Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Piscivore]

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening. Not knowing the source, someone might start labeling it as unicorn hoofbeats. The label is as good as anything else when further knowledge is unavailable. Of course, it would have to be an invisible, intangible unicorn.

Now, let's say some smart person finds out about the heart, blood vessels, and all that, and realizes that the sound really does have an internal source that is completely consistent with the physical laws of the universe as they are understood. So instead of labeling the sound "unicorn hoofbeats", they label it "your pulse". Same sound, different root causes.

Now let's say that the unicorn lovers do not want to lose their faith in their intangible unicorn (what the heck, let's make her pink). When confronted with the evidence that the sound is generated by the heart, these people may start to claim, "OK, the sound is generated by my heart. But why does it sound like unicorn hoofbeats? I believe the unicorn is making it sound like that just to show me that she is really there." What can you say against an argument like that? Does the sound of your pulse really need a reason to exist as the sound of hoofbeats in your ears, or is this just anthropomorphizing (sp?) the circulatory system?

I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.

Well, the perception of the sound is evidence , but yeah, that's it. Thank you.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, the perception of the sound is evidence...

Ah. A subtle difference, yet potent.

Kind of like a good fart.

 

[Piscivore]

Kind of like a good fart.

Which, it seems, I might just as well have done for all the effect it's had.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, I said something very similar to this pages ago and added in that people usually call that unknown something 'god'. In fact this entire conversation you're having with sg is giving me deja vu. Good luck!

No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.

It is indeed what 'evidence' is. Evidence is the thing that is real. How we perceive the evidence only becomes part of the evidence if you believe we live in some type of Matrix where our perceptions affect reality. (Again excluding quantum phenomena for any late thread readers who aren't following the discussion.)

I understand what Piscivore is saying. He just doesn't think I do. OTOH, he doesn't seem to understand this is just a semantic argument about defining 'evidence'. If he understood then he wouldn't be going on trying to convince me to change my definition of evidence as I am using it in this thread.

One uses words to communicate concepts. If you want to define 'evidence' as something other than how I am defining the word for the purpose of this discussion, that is a different argument than the one Beth is making. Beth is claiming that one can draw a false conclusion that a 'sensation' is evidence of god, therefore the sensation is evidence of god. She seems to think that as long as the conclusion is based on something, anything, that makes it evidence of whatever it is the person has concluded it is evidence of. It is a logical error that can be easily demonstrated with the unicorn dream example.

I would ask anyone defending the claim that the conclusion one is making is evidence for the conclusion to then make the same declaration substituting other things than god in that declaration. ImaginalDisc recognizes what I am referring to. But now it appears both Beth and Piscivore do not.

 

[Piscivore]

No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.

Only if you ignore the fact that the dream- the patterns of neurological activity- is not the content of the dream and you completely leave out the scientific process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You wouldn't think so. Yet apparently there's a whole cadre of people on this forum with their own bizzare, private dictionary of English....

Are you of the belief then, that words have pure anal retentive definitions?

Words are just a way of communicating concepts. Some concepts are clearly defined. A ball for example is pretty clear cut. You, OTOH, are having a philosophical argument about the definition of the concept of evidence. You are adding observation to the concept. I'll argue that with you but not until you recognize that not everyone defines evidence to include the observation and/or one might use the word, evidence, to mean different things.

I don't think you can discuss the philosophical problem you have created with your definition of 'evidence' until you recognize what it is we are viewing differently here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only if you ignore the fact that the dream- the patterns of neurological activity- is not the content of the dream and you completely leave out the scientific process.

Are you arguing the fact one process is conscious and one not?

Did the incorrect perception of the colors of the checker squares change the evidence?

 

[Piscivore]

It is indeed what 'evidence' is. Evidence is the thing that is real. How we perceive the evidence only becomes part of the evidence if you believe we live in some type of Matrix where our perceptions affect reality. (Again excluding quantum phenomena for any late thread readers who aren't following the discussion.)

I understand what Piscivore is saying. He just doesn't think I do. OTOH, he doesn't seem to understand this is just a semantic argument about defining 'evidence'. If he understood then he wouldn't be going on trying to convince me to change my definition of evidence as I am using it in this thread.

You don't understand. Semantics do matter, and your definition is wrong. If you don't care about that then you are just going to keep coming to wrong conclusions- like the one you repeat below.

