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

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm still following this thread (though it really seems to be seriously sidetracked) and still waiting for an answer. Would someone let me know when conclusive evidence for evidence is finally concluded? Thank you.

 

[articulett]

Piscivore jumped in to tell skepticgirl how wrong she is to not understand what evidence is.

She understands what evidence is... the question in the OP is about evidence for god. It appears that some people imagine they have evidence for some god via some semantics that justify their belief in that god (however nebulously they've defined it) and allows them to negate all those invisible entities and other gods they don't believe in.

We all understand that they believe that. We really want to know if it makes sense or if it's just their confirmation bias leading them to find "evidence" for the conclusion they want rather than assessing the evidence for what it is actually evidence for.

It appears that all evidence is of the "confirmation bias" variety. There is no good reason to believe in one god over another or one invisible entity over another from all I can tell. (But if you say that, you will receive a dose of pedantry and tsk-tsking from those who "believe" otherwise. You won't get any evidence though--just the usual word games and tangents and derision for "not understanding" that which only makes sense in the head of the one doing the "lecturing".)

The pedants believe they are being clear and it's you and I and skeptigirl who don't "get it". It's the usual nothingness we've all come to know and expect from the "defenders of faith."

 

[Piscivore]

Piscivore jumped in to tell skepticgirl how wrong she is to not understand what evidence is.

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence...

...And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.

 

[Piscivore]

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.

Then why were you insisting that observation had nothing to do with evidence?

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

The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.

Mountains are evidence of plate tectonics. Are you saying they aren't?

They are, because they've been observed, measured and studied. Are the mountains on Venus evidence of plate tectonics?

Are you saying my sentence is incorrect?

Grammatically, it is correct. As an ontological and epistimological statement it is incomplete. These shortcuts we use in English cannot be taken as shortcuts in thinking or understanding.

If I tell you "I replaced the thrmostat in my wifes' car", does that tell you anything about the process, what parts I had to remove, what conditions I had to measure to do so? It's factually accurate, it is grammatically correct, but that doesn't make it sufficient or complete.

Are you saying you do not get what I meant?

Your argument is contradicted by the statements you are making to support it, what does that tell you?

Are you observing any mountain right now?

I can, just by walking out my front door. Guess what? The evidence that we have suggests that plate tectonics had little to do with its formation (which was, as far as current geological understanding goes, was effected by vulcanism and erosion)

You could study that mountain the rest of your life and never learn about plate tectonics.

Need I be referring to a specific mountain that anyone observed?

Are imaginary mountains evidence? Are unseen mountains evidence? How about those peaks of Venus?

Skep:Reality exists.

Pisci: Yes.

Skep:Things exist.

Pisci: Yes.

If it is intangible, why did you agree it exists?

Because some intangible things exist. Dreams (the patternsof neuronal activity, not the image content) exist, but you can't touch them. Conciousness exists, but is intangible.

I'm just trying to get at the point that evidence is akin the the 'fact' that doesn't change.

And in that you are wrong. Different observations of the same objects can and have been used as evidence for different conclusions. Evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading. How can this be if "evidence" never changes? Oh, wait...

The objects don't change, but the interpretation of observations of those thing do.

Right. Which is why the evidence is not the object. This explanation does explain why evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading.

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.

Because it doesn't. It's a "property" that humans give it. Like "beauty" or "value".

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

Because it is wrong. If evidence is a property that things have, why don't you explain how this "property of evidence" the mountain supposedly posesses impacts the lizard sunning itself on its slopes?

 

[Piscivore]

I'm still following this thread (though it really seems to be seriously sidetracked) and still waiting for an answer. Would someone let me know when conclusive evidence for evidence is finally concluded? Thank you.

 

[Beth]

The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I've spent many pages trying to tell sg that. Somehow I doubt she'll believe you either, but's it's awful nice to have someone else in my corner, especially when I can't respond at length myself.


Hokulele, I found your explanation earlier to be excellent. I could quibble with minor aspects of wording, but only because I enjoy that sort of arguing. Not because of any serious fault with it.

Thanks to both of you for nice posts.

