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

[Piscivore]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place?

Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.

Or is it evidence of a lie?

Yes, actually.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place?

Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.

Bad and misleading evidence of what? How can there be evidence (good or bad) of something that didn’t exist? A shooting didn’t take place.

Or is it evidence of a lie?

Yes, actually.

I agree. I agree because someone actually said something that wasn’t true, and Bill & Joe are getting drunk.

 

[Piscivore]

I realize you didn't make your claim using the terminology, magical thinking.

But tell me how what you are saying differs? You are claiming evidence is evidence for or of anything the person magically thinks it is evidence for or of.

It doesn't matter if the person "magically" thinks it is evidence or not. From Wiki (Magical Thinking):

Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation. For example, someone who wore a particular shirt to a bowling competition that they then won, may then come to believe that shirt is lucky. Such a person might well then wear the shirt to subsequent bowling competitions and attribute success to the "lucky" shirt, despite sustaining some tournament losses in addition to victories.

Now the way I think you'd interpret what was going on here is the shirt is evidence, but only because the bowler already believes in luck does he think that it is evidence for luck. Since there is no such thing as luck, the shirt is really evidence that there isn't any, since properly tested scientifically, the shirt will show no effect on bowling scores not accountable by chance. Is that correct?

Well, here's my interpretation. The shirt is not evidence of luck, the observation the guy made that he won the game while wearing the shirt is evidence of luck. He aready believes in luck becasue he's gotten other evidence (statments by friends, family, media, similar erroneous observations, etc.) that have led him to this hypothesis and/or conclusion. He then collects further evidence- "wear[ing] the shirt to subsequent bowling competitions", but uses a bad methodology to give those observations weight, or even consideration at all- attributing success to the "lucky" shirt, ignoring some tournament losses.

In other words, Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #1 is evidence that the shirt is lucky.

Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #3, 5, 7, & 9 (which he won) is evidence (if considered) that the shirt is lucky.

Wearing the shirt at bowling tournament #2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 (which he lost) is evidence (if considered) that the shirt is not lucky.

The "magical thnking" comes in, not because the bowler is using the conclusion he comes to as evidence for that conclusion, but because he is ignoring the observations he makes that lead away from a possible conclusion he wants to be true.

If you are not saying that then what evidence is not some evidence of a magical thing? According to you, if I think it, therefore it is.

As Westprog said, only "if evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof"". Bad evidence will be revealed as such by other evidence. If those observations are not made- or if they are ignored- they are not evidence, they are just data.

 

[Piscivore]

Bad and misleading evidence of what? How can there be evidence (good or bad) of something that didn’t exist? A shooting didn’t take place.

"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.

I agree. I agree because someone actually said something that wasn’t true, and Bill & Joe are getting drunk.

Evidence can't only be evidence if it agrees with the conclusions we come to.

 

[Piscivore]

In other words, my definition is preferable because it is a definition that admits only useful information, where other definitions admit all information.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the definiton of "confirmation bias".

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.

So it seems to boil down to what Mobyseven said in post #1420. I would submit that the initial utterance – Joe was shot – is not evidence but simply an assertion; a signal leading to an investigation (not directly to a conclusion). Clearly we use the term evidence in a different way. I’m not sure if your usage of the term is very fruitful, especially if the discourse is scientific.

On the other hand, I suppose it’s possible to say that evidence is simply something like testimony. But that doesn’t tell us much, especially if that which it is supposed to be evidence “of” is lacking. Heck, I could say that the itching feeling I just had is evidence for Melek Taus farting - keeping all doors open!

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm sorry, but that's pretty much the definiton of "confirmation bias".

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not, and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me. An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence. For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept. Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion, as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

My definition does not require one to prejudge the information before it can be considered evidence, by considering all information reduces the possibility of introducing biased thinking through the front door, and happens to be the one science is acutally using, to the best of my understanding.

Wow that's....novel.

How, exactly, is your definition not worthless? If you apply such a low standard for what you term evidence there is no point in being a sceptic. I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion, but that does not make it evidence, it simply means they do not know what evidence is.

