instantc wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Danmark wrote:
Nilloc James wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
Star wrote:
WinePusher wrote:I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.
The real problem is you don't discern good evidence from poor evidence. Maybe you can prove I'm wrong by demonstrating that you have a handle on it, and can describe good evidence to us.
For example, what would be "good evidence" to support Noah's Ark?[/quote
As I have repeatedly said, I don't care whether or not the evidence meets your subjective requirements. Evidence can be valid regardless of whether you find it convincing or not. I may find a piece of evidence to be 'good' while you may find it to be 'bad.' One opinion is not superior to the other. Our subjective opinions really do not matter, what ultimately matters is the strength of the arguments presented.
And I have never argued that the global flood in Genesis was a real historical event, or that Noah was a real historical figure. I've argued the exact opposite:
Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?
DO you think some evidence is stronger than other evidence?
Lets take the claim, "I own a car"
What is trong evidence for the claim and what is weak evidence? Or would all observations be equally strong evidence?
----
Also, I got moderately confused, could you define your use of argument, and evidence please?
Strong evidence would consist of a certified title declaring you the registered and legal owner. That is the gold standard for proof of vehicle ownership. The certification is short hand for the fact the auditor or clerk will testify under oath that the document is valid.
Weaker evidence would be a Bill of Sale backed up by independent witnesses that witnessed the sale and the exchange of consideration.
"That's my car" is evidence, but virtually worthless compared to a combination of the first two, or either of the first two.
Weaker still is what we have in the Gospel accounts in the NT. They consist (to continue the analogy) of Joe claiming he is Matthew while Joe writes that a 3d party told him that you claimed "That's my car."
Why would you not say:
1) A certified title is Evidence OF his vehicle ownership. The Certified tile he states clearly that he is the registered and legal owner. Furthermore, a certified title is the standard for validity of vehicle ownership. The certification is short hand for the fact the auditor or clerk will testify under oath that the document is valid.
2) A Bill of Sale would be evidence FOR his vehicle ownership, IF it can be backed up by independent witnesses that witnessed the sale and the exchange of consideration.
"That's my car" is the claim, but completely worthless without evidence. The evidence could be a combination of the first two, or the first if the second fails to be backed up.
The bible is the claim that god exists. The central tenant of the biblical dogma is faith. Faith is a belief based on no evidence for a claim. Therefore, there can not be any evidence for the claim that its god exists.
Why would the above not be a better way and indeed factual, compared to Danmark's opinion?
People saying 'that's his car' is not reliable proof for ownership, but it undeniably makes it more likely as such. Therefore those statements are evidence. A bill of sale in combination with eye-witnesses is very strong evidence, but it could also turn out to be evidence for corruption or a skilled forgery. Evidence is (almost) never conclusive, pretty much everything could be turned around on grounds of stronger counter-evidence. The question is, do certain facts/observations support the claim at all (i.e make it more likely)? The second question is, do those facts/observations support the claim sufficiently to convince us, or do we still require further facts.
Am not sure I follow you. Which bits of my post to you disagree with, and why?
People saying 'that's his car' is not reliable proof for ownership, but it undeniably makes it more likely as such. Therefore those statements are evidence.
Only if you reject evidence that people lie or can be unintentionally wrong.
btw. Proof belongs to math (part of logic). And Whisky - if you know what I mean.
If the information (asserting 'that's his car' ) is shown to not support the claim, then it is not evidence. It may be evidence for dishonesty or being under a misapprehension.
If you say "I submit evidence; information/fact/data = x" then it does not qualify as evidence. This submission is not the same as declaring it AND it being accepted by the courts as evidence. It may be declared by the one side as evidence, but it does not follow that the other side or the court accepts it. A submission (request) is not an approval. This is simple workflow. X NEEDS TO BE SHOWN TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FIRST BEFORE IT IS CLASSIFIED/FILED AS EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.
Imagine someone is on trial for murder. And someone submits planet Jupiter as evidence he did it. Planet Jupiter is not evidence for it because it clearly does not support the claim. Based on your writing above ANYTHING can be evidence for an assertion, regardless if it supports it or not. That is clearly against the definition of evidence. Courts would never be able to come to any verdict because they would have to sort thought EVERYTHING in the whole universe to 'see' if it can be used. That is just absurd.
The definition of evidence does NOT say:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support or no support of an assertion.
It says:
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented
in support of an assertion.
A bill of sale in combination with eye-witnesses is very [strike]strong[/strike] evidence, but it could also turn out to be evidence for corruption or a skilled forgery.
Correct, that is why I wrote: " A Bill of Sale would be evidence FOR his vehicle ownership,
IF[/b]] it can be backed up by independent witnesses that witnessed the sale and the exchange of consideration.
I would not use the word "strong" because it is not needed.
Am at least glad you admit that this 'bill of sale' information, if found not to support the claim (it's his car), is not evidence for it, but can be evidence for something else (corruption or a skilled forgery). That is good. But that does contradict what you wrote before.
Evidence is (almost) never conclusive, pretty much everything could be turned around on grounds of stronger counter-evidence.
Nope. The evidence either supports a claim or not. You just admitted this above and now you are arguing the other way again. Is this an example of straw manning yourself? It could turn out later that it did not support the claim, and then the 'evidence' will be disregarded (meaning it is not evidence at all for that claim) perhaps because of evidence being shown to support the original claim.
The question is, do certain facts/observations support the claim at all (i.e make it more likely)? The second question is, do those facts/observations support the claim sufficiently to convince us, or do we still require further facts.
How much of [or how many units of ] likely do you need to make it sufficient?
Albert Einstein is reported to have said: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Am sure you would agree with philosorcerer Karl Popper on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability that is now part of the sceintific method. Or do you reject this?