One uses words to communicate concepts. If you want to define 'evidence' as something other than how I am defining the word for the purpose of this discussion...

...one is using English the way everyone else does, in order to communicate concepts.

I would ask anyone defending the claim that the conclusion one is making is evidence for the conclusion to then make the same declaration substituting other things than god in that declaration.

Great. I don't see anyone making that argument, so you might be waiting awhile. While you are waiting, you might try to figure out what you are trying to accomplish by reinventing the English language from scratch.

Of course, why bother? It's just "semantics".

ImaginalDisc recognizes what I am referring to.

Yeah, but do you recognise what he is referring to? "Independently examined" - What does that mean in Skeptigirl?

... actually, now that I look at it- he's only got half of it. He left off the bit about "useful to come to a conclusion". Lots of things can be examined without leading to any objective conclusion.

But now it appears both Beth and Piscivore do not.

I do. You're wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening.

There is no issue with this. But you included the key here, "the sound exists". If that same person was a schizophrenic and said they heard voices in their head, is that evidence of sound?

If god existed, taking the sensation Beth wants to call evidence of god (that I say is only evidence of a sensation), then just what is it that exists? If we were going to say the brain was experiencing a real sensation, instead of an imagined one, then you could do a few PET scans or MRIs and find some consistent neurological activity that other people also interpreted as god sensation. There isn't even evidence that goes that far, let alone to the next step which would be to confirm the sensation was actually caused by something external to the person's brain. Until you demonstrate something actually exists, all you have is the conclusion.

...I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.

No one is arguing that the feelings are not evidence of feelings. We are saying that drawing a conclusion about what the feelings are doesn't make those feelings evidence of what you conclude they are evidence of.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.

Pisci is arguing that the observation is part of the definition of evidence. It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence. If it were then give me another term to use for evidence that doesn't include the observation.

Reality exists. Things exist. If I want to discover what reality is I measure and observe reality and draw conclusions from that. What am I measuring and observing? What is it called? Pisci wants to include the observation in the word, evidence. Fine. What is being observed then?

 

[Beth]

No, you said it was evidence of god. I said it was evidence of 'an experience' and nothing more.

I consider their experiences evidence of god, yes. I don't consider it convincing evidence. Neither do you. I really don't understand why you've been so insistent that I'm mistaken about what is evidence and what constitutes a conclusion regarding the matter, but you have come up with a rather odd definition of 'evidence' in order to claim I'm mistaken about it.

Once again, you both ignore the fact that your claims one's perception is the evidence would then mean a dream of a unicorn was evidence unicorns existed rather than just evidence you had a dream.

Well, some people do anyway, but I'm not one of them.

Beth

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Of course, why bother? It's just "semantics".

Semantics matter when two people are communicating and they are using different definitions of the same word. That causes an error in communication. I explained to you how I was using the word, evidence, in this discussion. You want to argue about the definition of the word, evidence. That is arguing semantics while ignoring the discussion at hand.

...Yeah, but do you recognise what he is referring to? "Independently examined" - What does that mean in Skeptigirl?

It means the evidence exists and can be observed by more than one person and/or more than one time. In doing so, the conclusions about that evidence do not change it.

...... actually, now that I look at it- he's only got half of it. He left off the bit about "useful to come to a conclusion". Lots of things can be examined without leading to any objective conclusion.

Of course they can. Why would this have any significance in this discussion? The conclusion doesn't change the evidence and drawing no conclusion also does not change the evidence.

...I do. You're wrong.

If you understood what I was saying, you could correctly paraphrase it and identify where it is we disagree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I consider their experiences evidence of god, yes. I don't consider it convincing evidence. Neither do you. I really don't understand why you've been so insistent that I'm mistaken about what is evidence and what constitutes a conclusion regarding the matter, but you have come up with a rather odd definition of 'evidence' in order to claim I'm mistaken about it.

Because you continue to identify the conclusion as evidence. That is a mistake. The experience is only evidence the person believes they had an experience. It is not evidence of the conclusion they draw. Conclusions are not evidence. I have given you many examples.

 

[Piscivore]

Semantics matter when two people are communicating and they are using different definitions of the same word. That causes an error in communication. I explained to you how I was using the word, evidence, in this discussion. You want to argue about the definition of the word, evidence. That is arguing semantics while ignoring the discussion at hand.

