Evidence

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid. There is no wriggle room.

I don't wish to do a derail either, so perhaps you would like to start a new thread (or do you want me to)? In any case, I asked for further clarification of a prior post of yours that gave some examples (but I disagreed in my own post). Would you be willing, in a different thread, to discuss these issues more?

Okay, it is simple once you know to look for.
Nonpareil, sorry to drag you into philosophy but the problem is that there is no evidence for your claim itself, because your rule of evidence is not objective itself.
Another version is this:
"I only accept non-subjective evidence."
The problem is that the claim itself is subjective and thus has no evidence.

Now to the bone. Can something be physical and subjective? If yes, then you can't give evidence for it being objective/non-subjective, because it is subjective. That is it or you accept that something can be in the same sense and at the same time subjective and objective.

So please explain what you guys mean be subjective and objective and how that relates to physical?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact. How people interpret that attack is subjective. The US was provoked. Japan was provoked. Shades of orange between the two positions.

 

[LarryS]

The attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact. How people interpret that attack is subjective. The US was provoked. Japan was provoked. Shades of orange between the two positions.

In a common human world of appearances, the attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact; but ultimately, all there was, was a transfer of matter and energy on a scale above the average for that time/space.

 

[Giordano]

First, let's start with your prior idea that mathematical truth can be different from natural science truth. I pick this first because I include math under natural science. Do you fell that either is subjective, and why do you view them as separate?

In terms of subjective versus non-subjective, I may head off my participation in this discussion because I note that all evidence is perceived through our senses, so that in a philosophical way, all evidence might be considered subjective depending on one's definition. However, I definite non-subjective as evidence which many different people would see in the same way, whenever they looked. So the moon is made of rock would be a non-subjective piece of evidence: most people with appropriate resources would agree, whatever their political views, and whether they looked today or tomorrow. Of course you can't get everyone to agree (I am certain that there are isolated tribes in South America who might have other views, not having access to the results of moon missions), and there are always a few odd individuals who, even when they see the evidence, believe it comes from a vast conspiracy. But I think that it is non-subjective, because the evidence is reproducible for many different people and does not depend on a prior belief system. Often these non-subjective facts have overturned a pre-existing belief system when the believers were exposed to them.

Now your third example from the prior thread: do people have certain rights? I agree fully, but I think of this as a subjective view, not as a non-subjective one. Different societies and different people have very different views. There is no "rights" stone that anyone can look at and see which rights are "true" and which ones aren't, unlike a piece of moon rock.

Tell me more about your views.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In a common human world of appearances, the attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact; but ultimately, all there was, was a transfer of matter and energy on a scale above the average for that time/space.

More rearrangement than transfer. Even counting the potential energy in the "gifts from Heaven" you'd have to count that against the explosion of a few hundred 14" naval shells and the powder to hurl them all 20 miles or more that happened in a confined space. It's also why they didn't look for bodies on Arizona, there would be bone splinters and maybe teeth to be found, not much more.

 

[Loss Leader]

As with all discussions of evidence, the first question is what type of proof you're looking for. If we're talking about mathematical proof, it requires one type of evidence. Scientific proof requires another. Criminal or civil liability demands evidence that might never pass either of the two previous standards. Historical evidence is a thing unto itself.

So, before we start pretending that the problem lies in the objective/subjective gap, let's first make sure we know what we're talking about. What evidence are you concerned with and what level of proof do you require?

 

[Craig B]

In a common human world of appearances, the attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact; but ultimately, all there was, was a transfer of matter and energy on a scale above the average for that time/space.

The messing about with matter and energy and resultant "energy on a scale above the average" ended that war, didn't start it.

That energy level most certainly impinged on the "common human world of appearances".

 

[Nonpareil]

"I only accept non-subjective evidence."
The problem is that the claim itself is subjective

No, it isn't.

You don't seem to know what "objective" and "subjective" actually mean.

 

[MG1962]

As with all discussions of evidence, the first question is what type of proof you're looking for. If we're talking about mathematical proof, it requires one type of evidence. Scientific proof requires another. Criminal or civil liability demands evidence that might never pass either of the two previous standards. Historical evidence is a thing unto itself.

So, before we start pretending that the problem lies in the objective/subjective gap, let's first make sure we know what we're talking about. What evidence are you concerned with and what level of proof do you require?

Agreed, because so far the whole realm of deductive reasoning has been forgotten. Take the study of dinosaurs for example. When the science of paleontology was first getting started the one thing they looked for was modern equivalents to the bones they were studying, especially with teeth. A jaw full of grinding molars that looked like cow teeth suggested the creatures diet was very similar to a modern cow. It may not have looked like one, acted like one, thought like one. We probably could never really figure out what plants it liked to eat. But we could deduce that in some way it filled the same ecological niche a cow does today.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
Meta-ethics: What does "right" even mean?
Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics

Nonpareil, does evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid apply to all 4 forms of ethics?
What does objective mean?

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.
• 2+2=5.
• You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

Take this version of a definition of the word objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

What is the difference between subjective, inter-subjective, intra-subjective and objective? What is the similarity between these words?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, it isn't.

You don't seem to know what "objective" and "subjective" actually mean.

"Subjective" is a the most recent in a long line of words that Woo Slingers have tried to plug into the equation:

"X... therefore I get to make stuff up."

Previous attempts at a value for "X" have including philosophy, religion, opinion, "for me" and so forth.

Subjective simply that a personal point of reference has to be taken into account. It isn't a magical word that lets you make stuff up without evidence.

 

[tsig]

Nonpareil, does evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid apply to all 4 forms of ethics?
What does objective mean?

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.
• 2+2=5.
• You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

Take this version of a definition of the word objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

What is the difference between subjective, inter-subjective, intra-subjective and objective? What is the similarity between these words?

Well no wonder that little evil thing was going for the throat.

 

[Loss Leader]

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

You cannot determine the meaning of the word "evidence" independent of the level or type of proof desired. Your two examples are for different types of proof. Your third statement about shooting the baby is vague: Are you talking about proving you shot the baby? Proving that shooting the baby was morally right/wrong? Proving that shooting the baby was legally wrong? Or something else?

Right now, you just have a rats' nest of concepts. You have to narrow it down to have a meaningful discussion of evidence.

 

[turingtest]

Nonpareil, does evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid apply to all 4 forms of ethics?
What does objective mean?

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.
• 2+2=5.
• You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

Take this version of a definition of the word objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

What is the difference between subjective, inter-subjective, intra-subjective and objective? What is the similarity between these words?

Just be the ball. Be the ball. Be the ball. You're not being the ball, Tommy.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I will for now simply continue and for the fun of it reference this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286078

For ethics as

• Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
• Meta-ethics: What does "right" even mean?
• Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
• Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?

o
you apparently can't use the scientific method for normative ethics, yet all evidence must be objective evidence as stated by Nonpareil.
So if you can't use scientific evidence for normative ethics, but all evidence is objective evidence then someone might be able to answer this:
What is objective evidence?
What is scientific objective evidence?
What is non-scientific objective evidence?
How do you provide objective evidence for normative ethics?
Has anybody considered as a part of the process of checking for relevant biases, that it is maybe not possible to give objective evidence for normative ethics. Cue

"Subjective" is a the most recent in a long line of words that Woo Slingers have tried to plug into the equation:

"X... therefore I get to make stuff up."

Previous attempts at a value for "X" have including philosophy, religion, opinion, "for me" and so forth.

Subjective simply that a personal point of reference has to be taken into account. It isn't a magical word that lets you make stuff up without evidence.

If objective and subjective are contradictory terms; i.e. something/a process can't at the same time and place and in the same sense not be both objective and subjective, then how can you then give objective evidence for something, which is subjective?
So just as there are different kinds of evidence; que Loss Leader; there might also be objective evidence and subjective evidence, but as far as I can't tell if you don't accept the category for subjective evidence, when you test for whether there is subjective evidence, you won't be able to apply the principle of falsification, but you already have rejected that there can be such a category.

So if I have a personal point of reference, what does that mean? If you have a different personal point of reference, can we then without a personal point of reference decide objectively and with evidence, which one is true/right or not?

So for the rest of you, other than you Nonpareil, you might what to ask Nonpareil, what objective evidence is in regards to normative ethics?

