The meaning of evidence

[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

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?

[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)

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.

Said what? I'm giving you my impression of how evolution debating often proceeds, now how about actually giving me your opinion on what Chomsky says? or should we dismiss him, perhaps he's not qualified to talk about the relevance of being qualified?

[Jose Fly]

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)

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.

Said what? I'm giving you my impression of how evolution debating often proceeds, now how about actually giving me your opinion on what Chomsky says? or should we dismiss him, perhaps he's not qualified to talk about the relevance of being qualified?

You know....in my last few posts to you I asked you several questions, all of which you have completely ignored. I'd ask what your point is with Chomsky's statements about mathematics and foreign policy, but I have a feeling you'll ignore that as well.

I wonder if you appreciate just how rude what you're doing is.

[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)

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.

Said what? I'm giving you my impression of how evolution debating often proceeds, now how about actually giving me your opinion on what Chomsky says? or should we dismiss him, perhaps he's not qualified to talk about the relevance of being qualified?

You know....in my last few posts to you I asked you several questions, all of which you have completely ignored. I'd ask what your point is with Chomsky's statements about mathematics and foreign policy, but I have a feeling you'll ignore that as well.

I wonder if you appreciate just how rude what you're doing is.

We're going around in circles again though, as I told you we likely would. Perhaps the truth is that you are not qualified to discuss evolution skepticism, evolution yes, but not evolution skepticism.

I've shared Chomsky's quote before and you ignore it, so be it.

[Jose Fly]

We're going around in circles

Because you refuse to participate in an actual discussion.

Perhaps the truth is that you are not qualified to discuss evolution skepticism, evolution yes, but not evolution skepticism.

Nope, I'm quite familiar with the topic.

I've shared Chomsky's quote before and you ignore it, so be it.

Again, what does it have to do with what I've said? What did the dissenters video have to do with what I said? Can you answer any of the other questions I've asked?

Or are you just here to preach?

[Sherlock Holmes]

We're going around in circles

Because you refuse to participate in an actual discussion.

Perhaps the truth is that you are not qualified to discuss evolution skepticism, evolution yes, but not evolution skepticism.

Nope, I'm quite familiar with the topic.

I've shared Chomsky's quote before and you ignore it, so be it.

Again, what does it have to do with what I've said? What did the dissenters video have to do with what I said? Can you answer any of the other questions I've asked?

Or are you just here to preach?

Here's where the circle began Jose:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39202&start=190

See? I asked for some numbers, remember?

Tell me how many please, name some and how you arrived at the number and how you decided they were qualified? Even after our albeit brief, frank exchange this issue of "qualified to do so" keeps coming up. It seems you really believe that there are zero and that the very act of expressing skepticism instantly disqualifies the person, instantly reveals that they actually don't understand the subject.

I never got any, did I? so it is you who avoids answering questions, like you're doing with my question about Chomsky's opinion of qualifications. He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?

What are these "qualifications" and who are you to tell others what conditions they must meet just to be able to participate in the discussion? You say you want to discuss the science yet then impose conditions that if no met, you feel can justify their arguments being dismissed.

Face facts, the whole point of this "qualifications" issue is to enable you to discredit arguments presented by people who say things you disagree with when you lack a substantive science based counter argument.

The implication is too that evolution is some actual complicated, abstruse science, beyond the grasp of the general lay public, it isn't it's rather simple and the arguments against it are likewise simple, no need for "qualifications", Darwin himself wasn't particularly qualified.

[Jose Fly]

Here's where the circle began Jose:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39202&start=190

See? I asked for some numbers, remember?

Tell me how many please, name some and how you arrived at the number and how you decided they were qualified? Even after our albeit brief, frank exchange this issue of "qualified to do so" keeps coming up. It seems you really believe that there are zero and that the very act of expressing skepticism instantly disqualifies the person, instantly reveals that they actually don't understand the subject.

I never got any, did I? so it is you who avoids answering questions

That's simply not true. I responded to that question several times: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

All of my responses are effectively the same....what does a video of people saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are the only evolutionary mechanisms have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

I've posed that question to you several times and you have ignored it each time.

like you're doing with my question about Chomsky's opinion of qualifications. He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?

Again, same question....what does Chomky's statements about math and foreign policy have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

What are these "qualifications" and who are you to tell others what conditions they must meet just to be able to participate in the discussion?

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

You say you want to discuss the science yet then impose conditions that if no met, you feel can justify their arguments being dismissed.

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

Face facts, the whole point of this "qualifications" issue is to enable you to discredit arguments presented by people who say things you disagree with when you lack a substantive science based counter argument.