That's because your "definiton" is an equivocation. You are using the word "evidence" to stand for an object, regardless of whether it is observed or not, then equating that with "evidence" meaning something that hleps lead to a conclusion. It is an error, it is a fallacy, and it is not a trivial semantic difference.

What you are doing is calling apples on a tree "pie" and then claiming that they are baked goods because pie is a baked good. Poetically, metaphorically saying "look at that tree full of pie" is fine- but it doesn't work when someone ask for pie and you pick them an apple.

It means the evidence exists and can be observed by more than one person and/or more than one time. In doing so, the conclusions about that evidence do not change it.

I've gone over this a dozen times and you've ignore me.

Of course they can. Why would this have any significance in this discussion?

Because if evidence is a thing, your "definition" fails to account for why some "things" are evidence and some are not. What makes an object or experience "evidence",a nd another object or experience "not evidence"? I've asked you variations of this question several times and you've refused to anser. Want to take a stab at it, or you just going to ignore it again?

The conclusion doesn't change the evidence and drawing no conclusion also does not change the evidence.

Evidence is evidence whether it is used to used to form a conclusion or not?

You've just defined "evidence" to mean "thing", no more no less. Used in this way, it signifies nothing to the scientific process.

Of coure, that's just "semantics"

If you understood what I was saying, you could correctly paraphrase it and identify where it is we disagree.

I did:

We have two squares on the checkerboard. Because of the context of the squares, most people, using their ordinary vision unaided by equipment, will percieve them as being different colours- reflecting light in different wavelengths or degrees of brightness. Measuring with a machine not subject to the same type of perception error, or removing the confusing context, it will be seen as the squares reflecting the same ratio of wavelengths and degree of brightness.

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.

You want to eliminate perception from the equation (for some reason) so the only difference you can see is in the conclusion. Therefore, using the evidence available to you, you conclude that somehow the ones who have come to a different conclusion than you have are confusing their conclusion with their evidence. This just isn't the case

Your response tells me you don't even understand your own argument, because you cannot explain it without describing the same process I do, even when that doesn't seem to be your intent.

In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

 

[Hokulele]

There is no issue with this. But you included the key here, "the sound exists". If that same person was a schizophrenic and said they heard voices in their head, is that evidence of sound?

I think you missed the point of the analogy. Yes, the sound exists to me. I can't prove it to anyone else since it resides solely in my head, although most people would agree that I am not crazy for hearing it, and we can find a mechanism to explain it. In fact, is the sound of my pulse really a sound in the traditional sense? I call it a sound, as that is how my brain registers the experience, but there are no compression waves coming through the air to my ear drum.

So in reality, it is my experience of a sound I am calling evidence, which may or may not really be a sound at all. I think is a bit closer to what Pisci means when he is talking about perception as opposed to reality.

Regarding your question to me, which may have simply been rhetorical but deserves a response, yes, the voices a schizophrenic hears would be evidence of sound (which no one else can hear) just as much as my pulse is evidence of sound (which no one else can hear). However, most people would use this evidence of sound to conclude schizophrenia, rather than demons. It does not reduce its status as evidence.

This is why I say that feelings of god is evidence, but not evidence for the existence of god. Which is really what you and articulett have been saying all along, this is just looking at the same thing from a slightly different direction, where evidence includes experience rather than excludes it. The conclusion does not change (at least not for me).

 

[Piscivore]

Pisci is arguing that the observation is part of the definition of evidence. It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence.

It isn't mandatory, because it is assumed. The universe does not make conclusions. Gravity, mangoes, bunny rabbits do not make conclusions. Rock, trees, birds, bees, light particles, water molecules, feet, Volkswagens, salmon, rivers, air, asteroids, and sheep do not make conclusions. Only humans.

Evidence is that which is helpful in making a conclusion- which is an entirely human activity. Evidence as a concept is only meaningful to humans. The idea of evidence means nothing to salmon, gravity, Volkswagens, etc.

Humans can only interact with the universe, with salmon, gravity, Volkswagens, etc., through their perceptions. In order to have evidence (meaningful only to humans) for human beings to come to conclusions (which can only be done by a human), about anything in the universe, the human has to observe something.

