• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being skeptical of skepticism?

chillzero said:
I agree, but perhaps the term needs to be 'honest enquiry' to satisfy pendants.
Click to expand...

"pedants".

Yes, I'm aware of the irony.

chillzero said:
I agree that there's a difference between chucking out a batch of questions with no interest in answers like CTists do, and having an approach to matters where inquiry is the first step to making decisions or drawing conclusions.

Yes, we should 'go with the evidence'. However, just having evidence is useless if you aren't willing to question it and what it might imply.
Click to expand...

If you have evidence, haven't you already questioned it? I mean: Does it become evidence before you have questioned it?
 
CFLarsen said:
If you have evidence, haven't you already questioned it? I mean: Does it become evidence before you have questioned it?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, no.
It exists, whether you have questioned it, discovered it, looked for it, or not.
 
chillzero said:
You gotta be kidding me.
Click to expand...

No, actually the question makes sense. Think about it like this: is something "knowledge" if no one knows it? Can something be considered "evidence" if no one has "questioned it, discovered it, looked for it"?? That doesn't make much sense. You say yourself that evidence exists whether we know it or not, but that sounds like someone saying that ghosts exist.
 
JoeEllison said:
No, actually the question makes sense. Think about it like this: is something "knowledge" if no one knows it? Can something be considered "evidence" if no one has "questioned it, discovered it, looked for it"?? That doesn't make much sense. You say yourself that evidence exists whether we know it or not, but that sounds like someone saying that ghosts exist.
Click to expand...

No doubt evidence exists for the existence of planets on the other side of the universe. As we have not yet discovered it, we cannot question it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Evidence probably exists to indicate innocence or guilt in some trial or other - it may never have been considered, looked for, or discovered. I don't know - because of those very facts.

The question is essentially the same as asking me to describe something I have never imagined.
 
chillzero said:
No doubt evidence exists for the existence of planets on the other side of the universe. As we have not yet discovered it, we cannot question it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Evidence probably exists to indicate innocence or guilt in some trial or other - it may never have been considered, looked for, or discovered. I don't know - because of those very facts.

The question is essentially the same as asking me to describe something I have never imagined.
Click to expand...

We crossposted, I see.

If you haven't even imagined the evidence of something, how can you possibly think of it as such?
 
CFLarsen said:
Can you give an example of evidence that hasn't been questioned, discovered or looked for?
Click to expand...
I can. It happens all the time. a person stumbles across a new organism (extant or extinct) that they had no reason to believe existed. They had no questions about it, since they didn't know about it. They hadn't looked for it, since they wouldn't know what to look for. Yet the evidence for that organism existed, perhaps hidden in some isolated jungle, perhaps living at the bottom of the ocean, perhaps buried in undisturbed strata.

Of course you can say, "but they were looking for anything new", however I don't think that qualifies as "looking for" the the evidence of the organism. I'd say a significant percentage of discoveries are serendipitous.
 
CFLarsen said:
If you haven't even imagined the evidence of something, how can you possibly think of it as such?
Click to expand...

Because it exists, whether I have thought of it or not.

Are you saying nothing exists unless it is thought of by someone?
 
Tricky said:
I can. It happens all the time. a person stumbles across a new organism (extant or extinct) that they had no reason to believe existed. They had no questions about it, since they didn't know about it. They hadn't looked for it, since they wouldn't know what to look for. Yet the evidence for that organism existed, perhaps hidden in some isolated jungle, perhaps living at the bottom of the ocean, perhaps buried in undisturbed strata.

Of course you can say, "but they were looking for anything new", however I don't think that qualifies as "looking for" the the evidence of the organism. I'd say a significant percentage of discoveries are serendipitous.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. This isn't about discovered evidence. This is about the evidence that nobody has discovered.

chillzero said:
Because it exists, whether I have thought of it or not.

Are you saying nothing exists unless it is thought of by someone?
Click to expand...

No, I am asking how you can think of it as evidence, if it hasn't been discovered yet.
 
chillzero said:
Because it exists, whether I have thought of it or not.

Are you saying nothing exists unless it is thought of by someone?
Click to expand...

No, but it can't be classed as "evidence" until someone discovers it, because evidence is a description of what something is. By the same token, something isn't evidence until it is associated with what it is evidence for. Imagine a crime scene. Everything at the crime scene exists, but only some of it is evidence of a crime. It becomes evidence when it is analyzed and connected to the case. I feel like I'm about to go all CSI: Miami... let me throw on a black sports coat and sunglasses and stare at the horizon with my hands on my hips for a minute.:cool:
0000034499_20061021001105.jpg
 
JoeEllison said:
No, but it can't be classed as "evidence" until someone discovers it, because evidence is a description of what something is. By the same token, something isn't evidence until it is associated with what it is evidence for. Imagine a crime scene. Everything at the crime scene exists, but only some of it is evidence of a crime. It becomes evidence when it is analyzed and connected to the case. I feel like I'm about to go all CSI: Miami... let me throw on a black sports coat and sunglasses and stare at the horizon with my hands on my hips for a minute.:cool:
0000034499_20061021001105.jpg
Click to expand...

Very cool ;)

You've never heard of cases that were later overturned because of previously undiscovered evidence? That evidence was still evidence but could not be put to use, regardless of its description - just as a flower is still red, or blue, even if no one has described it as such.
 
Tricky said:
I can. It happens all the time. a person stumbles across a new organism (extant or extinct) that they had no reason to believe existed. They had no questions about it, since they didn't know about it. They hadn't looked for it, since they wouldn't know what to look for. Yet the evidence for that organism existed, perhaps hidden in some isolated jungle, perhaps living at the bottom of the ocean, perhaps buried in undisturbed strata.

Of course you can say, "but they were looking for anything new", however I don't think that qualifies as "looking for" the the evidence of the organism. I'd say a significant percentage of discoveries are serendipitous.
Click to expand...

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics(and the instinctive need to disagree with old CF as a matter of principle.) Something isn't evidence until it is discovered. It can exist for centuries, but it doesn't become evidence until it is classified as such by people.
 
We obviously have different definitions of evidence. I think evidence is still evidence even if undiscovered or un-looked for, like a buried fossil of an as-yet undiscovered organism. Obviously Claus and Joe think it is more like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in that it is nothing until observed. The term "undiscovered evidence" has no meaning for them.

There is not much point in arguing about this.
***
ETA: LOL. I see Joe and I have reached the same conclusion nearly simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
chillzero said:
How is it not?
Click to expand...

If that is called "evidence", what are you going to do with it?

Claim that there is evidence that Sylvia Browne can talk to dead people? Hey, nobody has discovered this evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that there is evidence that Sylvia Browne can talk to dead people.

Is that what you want to argue? Is that what you think skeptics should tell people? Just yes or no, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom