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
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8490
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2143 times
Been thanked: 2295 times

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #201

Post by Tcg »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
From "scratch?" Certainly, you didn't create Christianity. If you had, that would equate to "from scratch." Choosing the same "world view" that some 2.4 billion others ascribe to is far from rebuilding from scratch. It is copying the most popular religious "world view" in the world.


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 #202

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Tcg wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 11:08 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 3:16 pm
These lie behind our difference, these and many more are real things I struggled with and faced up to, we all face struggles, not saying you have not, just trying to describe how all this adjusted my worldview, I basically rebuilt my worldview from scratch and that was very hard for me but I developed strengths I never had before.
From "scratch?" Certainly, you didn't create Christianity. If you had, that would equate to "from scratch." Choosing the same "world view" that some 2.4 billion others ascribe to is far from rebuilding from scratch. It is copying the most popular religious "world view" in the world.


Tcg
Yes, but from scratch was intended to convey that how I organized and interpreted my knowledge of the external world was reviewed not the external world. As for Christianity I dare say no two Christians share an identical view on what this amounts to, what the Bible means and so on.

I didn't create Christianity just as I didn't create cosmology or Mathematics.

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 #203

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:19 pm so let me ask - are there any qualified competent science researchers or professors who question evolution or are skeptical of claims that all life we see evolved?
Yes, but I've not seen any of them make a scientific case against it. Instead, the ones I've seen are pretty up front about their position being primarily religious.
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'm thinking of guys like Kurt Wise, who have the education and credentials to understand evolutionary biology, but make it very clear that they reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

If you have an example of someone who has a solid understanding of evolutionary biology but rejects it for purely scientific reasons, I'm all ears.
don't you see anything suspicious about stating that every skeptic for process X inherently does not understand process X?
I didn't say that.

Also, I'm taking the fact that you have repeatedly ignored my questions about your attempt to prove evolution to be viable as an indication that you'd really rather not say, which IMO is quite revealing (and not in a good way for you). As the saying goes...the questions you avoid reveal more than the questions you answer.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #204

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:23 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:19 pm so let me ask - are there any qualified competent science researchers or professors who question evolution or are skeptical of claims that all life we see evolved?
Yes, but I've not seen any of them make a scientific case against it. Instead, the ones I've seen are pretty up front about their position being primarily religious.
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'm thinking of guys like Kurt Wise, who have the education and credentials to understand evolutionary biology, but make it very clear that they reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

If you have an example of someone who has a solid understanding of evolutionary biology but rejects it for purely scientific reasons, I'm all ears.
don't you see anything suspicious about stating that every skeptic for process X inherently does not understand process X?
I didn't say that.

Also, I'm taking the fact that you have repeatedly ignored my questions about your attempt to prove evolution to be viable as an indication that you'd really rather not say, which IMO is quite revealing (and not in a good way for you). As the saying goes...the questions you avoid reveal more than the questions you answer.
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:23 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 8:19 pm so let me ask - are there any qualified competent science researchers or professors who question evolution or are skeptical of claims that all life we see evolved?
Yes, but I've not seen any of them make a scientific case against it. Instead, the ones I've seen are pretty up front about their position being primarily religious.
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'm thinking of guys like Kurt Wise, who have the education and credentials to understand evolutionary biology, but make it very clear that they reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

If you have an example of someone who has a solid understanding of evolutionary biology but rejects it for purely scientific reasons, I'm all ears.
don't you see anything suspicious about stating that every skeptic for process X inherently does not understand process X?
I didn't say that.

Also, I'm taking the fact that you have repeatedly ignored my questions about your attempt to prove evolution to be viable as an indication that you'd really rather not say, which IMO is quite revealing (and not in a good way for you). As the saying goes...the questions you avoid reveal more than the questions you answer.
So you know of no trained, educated, competent scientist who is skeptical of evolution on scientific grounds? how do you know that those you do know of are all motivated by "religion"? What if there are such people who are skeptical and became Christians as a result of that? If their skeptisim preceded the development of their theological views then in these cases we cannot attribute their doubt to theological beliefs can we?

Of course we cannot, in such cases as these we'd have to attribute their theological beliefs to their scientific reasoning not the other way around.