You might as well ask for zxxpt to show something, since you have watered down evidence so much that it is effectively meaningless.

 

[articulett]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?

It's evidence of a delusion, misperception, mistaken identity, false memory or an illusion... It's also evidence that humans are very prone to such things--particularly those who think they aren't.

 

[articulett]

If evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof" then there's a problem. If it's taken in it's normal way - as information helping one to form a conclusion - then there's no conflict whatsoever.

If someone is found not guilty, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses doesn't suddenly cease to be evidence. When Einstein brought out the General Theory, the observations which Newton relied on didn't suddenly cease to be evidence.

What happens is that what a piece of evidence points to will be qualified by another piece of evidence.

I think you missed the point that evidence has to be something "tangible"... a noun-- it can't be an "essence". There is nothing about a god that is materially measurable to be counted as evidence for god the supposed immaterial entity... which magically does or doesn't effect the material world.

Someone can swear up and down that god told them to do something or that the devil told them something... but neither thing CAN be evidence for an "immaterial entity" that communicates with material entities. We have no reason to posit the existence of such things... no matter how many people think they are getting messages from such things.

 

[articulett]

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.



If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not, and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me. An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence. For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept. Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion, as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?

Beautifully said Moby.

 

[Piscivore]

No, it's not. I have not started with my conclusion and worked from there, I have let the evidence take me where it will. The evidence points to anecdotes being useless, and so the evidence itself precludes anecdotes from being evidence.

Yeah, you know, I think I might have misunderstood you. I have drifted into the broader definition, not the scientific. My apologies.

If you refuse to actually distinguish between what is useful and what is useless, then you make a mockery of the very idea of evidence. By your definition, everything can be considered evidence, and therefore your definition is useless.

Well, first off, not everything can be considered evidence, because things unobserved cannot be used to make a conclusion.

Second, evidence used to make a conclusion stops being evidence for that conclusion when and if that conclusion is invalidated, but it doesn't stop being evidence.

My definition has nothing to do with confirmation bias, and everything to do with a reasoned, logical definition of evidence. While you may wish to class dreams and hallucinations as legitimate forms of evidence, I do not,

It is that word "legitimate" that we are comming to loggerheads about. You and I (and science) have already seen plenty of cases where dreams and hallucinations- or more specifically the content of such- were used to make conclusions that were later invalidated. This is why "in scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world", of which the content of dreams isn't really a part.

However, if several unrelated people unknown to each other were to report the same dream content, that would still be evidence of something. It won't be (at least, it is extrememly unlikely) that the content of the dream is accurate. Still, it's not a category of experience I think we can dismiss out of hand, even if we think it is likely that they are either playing a hoax, having a trick played on them. It could be a new kind of virus. We dismiss it the woo conclusion (the content of the dream is accurate) when other evidence suggests a better conclusion or invaldates the "woo" explanation.

and contrary to your false post, this has nothing to do with confirmation bias

I see that, it is withdrawn.

and everything to do with being open to where the evidence leads me.

Well, evidence can be led, too. That's why we have scientific standards, classes of misleading, erroneous, and manipulated evidence.

And even then evidence that looks good, looks robust, looks incontorvertable can lead to erroneous conlusions. Look how many paradigms have been hoisted up and torn down- Aristotelian physics, Newtonian Physics, Geocentrism, Lamarckian Evolution... the list goes on.

An unconstrained definition of evidence allows any claim to be made and supported with evidence.

Yes, indeed. Which is why we have science, to validate these claims against other evidence (evidence which includes conclusions supported by other evidence)

For example, I could easily claim that white people are inferior in quality to the other races of the world, and cite as evidence a dream in which god revealed this fact to me. Unless you are willing to discount that my dream is indeed evidence, you are forced to concede that I am perfectly justified in holding this belief!

Only if you are willing to accept that evidence as sufficient and conclusive. Some people do, science does not. This does not mean we have to redifine evidence to exclude the dream. We just need to look at the entirety of the evidence available and we'll see that that one bit of evidence does not countermand the mountains of evidence otherwise. The conclusion that white people are inferior is invalidated, the evidence is not.