Think about it this way. There is a blind man, and he has a sack of keys. He is trapped in a locked room. The keys don't do him any good in the bag, right? They won't open the door in there. So he reaches in, pulls out a key, fumbles to the door and tries it in the lock. That key doesn't work. He keeps this up until he finds the one that fits the lock

The blind man is us, human beings. The keys in the bag are the things in the universe. The man's hand is our perceptions. Taking a key out of the bag is observing. The key in the man's hand is evidence. Trying it in the lock is the conclusion. Unlocking the door is the correct conclusion.

Sometimes, the hand pulls out a key that isn't the right one. That's the same as having a perception error. He has evidence, a key, but it will not lead to a correct conlusion- it won't open the door. Even if he thinks it will, his conclusion is wrong. The evidence doesn't fit. He still has the evidence- the key in his hand is evidence- but not the key itself. By holding it, observing it, does not change the key.

If it were then give me another term to use for evidence that doesn't include the observation.

"Imaginary entity that Skepticgirl wants to be true but can't even give a single example of, or even speak about"?

Seriously, such a thing does not exist.

Reality exists.

Yes.

Things exist.

Yes.

If I want to discover what reality is I measure and observe reality and draw conclusions from that.

Well, you cannot measure "reality", becuse that's an intangible concept, not a thing. But you can measure things in reality, yes.

But see what you are saying here? "I measure and observe [things], and draw conclusions from that."

See how well that fits the actual defintion for "evidence"- "That which is helpful in making a conclusion." "That" being "things measured and observed".

Which is what I've been saying all along.

What am I measuring and observing?

Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

What is it called?

Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Pisci wants to include the observation in the word, evidence. Fine. What is being observed then?

Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Geez, why was that so hard?

 

[articulett]

Yes, Hokulele--

UFOs might well be evidence of something...

They are not evidence of alien visitors from another planet or another dimension.

It takes a broad leap over many levels of proof to meet the evidence warranted to come to such a conclusion.

UFOs are evidence of something "unidentified". There are many potential identifications that would need to be ruled out before you could begin to even consider it evidence of Aliens from another planet.

Believers in gods never rule out delusion, wishful thinking, misperception, illusion, confirmation bias, indoctrination, etc. EVEN though they know for certain that other belief in other gods and fanciful notions have come about by those very same methods. They extrapolate whatever "evidence" there is to infer an unwarranted conclusion and never allow even the largest compendium of negating evidence sway them from their conclusion.

Beth's evidence would never be enough "evidence" for demons or something she did not want to believe in. It would not be enough evidence for anyone who wanted to actually understand whether any god beliefs were based on anything more than human imagination.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... I think is a bit closer to what Pisci means when he is talking about perception as opposed to reality.

Yes, and I am talking about reality.

... Regarding your question to me, which may have simply been rhetorical but deserves a response, yes, the voices a schizophrenic hears would be evidence of sound (which no one else can hear) just as much as my pulse is evidence of sound (which no one else can hear). However, most people would use this evidence of sound to conclude schizophrenia, rather than demons. It does not reduce its status as evidence.

The qualification 'evidence to the person drawing the conclusion' leaves one with the dilemma, is a conclusion evidence? But we know that a conclusion isn't evidence. In fact, in this example, the voices the schizophrenic hears is evidence of brain activity, it is not evidence of sound. All the misinterpreting in the world is not going to be evidence of real actual sound existing, it is only evidence of neural activity and a person interpreting the neural activity incorrectly as sound.

The semantic argument is just to say, well it is evidence to that individual. But that is not what the discussion is about at all. The discussion is claiming that something is evidence, not that something is believed to be evidence. The individual has some experience, whether or not it is hearing voices that are not there or believing an 'experience' is evidence of god. The 'evidence' in both of these cases is evidence that is misinterpreted. So the fact it is evidence to them is correct, but the fact it is evidence of the thing they conclude it is evidence of is not correct.

...This is why I say that feelings of god is evidence, but not evidence for the existence of god. Which is really what you and articulett have been saying all along, this is just looking at the same thing from a slightly different direction, where evidence includes experience rather than excludes it. The conclusion does not change (at least not for me).

You lost me here.

To claim the evidence includes the experience is saying one of two things:

you are looking at the experience itself, in which case the experience is evidence of the experience, (this correctly identifies what the evidence is capable of representing)

or you are claiming that believing one perceives something is evidence the thing they believe in exists, (this incorrectly claims that a belief is evidence of the existence of what one believes).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's because your "definiton" is an equivocation. You are using the word "evidence" to stand for an object, regardless of whether it is observed or not, then equating that with "evidence" meaning something that hleps lead to a conclusion. It is an error, it is a fallacy, and it is not a trivial semantic difference.