Well we do disagree at a more fundamental level than evolution so there's little prospect of us making headway with the science itself, the record between us shows that I think. At some point I will stop answering questions as will you, if the back and forth is at an impasse.

Are you saying then that all of these people are "religious" express the skepticism they do because it "conflicts with their religious beliefs"? Have you reached out to each and every one of them to ask them? Have you reached out to each and every one of them for an outline of their scientific concerns? Tell you what, just tell me, how many of these people have you actually reached out to?


You claim that every single one of these 1,200+ scientists has a non-scientific reason for being skeptical? You say you're a scientist, so please explain what methods you used to establish this claim?

Perhaps you cannot perceive of such dissent as being die to anything other than some "religious agenda" and therefore you feel there's no need to get facts or check what people actually say, if you really truly believe that all such dissent is due to either ignorance or a "religious agenda" then might that not impact your ability to be objective?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #205

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:36 pm So you know of no trained, educated, competent scientist who is skeptical of evolution on scientific grounds?
Not ones that are qualified to speak to evolutionary biology.
how do you know that those you do know of are all motivated by "religion"?
Because they say it outright. For example, Kurt Wise stated "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate".
What if there are such people who are skeptical and became Christians as a result of that? If their skeptisim preceded the development of their theological views then in these cases we cannot attribute their doubt to theological beliefs can we?
Again, if you have specific examples please present them.
Well we do disagree at a more fundamental level than evolution so there's little prospect of us making headway with the science itself, the record between us shows that I think. At some point I will stop answering questions as will you, if the back and forth is at an impasse.
You consistently avoid questions about your claims to have studied evolution and your attempt to prove it viable. I've seen the same thing from countless creationists before.....they'll go on and on about how they've studied the subject but as soon as you ask them to specify what they studied, suddenly the defensive mechanisms kick in.

Like I said, that's quite revealing.
Are you saying then that all of these people are "religious" express the skepticism they do because it "conflicts with their religious beliefs"? Have you reached out to each and every one of them to ask them?
Sheesh dude, we've been over this already. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement isn't a controversial statement; "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Evolutionary theory includes mechanisms other than mutation and selection (e.g., random drift), so expressing skepticism that mutation and selection are all there are to evolution is like saying "I'm skeptical that wind is the only mechanism of erosion".
Every single one of these scientists has a non-scientific reason for being skeptical? You say you're a scientist, so please explain what methods you used to establish this claim?
Also as we covered before, simply being a "scientist" doesn't mean one is qualified in evolutionary biology. Medical doctors, engineers, computer techs, etc. are all "scientists" yet none are qualified to speak authoritatively about evolutionary biology.

So again, if you have a specific example of what you're talking about, post it.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #206

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:52 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:36 pm So you know of no trained, educated, competent scientist who is skeptical of evolution on scientific grounds?
Not ones that are qualified to speak to evolutionary biology.
how do you know that those you do know of are all motivated by "religion"?
Because they say it outright. For example, Kurt Wise stated "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate".
What if there are such people who are skeptical and became Christians as a result of that? If their skeptisim preceded the development of their theological views then in these cases we cannot attribute their doubt to theological beliefs can we?
Again, if you have specific examples please present them.
Well we do disagree at a more fundamental level than evolution so there's little prospect of us making headway with the science itself, the record between us shows that I think. At some point I will stop answering questions as will you, if the back and forth is at an impasse.
You consistently avoid questions about your claims to have studied evolution and your attempt to prove it viable. I've seen the same thing from countless creationists before.....they'll go on and on about how they've studied the subject but as soon as you ask them to specify what they studied, suddenly the defensive mechanisms kick in.

Like I said, that's quite revealing.
Are you saying then that all of these people are "religious" express the skepticism they do because it "conflicts with their religious beliefs"? Have you reached out to each and every one of them to ask them?
Sheesh dude, we've been over this already. The "Dissent from Darwin" statement isn't a controversial statement; "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Evolutionary theory includes mechanisms other than mutation and selection (e.g., random drift), so expressing skepticism that mutation and selection are all there are to evolution is like saying "I'm skeptical that wind is the only mechanism of erosion".
Every single one of these scientists has a non-scientific reason for being skeptical? You say you're a scientist, so please explain what methods you used to establish this claim?
Also as we covered before, simply being a "scientist" doesn't mean one is qualified in evolutionary biology. Medical doctors, engineers, computer techs, etc. are all "scientists" yet none are qualified to speak authoritatively about evolutionary biology.