 

[Piscivore]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I've spent many pages trying to tell sg that. Somehow I doubt she'll believe you either, but's it's awful nice to have someone else in my corner, especially when I can't respond at length myself.

Well, technically, I'm in the corner of science, reason, and critical thinking, not "your corner"...



but that's just semantics.

Hope the finger is healing speedily.

 

[articulett]

So long as others feel god or have god experiences... believers consider this evidence for their god...("all these people must believe for a reason... and that reason is "god"")

If no one mentions anything specific about their god they can assume it's all the same one... if they hear of different gods who want different things then those people are delusional or wrong or misguided... the same with demons and assorted other woo... the evidence of "personal experience" is not evidence when it comes to gods they don't want to believe in or haven't been indoctrinated to believe in.

But so long as no one is specific about their beliefs..and god is poorly defined... they infer that those people claiming "evidence" of god IS evidence of the god they believe in. While similar evidence of stuff they don't believe in is just hearsay, confirmiation bias, lies, misperceptions, etc.

It's very clever. It's why no one defines their god... it makes it easier to pretend that everyone believes in the same one and those claiming to get messages that you think a god would give... are getting messages from the god you believe in... and those getting messages you don't believe are being fooled or lying or whatever.

It's a way to prove to yourself that the voices in your head are coming from the god that everyone is talking about... it's just like those who catch a glimpse of the emperor's clothes imagine they are "in on" the mystical secrets of divine clothes.

I think they are afraid not to believe or they feel special or righteous or good for believing... and so they manufacture "evidence" for god which they would not accept as evidence for any other invisible clothing or being or supernatural thing.

 

[Beth]

Well, technically, I'm in the corner of science, reason, and critical thinking, not "your corner"...

Aren't we all?

but that's just semantics.

Hope the finger is healing speedily.

Doing better. Thanks. I even managed a little gardening today. It was too glorious a day not to take advantage of it that way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry, I would have told articulett I invited you though.

Piscivore and I needed to elaborate on a related discussion in another thread and it seemed to fit in here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then why were you insisting that observation had nothing to do with evidence?

Because you are taking the concept of evidence and incorrectly applying the following:

The relevence is that it seems to me, as I said, the reasong you are coming to the mistaken conlusion that Beth is mistaking her conclusion as evidence for that conclusion. She's not. Regardless of what her conclusion is, or if it is wrong or not, that's not a mistake she's making and so that "mistake" isn't why she's wrong.

Let's again back up here to the problem.

Beth is claiming the 'experience' is evidence of god.
We are not denying the 'experience' is evidence.
We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.

And now you can't seem to see the error you are making either. The fact the 'experience' in this case is the evidence, does not mean the observation is included in all the things we label evidence. It means the observation is the evidence if you are looking at observations. But the thing you are observing is the evidence if you are looking at the thing.

Again, you don't think I get what you are saying about the observation being part of the evidence. I get that. But the observation is not included when one says a mountain is evidence. It is the mountain that is the evidence. Yes, one has to observe it because the concept of the word evidence means we are using the evidence for something. But that observation is not the evidence. The observation is what you do with the evidence to make it evidence.

This is so interesting because I know exactly what the issue is here but it is difficult to convey because the words are limited.

They are, because they've been observed, measured and studied. Are the mountains on Venus evidence of plate tectonics?

Regardless of what they are evidence of, the mountains are still evidence. The experience Beth is describing is evidence. But not evidence of god.

Grammatically, it is correct. As an ontological and epistimological statement it is incomplete. These shortcuts we use in English cannot be taken as shortcuts in thinking or understanding.

Then why are you not recognizing the fact a conclusion is not evidence?

If I tell you "I replaced the thrmostat in my wifes' car", does that tell you anything about the process, what parts I had to remove, what conditions I had to measure to do so? It's factually accurate, it is grammatically correct, but that doesn't make it sufficient or complete.

Try again, you are missing the point.

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.
Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.
Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No. The mountains are defined as more than evidence.

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No. And that is where you are missing the mark in this discussion.