The implication is too that evolution is some actual complicated, abstruse science, beyond the grasp of the general lay public, it isn't it's rather simple and the arguments against it are likewise simple, no need for "qualifications", Darwin himself wasn't particularly qualified.

The fact is, for reasons folks can speculate on, you have resorted to posting falsehoods. That's pretty despicable and comes across as rather desperate.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's where the circle began Jose:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39202&start=190

See? I asked for some numbers, remember?

Tell me how many please, name some and how you arrived at the number and how you decided they were qualified? Even after our albeit brief, frank exchange this issue of "qualified to do so" keeps coming up. It seems you really believe that there are zero and that the very act of expressing skepticism instantly disqualifies the person, instantly reveals that they actually don't understand the subject.

I never got any, did I? so it is you who avoids answering questions

That's simply not true. I responded to that question several times: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

All of my responses are effectively the same....what does a video of people saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are the only evolutionary mechanisms have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

I've posed that question to you several times and you have ignored it each time.

like you're doing with my question about Chomsky's opinion of qualifications. He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?

Again, same question....what does Chomky's statements about math and foreign policy have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

What are these "qualifications" and who are you to tell others what conditions they must meet just to be able to participate in the discussion?

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

You say you want to discuss the science yet then impose conditions that if no met, you feel can justify their arguments being dismissed.

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

Face facts, the whole point of this "qualifications" issue is to enable you to discredit arguments presented by people who say things you disagree with when you lack a substantive science based counter argument.

The implication is too that evolution is some actual complicated, abstruse science, beyond the grasp of the general lay public, it isn't it's rather simple and the arguments against it are likewise simple, no need for "qualifications", Darwin himself wasn't particularly qualified.

The fact is, for reasons folks can speculate on, you have resorted to posting falsehoods. That's pretty despicable and comes across as rather desperate.

Very good, a nice new way to assert the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I asked "He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?" and you "answer" with "what does Chomsky's statements about math and foreign policy have to do".

This seems to typify your answers, evasive.

[JoeyKnothead]

facts it seems don't carry much weight these days.

Says the guy who claims God saves cause he believes God saves.

Lomfpoc

[Sherlock Holmes]

facts it seems don't carry much weight these days.

Says the guy who claims God saves cause he believes God saves.

Lomfpoc

Says the guy who misquotes everybody, then again why trouble yourself with facts, they only get in the way.

[Jose Fly]

Here's where the circle began Jose:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39202&start=190

See? I asked for some numbers, remember?

Tell me how many please, name some and how you arrived at the number and how you decided they were qualified? Even after our albeit brief, frank exchange this issue of "qualified to do so" keeps coming up. It seems you really believe that there are zero and that the very act of expressing skepticism instantly disqualifies the person, instantly reveals that they actually don't understand the subject.

I never got any, did I? so it is you who avoids answering questions

That's simply not true. I responded to that question several times: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

All of my responses are effectively the same....what does a video of people saying they're skeptical that mutation and selection are the only evolutionary mechanisms have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

I've posed that question to you several times and you have ignored it each time.

like you're doing with my question about Chomsky's opinion of qualifications. He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?

Again, same question....what does Chomky's statements about math and foreign policy have to do with me saying that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and are skeptical of common ancestry for purely scientific reasons?

What are these "qualifications" and who are you to tell others what conditions they must meet just to be able to participate in the discussion?

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

You say you want to discuss the science yet then impose conditions that if no met, you feel can justify their arguments being dismissed.

Again you say things that simply aren't true. I never said that.

Face facts, the whole point of this "qualifications" issue is to enable you to discredit arguments presented by people who say things you disagree with when you lack a substantive science based counter argument.

The implication is too that evolution is some actual complicated, abstruse science, beyond the grasp of the general lay public, it isn't it's rather simple and the arguments against it are likewise simple, no need for "qualifications", Darwin himself wasn't particularly qualified.

The fact is, for reasons folks can speculate on, you have resorted to posting falsehoods. That's pretty despicable and comes across as rather desperate.

Very good, a nice new way to assert the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I asked "He says they don't matter you say they do, to whom should we listen? you or him? and why?" and you "answer" with "what does Chomsky's statements about math and foreign policy have to do".

This seems to typify your answers, evasive.

Once again you ignore the majority of what I posted.

I guess this is what it looks like when someone loses a debate but has too much pride to admit it. They flail around, saying things that aren't true, and accuse others of their own faults.

Creationists, if nothing else, sure are entertaining.