 

[I Am The Scum]

If objective and subjective are contradictory terms; i.e. something/a process can't at the same time and place and in the same sense not be both objective and subjective, then how can you then give objective evidence for something, which is subjective?

That's easy.

1. This candy bar has chocolate in it. (obj)
2. Things with chocolate are delicious. (subj)
C. This candy bar is delicious. (subj) (modus ponens)

Premise 1 is not a matter of interpretation or perspective.

 

[Giordano]

Nonpareil, does evidence is either objectively verifiable or it is not valid apply to all 4 forms of ethics?
What does objective mean?

• The moon is made of the dairy product green cheese.
• 2+2=5.
• You and I are walking down a road. In a ditch lies a dead women and a living new born baby. I take out my gun and kill the baby.

If all 3 cases are wrong, how does that relate to objective evidence?

Take this version of a definition of the word objective:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers; having reality independent of the mind

As far as I can tell only the first case, the one with the moon, has to do objective evidence as wrong or false go.

What is the difference between subjective, inter-subjective, intra-subjective and objective? What is the similarity between these words?

Again, math (#2) is both a representation of physical objects (just as the word "cheese" is representation of physical objects and can be objectively tested (if I have 2 apples and add two apples do I have five apples?). Also using only abstract math one can prove universally to anyone with math skills that 2 + 2 dos not equal 5. It violates the laws of math.

As to #3, killing the baby, it is purely subjective (up to one's opinion) if it is wrong or right- it is not a "truth." It is almost universally agreed to be morally wrong but that is an opinion that has changed with time and culture. Just as an example: what if you knew that baby would grow up to be Hitler: now I still would be unwilling to kill the baby, but many more people would consider that option. Kill the baby and save 10 million people. Not a universal truth that it is wrong to kill the baby, is it?

 

[Giordano]

Subjective, as I use the term, means what something believes. It may be near universal ("removing my leg would be wrong") but it is an opinion, there are some people with the same facts who believe otherwise (believe or not), so it is not a universal truth; it is only a truth for some people, but not for everyone. It depends primarily on what an individual believes. If you wish to call this a "truth" okay, you can think whatever you wish, but it is not as useful a definition as using the term "truth" to mean a fact that is the same for everyone.

Otherwise I am not interested in a discussion of philosophy, which I have not found particularly useful either.

 

[turingtest]

I will for now simply continue and for the fun of it reference this thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286078

For ethics as

• Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
• Meta-ethics: What does "right" even mean?
• Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
• Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?

o
you apparently can't use the scientific method for normative ethics, yet all evidence must be objective evidence as stated by Nonpareil.
So if you can't use scientific evidence for normative ethics, but all evidence is objective evidence then someone might be able to answer this:
What is objective evidence?
What is scientific objective evidence?
What is non-scientific objective evidence?
How do you provide objective evidence for normative ethics?
Has anybody considered as a part of the process of checking for relevant biases, that it is maybe not possible to give objective evidence for normative ethics. Cue


If objective and subjective are contradictory terms; i.e. something/a process can't at the same time and place and in the same sense not be both objective and subjective, then how can you then give objective evidence for something, which is subjective?So just as there are different kinds of evidence; que Loss Leader; there might also be objective evidence and subjective evidence, but as far as I can't tell if you don't accept the category for subjective evidence, when you test for whether there is subjective evidence, you won't be able to apply the principle of falsification, but you already have rejected that there can be such a category.

So if I have a personal point of reference, what does that mean? If you have a different personal point of reference, can we then without a personal point of reference decide objectively and with evidence, which one is true/right or not?

So for the rest of you, other than you Nonpareil, you might what to ask Nonpareil, what objective evidence is in regards to normative ethics?

And what if they're not necessarily contradictory terms? What if subjective/objective are simply different, but not opposing, sets that, when they overlap (think a Venn diagram), make the subjective valid (i.e., useful)?

 

[Beth]

First, let's start with your prior idea that mathematical truth can be different from natural science truth. I pick this first because I include math under natural science. Do you fell that either is subjective, and why do you view them as separate?

Math is subjective because it requires the user to select a base of axioms that define the system. Within the defined system, it can be considered objective because different people, applying the same rules (without errors) to the same propositions will arrive at the same conclusions.