I get what you mean about the things that go into the concept of evidence. You do not get the fact Beth is claiming anyone drawing the conclusion about their inner experience being evidence of god means it is evidence of god.

And this I cannot understand why you don't understand.

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, I would have told articulett I invited you though.

I know you would have.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Because some intangible things exist. Dreams (the patternsof neuronal activity, not the image content) exist, but you can't touch them. Conciousness exists, but is intangible.

Actually both consciousness and dreams are tangible and there is overwhelming evidence they exist. This is a sidetrack however. An imaginary unicorn does not exist in reality. It is not real for the very reason there is no evidence unicorns exist. One's imagination exists. Does imagining god exists mean there is evidence for the existence of gods beyond one's imagination? Is there evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns beyond one's imagination? (Not images of these things, the actual things).

If you believe that imagining gods exist is actually evidence they do, then you have to apply the same logic to imagining you are able to walk through solid walls with no opening. Are you able to do that? Can you imagine doing it? Does that mean there is evidence you can?

...And in that you are wrong. Different observations of the same objects can and have been used as evidence for different conclusions. Evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading. How can this be if "evidence" never changes? Oh, wait...

Using the word, 'evidence', defined this way ignores the fact one can use the word, 'evidence' defined another way.

...Right. Which is why the evidence is not the object. This explanation does explain why evidence can be flawed, evidence can be inconclusive, evidence can be misleading.

All of these statements involve conclusions about evidence. The conclusions do not change the evidence. Nor do false conclusions about evidence make the evidence into something else.

...Because it doesn't. It's a "property" that humans give it. Like "beauty" or "value".


Because it is wrong. If evidence is a property that things have, why don't you explain how this "property of evidence" the mountain supposedly posesses impacts the lizard sunning itself on its slopes?

You're way off base here. You go along fairly well then you totally blow it.

Why should the fact the mountain has a property mean that property affects everything in contact with the mountain? How does the property of a mountain with iron rich ore on the south side buried under 20 feet of granite affect the lizard sunning itself on its north side?

The fact you find a mountain beautiful may require your opinion, but the mountain still possesses the thing you find beautiful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Your experience is evidence. It is not evidence of sound.

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.

Now you are merely redefining sound as the nerve impulse instead of the pressure wave. The nerve impulse is evidence of the nerve impulse. It is not evidence of the pressure wave.

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).

Since you get it here, I'm not sure why you are calling it slightly different. Hopefully what I said above will clarify it.

 

[Piscivore]

Because you are taking the concept of evidence and incorrectly applying the following:Let's again back up here to the problem.

Beth is claiming the 'experience' is evidence of god.
We are not denying the 'experience' is evidence.
We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.

Right. And I don't think anyone disputes that. Not even Beth.

And now you can't seem to see the error you are making either. The fact the 'experience' in this case is the evidence, does not mean the observation is included in all the things we label evidence. It means the observation is the evidence if you are looking at observations. But the thing you are observing is the evidence if you are looking at the thing.

No, the observation is the evidence, no matter if you are observing a mountain or a feeling or any "thing"

Again, you don't think I get what you are saying about the observation being part of the evidence. I get that.

It isn't part of the evidence, it is the evidence. Just like baking is the process by which apples, flour and sugar become a pie, observation is the process by which a thing or an experience becomes evidence.

But the observation is not included when one says a mountain is evidence.

That's just the way we use English, and it has no bearing on what it is. i've already said that English is a poor language for science or philosophy, this is another reason why.

It is the mountain that is the evidence. Yes, one has to observe it because the concept of the word evidence means we are using the evidence for something. But that observation is not the evidence. The observation is what you do with the evidence to make it evidence.

Right here is where you are making your error of equivocation. You are using the same word to mean two different things.

"The observation is what you do with the the object to make it something useful to making a conclusion."
If you try to correct the equivocation, it doesn't work...
"The observation is what you do with the the object to make it the object."
"The observation is what you do with the something useful to making a conclusion to make it something useful to making a conclusion."

This is so interesting because I know exactly what the issue is here but it is difficult to convey because the words are limited.

Regardless of what they are evidence of, the mountains are still evidence.

