The meaning of evidence

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
Sherlock Holmes

The meaning of evidence

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

This thread is to discuss the meaning of the term "evidence" particularly with respect to claims made by evolution advocates.

The reason I started this thread is that I often see - what I regard as - a conflation of consistent with and evidence for. If we are to make reasonable inferences and maintain objectivity and avoid making assumption unwittingly then the more precisely we define "evidence" the better I think.

The biggest risk here is to imply that some observation P is evidence for X and only X, rather than evidence for X and Y or Z. Unless we are on our guard we can informally exclude reasonable possibilities Y and Z and so on. Now the observation P might well be evidence for X and only X, but unless that is soundly established we simply can't assume that.

If we mistakenly regard P as evidence for X and only X then we fall into the trap of believing that P can only be observed if X was the cause.

This is exemplified by an analogy I recently put together that I think warrants its own thread, so here it is:


Consider this jigsaw

Image


None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed for some reason or other, that they must overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

So do you agree or not, there's a difference between observations that are evidence for some hypothesis vs consistent with some hypothesis and we should always be careful and make this distinction clear in our arguments?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #211

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:28 pm I never said or implied I did, I made no comments about these dissenters other than they do exist - go and check the conversation history.
This isn't making sense.

I stated that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny common ancestry or that evolution occurs. In response you posted a video of scientists (including medical doctors, engineers, computer programmers) saying they are skeptical that mutation and selection are all there are to evolution.

What was your point and how did that video relate to what I said?
You are effectively saying that some or all of these dissenters might actually have a non-controversial basis for their dissent, that the statement itself is not controversial, but how do you know?
Again, all I've said is that the statement they agreed to is obvious and entirely non-controversial (we've known of other evolutionary mechanisms besides mutation and selection for a very long time).

Do you disagree?
for all you know 90% of them might fundamentally disagree with you, how do you know they see or perceive the statement exactly as you do?
What th.......? I'm taking the statement exactly as it reads.
For all you know some of these might disagree fundamentally with you
And for all you know, they don't.
furthermore if the statement is not controversial why so few signatories?
Because it's a rather goofy statement and because lists like that mean absolutely nothing in science.
Surely an advocate like yourself could setup a separate list and get a million scientists to sign it and thereby prove what you claim, that the statement is not controversial, but without such a list then why should I not regard it as controversial?
Do you think the existence of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection is controversial?
It can only be proven to be non-controversial if you had evidence of thousands of scientists who share your views and have signed the exact same statement, but there is no such list is there? why should I not therefore regard the statement as actually truly controversial?
Because if you know even the basics of evolutionary biology you know that the existence of additional mechanisms like genetic drift have been well established for a very long time.

I guess you weren't aware of that, which again calls into question your claims to have studied the subject and again makes me wonder about your effort to "prove evolution to be viable". How can someone who did all that also not be aware of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection?

I know the answer and I think you do too, but you'll never admit it.
You ask for evidence I show you the list and you hand wave it away, so typical.
Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense. I asked for evidence of qualified scientists who reject evolution and/or common ancestry for scientific reasons, and in response you post a video of generic scientists saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are all there is to evolution.

Do you not see the disconnect there?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #212

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:36 pm ...
...
Project Steve
Just saying.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #213

Post by Tcg »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:46 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:36 pm ...
...
Project Steve
Just saying.
I watched the video hoping to learn some reasons why these folks are skeptical. Not a single one was mentioned. Just a repetition from each that they are skeptical. All this video established is that some number of folks are skeptical. That's not terribly earth shattering or the theory of evolution shattering as the case may be.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #214

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Tcg wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:30 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:46 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:36 pm ...
...
Project Steve
Just saying.
I watched the video hoping to learn some reasons why these folks are skeptical. Not a single one was mentioned. Just a repetition from each that they are skeptical. All this video established is that some number of folks are skeptical. That's not terribly earth shattering or the theory of evolution shattering as the case may be.


Tcg
I guess that video was designed to simply show the fact that this is not one or two "pseudoscientists" (which in case you didn't know seems to be another word for "skeptic" around this forum).

Besides any video with true in depth scientific details will be rejected out of hand anyway, facts it seems don't carry much weight these days.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #215

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to Tcg in post #213]

Yep. Scientists of all people, should be skeptical. Careful examine of the evidence for all theories should indeed be encourage. That's their job.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:24 am Besides any video with true in depth scientific details will be rejected out of hand anyway, facts it seems don't carry much weight these days.
That's what peer review is for. Video is not the appropriate media for challenging the current science consensus. Get the scientific consensus updated first, then get back to us with videos.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #216

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:47 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:28 pm I never said or implied I did, I made no comments about these dissenters other than they do exist - go and check the conversation history.
This isn't making sense.

I stated that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny common ancestry or that evolution occurs. In response you posted a video of scientists (including medical doctors, engineers, computer programmers) saying they are skeptical that mutation and selection are all there are to evolution.

What was your point and how did that video relate to what I said?
You are effectively saying that some or all of these dissenters might actually have a non-controversial basis for their dissent, that the statement itself is not controversial, but how do you know?
Again, all I've said is that the statement they agreed to is obvious and entirely non-controversial (we've known of other evolutionary mechanisms besides mutation and selection for a very long time).

