of the connections.

Evidence is nothing without a connection to some specific situation or idea. (like I said many pages ago), but that insight was renounced as being "irrelevant" and "insuffcient".

Evidence is always relative to a particular situation and/or idea. It has no meaning outside of that context. There can be no such thing as "pure absolute evidence" that isn't associated with some situation or idea that is supposedly 'supports'.

There has to be a specific situation or idea to support before the concept of 'evidence' even makes any sense at all.

So to speak about 'evidence' without also speaking about the context is also a meaningless concept, because the context will determine the value and meaningfulness of the 'evidence'.

In other words if someone was shot, then finding a knife would hardly be considered 'evidence'. Any 'evidence' must be directly connected with whatever situation and/or idea is being supported.

From your post before this one - you were right I did not "get" what Sky was saying and I did try harder and hopefully I have found his meaning.

But I'm not you get it either as you seem to have as much difficulty trying to explain it as I had trying to understand it. Thanks for trying though.

I did not try to explain it.

I do get what he is saying.

I understand WHERE you are coming from too, and where he is coming from.

Two different levels of understanding and thought.

Di, I hope you'll forgive me for responding to a comment that you directed to Sky, but there are a few things that I would like to say concerning the above (this may not be related to what you and Sky are talking about at all, by the way).

I just wanted to say that I would be in complete agreement with that you've offered above back in the days of Classical Physics. Because back then there appeared to be very crystal clear boundaries between objective things and which things could be considered to objective.

It's my view today with Modern Physics (which includes both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) that the old-fashioned ideas that things can always be precisely and objectively determined simply no longer holds true. That method of 'objectivity' breaks down.

This is why there are so many 'objections' every time I bring up quantum physics. People just want to keep dismissing it as "no applying to the macro world" or whatever.

IMHO, that's utter nonsense.

We can't just sweep the discoveries of quantum physics under the carpet and pretend like they don't apply to the world simply because they refer to 'tiny things'.

Those so-called 'tiny things' are the stuff that makes up all of physical reality. Moreover, what has been discovered by the quantum physicists, IMHO*, is that those 'tiny things' aren't things at all. At least not in a firm objective sense. They are observer-dependent according to BOTH General Relativity AND Quantum Mechanics. Both pillars of Modern Science are in complete agreement that all experiences and observations are indeed as much dependent on the state of the observer as much as they are dependent upon anything else.

So IMHO, objectivity breaks down.

And again, I'm not alone in thinking this way.

"The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." - Erwin Schrodinger

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck

The wisest of our scientists have recognized the obvious. Subject and object cannot be seperate. We are part of this universe. It's the illusion that there can be an 'objective' seperation between things that causes people to imagine that there exists an objective universe.

This is what some of the greatest minds of science have said.

So this idealism that we can revert back to the days of Newtonian physics when everything could be seperated clearly between the objective and the subjective simply are no more.

Those days are over.

So the ideals that you've stated above are actaully already antiquated.

These are my sincerest feelings today. For whatever it's worth, I was a "Newtonian Holdout" for the longest time too. I held out for an 'objective' universe. Although in hindsight I'm not sure why. I actually like the mystical model far better now anyway.

Neils Bohr was one of the scientists who won me over to the "other side". Originally I took Einstein's side of those debates. I also tried extremely hard to defeat Bell's Theorem or find an explanation to explain it away. However, over time, I finally realized that Neils Bohr was right all along.

It's the hope of an objective univese that is actaully the dream that's based purely on faith with no evidence.

Moreover, there is nothing to be gained from that dream.

The reality of mysticism is far more exciting! And more scientific!

"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 (discoverer of Quantum Physics)

I don’t mean to “quote mine” here, by splitting up your paragraphs. But I see this last statement as being critical to the issue.

If I understand correctly, the “error” you speak of here is judged by the objective standard.

That is, the “objective” data doesn’t align with the “subjective” data. So we decide that one or the must be erroneous. And since you said “subjective error”, then it must be the “objective” standard that is being used to determine error.