Let's say you write that dream down, present it to a scientist, he invalidates your conclusion, and you go home dejected and file it away. Fifty years later, the guy that buys your house finds it stuck in the back of a broom closet, reads it, comes to a conclusion, and it's evidence again.

In other words, your definition of evidence turns evidence into a worthless concept.

By itself, yeah, it is. That's why science is valuable. As I told skepticgirl earlier in the discussion, if "evidence" were an inherent, imutable property of any object, we wouldn't need science, because the truth would be self-evident. It isn't. Evidence can be misused, misinterpreted, and manipulated. That's why we need science.

Given your definition, evidence is not the sort of thing that one can use to rationally reach a conclusion,

Rationally? Not on its own. That's why we came up with science, to validate and error correct the conclusions.

as everything is evidence, and any conclusion can be reached. Do you really not see the problem with the way you are using this word?

Yeah, I was using the broader definition, which includes all the unscientific evidence.

 

[Piscivore]

I could say that the itching feeling I just had is evidence for Melek Taus farting - keeping all doors open!

It could be. The questions to ask next is "what process do you think connects the itch with Mr. Taus' rectal emmisions" and "what other evidence is there to substantiate this?"

I understand that you are saying that the personal accounts etc. are evidence for the person, and that this led them to the conclusion,

That's what evidence is, in the broad sense.

but that does not make it evidence, it simply means they do not know what evidence is.

It does not make it evidence if evidence is only that which conclusively or sufficiently proves the conclusion. It also may not fit the scientific definition of evidence.

You might as well ask for zxxpt to show something

It depends on what process connects "zxxpt" with "something" and what other evidence is there to substantiate this relationship.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm reading is people thinking of evidence as some kind of reliable, dependable authority. It just isn't. That's why we have science.

 

[Piscivore]

It's evidence of a delusion, misperception, mistaken identity, false memory or an illusion... It's also evidence that humans are very prone to such things--particularly those who think they aren't.

That's still evidence.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It could be. The questions to ask next is "what process do you think connects the itch with Mr. Taus' rectal emmisions" and "what other evidence is there to substantiate this?"

Well, since Melek Taus is said to be the Peacock Angel I’m not so sure I can ever find a connection. Thus I’m in pretty much in the same situation as people professing their weird feelings as “evidence” for god.



I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek, more like a ludicrous assertion.

 

[Piscivore]

Well, since Melek Taus is said to be the Peacock Angel I’m not so sure I can ever find a connection.

I'm just going to pretend that makes sense to me. Is that an anime thing?

ETA: I just looked him up. That's fascinating, I'd never heard of him before. Thanks.

On point, the lack of any trace of a connection is evidence also, just as 19th century scientists not finding phogiston when they looked for it was evidence the hypothesis was unsound. In this case, the evidence that Melek Taus is (presumably) imaginary is stronger, more compelling evidence than the evidence that the itch is connected to his gaseous waste products.

Thus I’m in pretty much in the same situation as people professing their weird feelings as “evidence” for god.

Indeed.

I simply have to disagree with the notion that it is evidence for anything regarding Melek, more like a ludicrous assertion.

It is an assertion if the itch did not happen.

Going back to the "murder" of Joe: if the witness did see someone shoot someone else- whether that person was hit or not, whether the shot killed the person or not, Whether there were bullets in the gun or blanks, whether the person was Joe or not, whether the "person" was even a person (instead of a rock or a cactus) or not, the witness made an observation and came to a conclusion based on that (and probably other) evidence.
If the person went into the police station without having seen anything, that is an assertion.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It is an assertion if the itch did not happen.

And how do you, in retrospect, determine if there really was an itch or not?

The “itch” is just an example of an almost infinite set of variables that can be said as being “evidence”. It could be an odd smell in the room, a sound or whatever.

Going back to the "murder" of Joe: if the witness did see someone shoot someone else- whether that person was hit or not, whether the shot killed the person or not, Whether there were bullets in the gun or blanks, whether the person was Joe or not, whether the "person" was even a person (instead of a rock or a cactus) or not, the witness made an observation and came to a conclusion based on that (and probably other) evidence.
If the person went into the police station without having seen anything, that is an assertion.