So you claim. What are they evidence of?

The experience Beth is describing is evidence. But not evidence of god.

I tend to agree. All the evidence available thus far says otherwise.

Then why are you not recognizing the fact a conclusion is not evidence?

I never disputed that, with the caveat that a conclusion can be evidence for a different conclusion.

Try again, you are missing the point.

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.

In your statement, yes. And grammatically it is correct. As a casual, colloquial, incomplete and innacurate way of shortening an explanation to someone who you are confident knows enough of the necessary background information to comprehend it, it works. As an accurate and complete summation of the logical process by which one arrives at that conclusion from which one can draw accurate inferences about that process, it does not work:

Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.

Maybe, but you cannot tell where the error lies, or even if the conclusion is false from that statement.

Your statement doesn't say how you determined the mountains are evidence, it doesn't say how the mountains are evidence, it does not say anything except a simple, unverified assertion that may or may not be true.

It's exactly the same as someone saying "Feelings are evidence of god." You and I can judge that as grammatically correct but factually incorrect because of our knowledge of the background information to conclude otherwise. But what if someone said to us "Quantum mechanics is evidence time travel is possible"? I can't dispute that right off. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The statement isn't sufficient to draw any inferences from it.

Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.

Only in a casual, colloquial, incomplete and innacurate usage. One that leads to all sorts of errors.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!

If evidence is that which is helpful for making a conclusion, no, they aren't. It's not exactly true that you "haven't yet", it is more proper to say that you cannot. Until something happens, and you already know what that it.

If "evidence" is meant to mean an object, you are making the error of equivocation again:
"What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are objects of? Are the mountains still objects?"
"What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what conclusion the mountains are helpful for making? Are the mountains still helpful for making a conclusion?"

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No.

No, of course not. It puts the mountains in context of our understanding in order to make a conclusion.

The mountains are defined as more than evidence.

The mountains are defined as more than a lot of things, but not evidence.

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.

Agreed. Because "evidence" isn't a quality they posess, but a human judgement made about them.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No. And that is where you are missing the mark in this discussion.

I get what you mean about the things that go into the concept of evidence. You do not get the fact Beth is claiming anyone drawing the conclusion about their inner experience being evidence of god means it is evidence of god.

Even if this were true, it just means that Beth is making two different conclusions, that you are mistaking for one conclusion.

1. The feeling is helpful in making a conclusion if god exists or not, and
2. The feeling is helpful in making the conclusion that god exists

In less complicated language, the feeling can be used to show god exists, and the feeling does show god exists.

A semantic difference, but an important one.

 

[Piscivore]

Actually both consciousness and dreams are tangible and there is overwhelming evidence they exist.

Are they really? I thought they were emregent properties of patterns of neuronal activity, in consant flux. How can such a thing be tangible? How about the date, or the time? Are they tangible? Maybe "April twentieth" is a product of human imagination, but not the fact that this 24-hour period is not the same as the previous one.

This is a sidetrack however.

Correct, this is an element of the other discussion.

Using the word, 'evidence', defined this way ignores the fact one can use the word, 'evidence' defined another way.

You can, certainly, but does work? You useage leads straight into an error of equivocation.

All of these statements involve conclusions about evidence.

Right, but conclusions about the value of the human jugement of observations of things, not about things in and of themselves. and these conclusions are not the ones that the evidence is intended to help make. In fact, to make the conclusion about the evidence, you need other evidence. You're just going to end up arguing for "first causes"- or "first evidences", I guess- by this route.

Why should the fact the mountain has a property mean that property affects everything in contact with the mountain? How does the property of a mountain with iron rich ore on the south side buried under 20 feet of granite affect the lizard sunning itself on its north side?

Alright, that's a fair point. That example is flawed, I withdraw it.

If evidence is a property that the mountain possesses, does it affect anything except human percetions and human judgements? Is this a property we can independently idetify apart for using it make a conclusion? Can it be deected, measured?

If evidence is a property that the mountain posesses, and that property can me mispercieved and misjudged when observed, what is the difference between the object and the "property of evidence"?