Now going back to your statement “You are saying that before the data gathered can be tested “objectively” that agreement must be made on the terms and conditions that would qualify as an objective test. Is that correct?”: Yes, that is correct.

Which means that the “error”, and its “proof”, can be no more and no less a result of agreement than the standard that is used to determine them.

In other words, the only basis we have for asserting that the subjective is in error, is the agreement regarding the objective standard. Were it not for that agreement, there would be no means of determining error.

You could say it that way. But to me it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Here’s how I would say it: “The terms/definitions and conditions surrounding the methods used requires agreement, and that agreement defines what constitutes objectivity.”

Yes, I agree that we are close to agreement on this, And yes, you got it right.

And I want to thank you for taking the time and putting forth the effort to understand.
IMHO that is a rare quality indeed.

no, that = hypothosis. to be accepted as a viable theory evidence is required that can be tested to show predictable and repeatable results.

accept that nothing but what we experience ourselves can be known. so the term "known" is eaually meaningless in most cases.

JennieBean....er......isn't evidence knowledge? ..if the evidence is unrevealed then how can it be claim as being evidence...that's called faith

someone is found guilty and gets the death penalty after being convicted on unrevealed evidence

hmmmmm. dangerous to bring evidence in a court of law to a science discussion. in court, what is credible or even admissable evidence is subjet to the judge and jury especially in a criminal trial which is governed by the fourth and fifth amendments etc, to protect the right to a fair trial of the accused. scientific methodology has very specific rules as to what is and is not credible evidence and is not open to rulings of judges or findings of jurors.

my point was...if the evidence is "unrevealed" as in not being discovered as of yet then how one claim it to be evidence

for example....the prosecutor states that the person is guilty ...and the judge ask him what proof do you have.....and the prosecutor states we haven't discover any proof yet but it exist as "Unrevealed Evidence" and the Judge allows for the "Unrevealed Evidence" as evidence that they person is guilty

in other words the person was found guilty not with any proof that he was guilty but on the faith that he was guilty....proof without proof "Unrevealed Evidence"

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

There are two conditions of evidence.

# One, is that you have found it and it is in your possession and control and can be used to convince someone of a truth.

# Two, is evidence that exists but as yet is undiscovered or found. You cannot use this if you do not discover or find it, but it still may exist if what you are trying to prove is true. If what you are trying to prove is NOT true, there may be no evidence in existence.

If you do not have evidence, you cannot prove the thing you believe to be true, but not having the evidence does not prove that thing you believe is true, is false.

A man may be a murderer and yet no one has any evidence of that fact. That does not mean that he is innocent or that he is not a murderer. It just means that no one has found any evidence that would prove he is.

The point I would like to make for Creative is that if spirit does not exist, then there is no evidence.

But if Spirit does exist, then evidence also exists. If you have not found (or accepted) any convincing evidence for it, that does not prove that there is no such thing as spirit.

jr, you may be right in the most hypothetical idealized world. But the truth of the matter is that the scientific community itself does not abide by your idealized semantics.

They call "String Theory" a theory. They don't call it "String Hypothesis". Yet there is no evidence for "String Theory" and thus far it has not been tested to show predicatble and repeatable results. None, zip, zilch, nada.

Yet the scientific community still refers to it as a "theory". So they have chosen to ignore the idealism that you would like to place onto semantics. They just don't abide by that. It's pretty obvious.

So while you living in a dream world, the rest of the scientific community is not abiding by your semantic idealism. That's just the situation on the ground.

I agree with Bedlem. Supposition without evidence = theory.

That's the way the scientific community itself uses the term. They just don't bother upgrading successful theories into 'laws' anymore is all. After the catastrophic failure of Classical Newtonian Mechanics they realize that "Laws" are never absolute. So now they shy away from upgrading theories into "Laws" anymore.

The catastrophic failure of Classical Newtonian Mechanics to describe the world has really left the scientific community shell-shooked and so now they realize that their theories can never be absolute. So just leave them as 'theories' even after they've been verified to have some validity.

I guess they're finally coming around to realize that they can never truly say anything concrete about reality. As Werner Heisenberg says:

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

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