And you are using the word, 'evidence', to stand for the observation, as if the object has no qualities unless it is observed.

What you are doing is calling apples on a tree "pie" and then claiming that they are baked goods because pie is a baked good. Poetically, metaphorically saying "look at that tree full of pie" is fine- but it doesn't work when someone ask for pie and you pick them an apple.

I've gone over this a dozen times and you've ignore me.

It is common to assume one who does not agree with you is either not getting it or ignoring the discussion. I get what you are saying. If you would stop and just make that assumption for the sake of this 'discussion, we could get a little further along here.

...Because if evidence is a thing, your "definition" fails to account for why some "things" are evidence and some are not. What makes an object or experience "evidence",a nd another object or experience "not evidence"? I've asked you variations of this question several times and you've refused to anser. Want to take a stab at it, or you just going to ignore it again?

Not all 'evidence' is in the process of being currently observed or actively used as evidence. You are failing to recognize words can be used in different contexts, words often have flexible meanings.

Were I discussing the 'thing' I may not be discussing it in the context of evidence. That would be a case where the 'thing' was not evidence, because there was no context in which the capacity of the thing to be evidence was involved in the discussion. But the 'thing' wouldn't change if I decided to discuss it in terms of it being evidence. Your observation would not change the 'thing'. Labeling the 'thing', 'evidence', simply means now I am discussing it in the context of it being evidence. The act of observing may be part of the context of the word 'evidence'. But I don't need to be in the act of observing it to speak of the 'thing' as 'evidence' because I am referring to a concept, a quality the 'thing' has.

Evidence is a concept, I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are confining that concept too narrowly, as if the object only has the quality of evidence if it is being actively used as evidence in the present. Consider the fact one can refer to an object as evidence if one is referring to a particular quality the object possesses.

...Evidence is evidence whether it is used to used to form a conclusion or not?

You've just defined "evidence" to mean "thing", no more no less. Used in this way, it signifies nothing to the scientific process.

And what then do you call something if you want to discuss the "thing" in the context of its role as evidence? Are you claiming the thing loses all ability to be discussed as potential evidence unless one is actively observing it?

...Your response tells me you don't even understand your own argument, because you cannot explain it without describing the same process I do, even when that doesn't seem to be your intent.

I will keep describing what I am saying to you until I find a way to describe the concept of evidence that allows you to see how one can use that term in a different way than the narrow way you are viewing the concept.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I answered most of your post above. I wasn't clear when I said, "It isn't mandatory to include the observation in the definition of the word, evidence". What I meant was the act of observing didn't need to be in the definition of the word, evidence. Observing is in the concept of the word.

...Sometimes, the hand pulls out a key that isn't the right one. That's the same as having a perception error. He has evidence, a key, but it will not lead to a correct conlusion- it won't open the door. Even if he thinks it will, his conclusion is wrong. The evidence doesn't fit. He still has the evidence- the key in his hand is evidence- but not the key itself. By holding it, observing it, does not change the key.

I see no relevance in the evidence being the wrong evidence or the conclusion being the wrong conclusion.

..."Imaginary entity that Skepticgirl wants to be true but can't even give a single example of, or even speak about"?

Seriously, such a thing does not exist.

Mountains are evidence of plate tectonics. Are you saying they aren't? Are you saying my sentence is incorrect? Are you saying you do not get what I meant? Are you observing any mountain right now? Need I be referring to a specific mountain that anyone observed?


Skep:Reality exists.

Pisci: Yes.

Skep:Things exist.

Pisci: Yes.

...Well, you cannot measure "reality", becuse that's an intangible concept, not a thing. But you can measure things in reality, yes.

If it is intangible, why did you agree it exists? I'm just trying to get at the point that evidence is akin the the 'fact' that doesn't change.

But see what you are saying here? "I measure and observe [things], and draw conclusions from that."

See how well that fits the actual defintion for "evidence"- "That which is helpful in making a conclusion." "That" being "things measured and observed".

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Except you claim a narrow way evidence must be discussed as if the process of observation must be current at any time one discusses evidence and you don't see that a thing has the property of evidence along with other properties.

Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.


Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.


Things. Objects and their interactions. Patterns in their interactions.

Geez, why was that so hard?

Things have properties. Evidence is a property things have. Geez, why is that so hard?