The fact you find a mountain beautiful may require your opinion, but the mountain still possesses the thing you find beautiful.

What if what I find beautiful is the way that the light is striking it just at this moment because of the combination of the softly falling rain it filters through, highlighting the normally ugly and barren crags?

What if my neighbor seels the whole thing as jsut an ugly eyesore that should be mined for its iron ore and then used for upscale tract housing.

"The thing I find beautiful" is a human judgement, not a property.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post,

Skep:We are saying that drawing the conclusion something is evidence for god does not make it evidence for god.
Piscivore: Right. And I don't think anyone disputes that. Not even Beth.

is not what Beth has been saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god, and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.

...I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated.

I[..] never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's. If other people find the evidence convincing, well, that's also a reasonable conclusion for certain concepts of an non-material god - such as yours. ...

And while I had hoped you were just arguing a limited understanding of what evidence was while recognizing underneath what evidence is, this statement from the above post says you are indeed as wrong as Beth.

No, the observation is the evidence, no matter if you are observing a mountain or a feeling or any "thing"

That couldn't be more wrong. I understand why you are making the error. But there is no way to see the error as having any merit when you put it in those terms.

Notice the bolded words below vs the italicized words in the numerous definitions of the word, evidence. The link contains a list of sources for these definitions of the word, evidence

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.

That which confirms

Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else:

In law, something (e.g., testimony, documents, or physical objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact.

in law, material submitted

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses

IN BRIEF: Something that shows or proves, or that gives reason for believing.

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

Proof presented at a trial by the parties through witnesses, records, documents, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing the court or jury to believe their contentions.

Any thing properly presented to a court which will assist it to make a decision in a case. Testimony is evidence given orally.

There are two I left out for discussion in the next post because they go to the heart of Beth's and now your discussion and I think we need to resolve this matter of what evidence is and isn't before going on to the next problem which is looking at what personal experience is evidence of.

In each and every one of these definitions, 'evidence' is the noun. It is separate from the observation and/or the conclusion and/or the purpose of calling it evidence. The observation is what you do with or to the evidence. You can argue all you want that the purpose in inherent in the concept of evidence. But you cannot make the case that the observation is the evidence except when one is actually looking at observations and then the observations become the evidence for what you are looking at.

 

[Beth]

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post, is not what Beth has been saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god,

Correct about my view to this point.

and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.

No.

I[..] never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's.

The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them. It's a made up example without any actual testimonial evidence in support of it.

From the definition you posted:

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses

Why shouldn't the testimony of witnesses be considered evidence when they are testifing for the existance of god? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, it certainly doesn't have to be believed as people can be mistaken or deliberately lying, but it IS evidence. That has been my sole contention throughout this thread.

 

[Egg]

Is the mountain the evidence in my statement? Yes.
Does drawing the conclusion the mountains are evidence of plate tectonics mean they are evidence of plate tectonics? No, the conclusion could be wrong.
Are the mountains still evidence? Yes.

What if I don't have a conclusion yet about what the mountains are evidence of? Are the mountains still evidence? Of course!!!!

Does the concept of 'evidence' define the mountains? No. The mountains are defined as more than evidence.

If you are speaking of the mountains as evidence, does that change them? No.

Does drawing the conclusion you believe the mountains are evidence of something mean they are evidence of that thing? No.

Hi SG

I was reading this part and it sounds to me like you're saying that a thing can only be said to be evidence for a certain conclusion if that conclusion is correct. That would seem to be problematic in that you need the evidence to draw the conclusion in the first place.

We can't discover if a conclusion is correct without the evidence and we don't have any evidence because we don't know if the conclusion that it might be evidence for is correct.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Hi SG

I was reading this part and it sounds to me like you're saying that a thing can only be said to be evidence for a certain conclusion if that conclusion is correct. That would seem to be problematic in that you need the evidence to draw the conclusion in the first place.

We can't discover if a conclusion is correct without the evidence and we don't have any evidence because we don't know if the conclusion that it might be evidence for is correct.

Ah. Now we are getting somewhere! No. Wait I'm just as lost as when this thread started.