Do you disagree?
for all you know 90% of them might fundamentally disagree with you, how do you know they see or perceive the statement exactly as you do?
What th.......? I'm taking the statement exactly as it reads.
For all you know some of these might disagree fundamentally with you
And for all you know, they don't.
furthermore if the statement is not controversial why so few signatories?
Because it's a rather goofy statement and because lists like that mean absolutely nothing in science.
Surely an advocate like yourself could setup a separate list and get a million scientists to sign it and thereby prove what you claim, that the statement is not controversial, but without such a list then why should I not regard it as controversial?
Do you think the existence of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection is controversial?
It can only be proven to be non-controversial if you had evidence of thousands of scientists who share your views and have signed the exact same statement, but there is no such list is there? why should I not therefore regard the statement as actually truly controversial?
Because if you know even the basics of evolutionary biology you know that the existence of additional mechanisms like genetic drift have been well established for a very long time.

I guess you weren't aware of that, which again calls into question your claims to have studied the subject and again makes me wonder about your effort to "prove evolution to be viable". How can someone who did all that also not be aware of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection?

I know the answer and I think you do too, but you'll never admit it.
You ask for evidence I show you the list and you hand wave it away, so typical.
Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense. I asked for evidence of qualified scientists who reject evolution and/or common ancestry for scientific reasons, and in response you post a video of generic scientists saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are all there is to evolution.

Do you not see the disconnect there?
The disconnect is your persistent refusal to admit any evidence, you'll find a contrived "reason" to reject it, for example your insistence that only "qualified scientists" can ever develop a truly meaningful counter argument and your insistence that "religious beliefs" are almost always the motive.

This is the hand waving, the determination to discredit anything and everything that might serve to undermine your world view which must be protected at all cost.

At one point you said something like "unless they are qualified evolutionary biologists" then they are not qualified to critique evolution, a Kafkaesque statement if ever I saw one.

Your definitions are nothing more than self reinforcing defensive measures.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #217

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:36 am [Replying to Tcg in post #213]

Yep. Scientists of all people, should be skeptical. Careful examine of the evidence for all theories should indeed be encourage. That's their job.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:24 am Besides any video with true in depth scientific details will be rejected out of hand anyway, facts it seems don't carry much weight these days.
That's what peer review is for. Video is not the appropriate media for challenging the current science consensus. Get the scientific consensus updated first, then get back to us with videos.
My posts were part of a conversation with Jose, if that wasn't clear to you then it is now.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #218

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose, you've so far said nothing of Chomsky's well know statement about the way credentials are used to thwart dissenting opinions (emphasis mine)
Noam Chomsky wrote: In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I've done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I've often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn't care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor's degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible—the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional standpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.

Compare mathematics and the political sciences—it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content.
There you have it, and I share that view 100%, your obsession with only "qualified" people being considered is - as Chomsky alludes to - is due to a weak intellectual basis and a need to stifle dissent. This is the very same attitude, intellectual attitude of the clergy back in Galileo's time. The evolution dogma is just that, a dogma, and woe betide those to dare to question it.

Everything is designed to ridicule or discredit anyone who dares to disagree, there is often a rich use of terms like "pseudoscientist" and "unqualified" and "religious" and so on, the degree to which the person is attacked is obscene and not seen in any other branch of "science" to my knowledge.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #219

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:36 am The disconnect is your persistent refusal to admit any evidence
What evidence? All you've posted is a video of people saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are the only mechanisms to evolution.

What does that have to do with me not being aware of qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and reject common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?
you'll find a contrived "reason" to reject it, for example your insistence that only "qualified scientists" can ever develop a truly meaningful counter argument and your insistence that "religious beliefs" are almost always the motive.

This is the hand waving, the determination to discredit anything and everything that might serve to undermine your world view which must be protected at all cost.
First, what specifically have I rejected? Second, what world view are you talking about?
At one point you said something like "unless they are qualified evolutionary biologists" then they are not qualified to critique evolution, a Kafkaesque statement if ever I saw one.
Show where I said that.
Your definitions are nothing more than self reinforcing defensive measures.
You probably should show where I said the things you're claiming I said. Remember all the times you've complained about people paraphrasing you rather than quoting you directly? Physician, heal thyself.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #220

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:41 am Jose, you've so far said nothing of Chomsky's well know statement about the way credentials are used to thwart dissenting opinions (emphasis mine)
Noam Chomsky wrote: In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I've done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I've often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn't care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor's degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible—the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional standpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.

Compare mathematics and the political sciences—it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content.
There you have it, and I share that view 100%, your obsession with only "qualified" people being considered is - as Chomsky alludes to - is due to a weak intellectual basis and a need to stifle dissent. This is the very same attitude, intellectual attitude of the clergy back in Galileo's time. The evolution dogma is just that, a dogma, and woe betide those to dare to question it.

Everything is designed to ridicule or discredit anyone who dares to disagree, there is often a rich use of terms like "pseudoscientist" and "unqualified" and "religious" and so on, the degree to which the person is attacked is obscene and not seen in any other branch of "science" to my knowledge.
Again, show where I said that.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Locked