But from another persons perspective there’s no way to directly tell if he actually saw anything. Thus the report is a signal for an investigation (not evidence of a shooting). It’s easy with these kind of though experiments because we have the whole scenario played out, i.e. there’s no time aspect or perspective involved.

An extremely general usage of the term evidence is not very useful in my opinion; it might just lead to more confusion. Obviously it’s possible to say that anything is evidence of something – writing that and saying it out loud is also some kind of evidence. But obviously it’s also a pretty meaningless approach.

 

[Piscivore]

And how do you, in retrospect, determine if there really was an itch or not?

You can't. Only the person experiencing the sensation can tell, and they may be mispercieving, they may be imagining it, or they may be tricked. That's why for a conclusion to be considered valid it must be vetted scientifically. It does not change the evidence into "something else". Have you seen Hokulele's post?

And just because it is inaccessable to us in its pure form does not mean it isn't evidence. Historians use this kind of evidence all the time.

The “itch” is just an example of an almost infinite set of variables that can be said as being “evidence”. It could be an odd smell in the room, a sound or whatever.

If they are observed, and then are used to make a conclusion, yes. And?

But from another persons perspective there’s no way to directly tell if he actually saw anything.

That's why we gather more evidence. That's why we (science) don't rely on only one peice of evidence.

Thus the report is a signal for an investigation...

Right, "gathering more evidence", not "discarding what we have and starting from scratch".

(not evidence of a shooting)

Evidence of something.

It’s easy with these kind of though experiments because we have the whole scenario played out, i.e. there’s no time aspect or perspective involved.

Indeed.

An extremely general usage of the term evidence is not very useful in my opinion; it might just lead to more confusion. Obviously it’s possible to say that anything is evidence of something – writing that and saying it out loud is also some kind of evidence. But obviously it’s also a pretty meaningless approach.

By itself, yes. That's why there's science. This kind of statement is why I'm suspecting that you guys are wanting "evidence" to be sufficient and conclusive and only leading to correct conclusions on their own, without analysis and without error. Why you want to expunge those observations that aren't sufficient and conclusive and lead to incorrect conclusions from the definition of "evidence". Is that correct? If so, what are you going to call those other things that help one make an incorrect conclusion? How are you going to tell them apart?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bad evidence. Misleading evidence.

But it is good evidence for whatever it is evidence of or for. See what your problem is here? No one is arguing that the thing in question is not evidence.

We are however, saying it cannot be evidence of something it is not really evidence of.

If you want to keep your semantic argument you need to qualify it. X is evidence of god to someone. But X is not really evidence of god, the person is mistaken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Of" doesn't enter into it. The tesitmony (Joe was observed being shot) is evidence- it helps one make a conclusion (Joe was shot). It is bad evidence because the other evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded) contradicts it. Therefore, the conclusion (Joe was shot) is invalidated, and the tesimony stops being evidence for that conclusion. Unless someone else happens to pick up that evidence (Joe was observed being shot), say in an old newspaper article, that does not contain the contradictory evidence (Joe was subsequently observed alive and unwounded), they might come to the same erroneous conclusion (Joe was shot) again. Of such are conspiracy theories born.


Evidence can't only be evidence if it agrees with the conclusions we come to.

You really cannot see what we are differing on here. Because no one is saying X is not evidence. No one is saying X is not evidence of Y to Joe.

What we are saying is X is not evidence of Y, unless it really is evidence of Y.

Regardless of any conclusions anyone draws about any evidence, the evidence is unchanged. You have the right to your own opinion but not the right to your own facts. The facts are the evidence. You can have all the magical beliefs you want and claim the evidence supports your beliefs. That does not make that evidence support those magical beliefs. The evidence is not evidence of magical conclusions. The person believes it is. It may be evidence to them. But it is not really evidence of the magical conclusions. Period.

And maybe if you hadn't already dug yourself into this hole, you could see the error you are making.