So again, if you have a specific example of what you're talking about, post it.
So you've reached out to absolutely none of the dissenters to get some idea of their concerns, yet feel justified in dismissing their dissent, every single one of them - very telling (as you like to put it).

Let me ask you - a scientist - another question then, which of these 1,200+ people do you think are "qualified" to express skepticism? surely you have a number here?

This is an opportunity to demonstrate your own touted scientific competence, show the data and reasoning behind your conclusions.

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 #207

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:55 pm So you've reached out to absolutely none of the dissenters to get some idea of their concerns, yet feel justified in dismissing their dissent, every single one of them - very telling (as you like to put it).
Geez, are you even paying attention to what I said? The statement they all signed doesn't deny evolution happens nor does it deny universal common ancestry. All it says is that they're skeptical that mutation and selection are all there is to evolution, to which I can only say......well duh.
Let me ask you - a scientist - another question then, which of these 1,200+ people do you think are "qualified" to express skepticism? surely you have a number here?

This is an opportunity to demonstrate your own touted scientific competence, show the data and reasoning behind your conclusions.
You need to pay closer attention to the posts you're replying to.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #208

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:01 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:55 pm So you've reached out to absolutely none of the dissenters to get some idea of their concerns, yet feel justified in dismissing their dissent, every single one of them - very telling (as you like to put it).
Geez, are you even paying attention to what I said? The statement they all signed doesn't deny evolution happens nor does it deny universal common ancestry. All it says is that they're skeptical that mutation and selection are all there is to evolution, to which I can only say......well duh.
Let me ask you - a scientist - another question then, which of these 1,200+ people do you think are "qualified" to express skepticism? surely you have a number here?

This is an opportunity to demonstrate your own touted scientific competence, show the data and reasoning behind your conclusions.
You need to pay closer attention to the posts you're replying to.
If you've reached out to none of them how do you know the specific nature of their skepticism? How do you know how many of them might actually deny universal common ancestry?

The facts seem pretty clear here, you have no idea how many of these people meet your criteria for being "qualified" and you have no idea how many of those might reject universal common ancestry and you have no idea which of them hold the view they do because they feel evolution conflicts with some theological view.

This does not sound like an objective way to assess this dissent, in fact I think we both know that the reason you dismiss any dissenter is solely because they are a dissenter, that is your "scientific" method here.

:wave:

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 #209

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:07 pm If you've reached out to none of them how do you know the specific nature of their skepticism?
Um.....from the statement they signed.
How do you know how many of them might actually deny universal common ancestry?
I don't, and neither do you.
The facts seem pretty clear here, you have no idea how many of these people meet your criteria for being "qualified" and you have no idea how many of those might reject universal common ancestry and you have no idea which of them hold the view they do because they feel evolution conflicts with some theological view.
And neither do you.
This does not sound like an objective way to assess this dissent, in fact I think we both know that the reason you dismiss any dissenter is solely because they are a dissenter, that is your "scientific" method here.
Are you assuming that some, or all of those folks deny UCA and/or that evolution occurs? If so, why? If not, why did you post the video?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #210

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:12 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:07 pm If you've reached out to none of them how do you know the specific nature of their skepticism?
Um.....from the statement they signed.
How do you know how many of them might actually deny universal common ancestry?
I don't, and neither do you.
The facts seem pretty clear here, you have no idea how many of these people meet your criteria for being "qualified" and you have no idea how many of those might reject universal common ancestry and you have no idea which of them hold the view they do because they feel evolution conflicts with some theological view.
And neither do you.
This does not sound like an objective way to assess this dissent, in fact I think we both know that the reason you dismiss any dissenter is solely because they are a dissenter, that is your "scientific" method here.
Are you assuming that some, or all of those folks deny UCA and/or that evolution occurs? If so, why? If not, why did you post the video?
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.

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? 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?

For all you know some of these might disagree fundamentally with you, furthermore if the statement is not controversial why so few signatories? 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?

Lets be honest here, if only a relatively small number of scientists are willing to sign such a statement then that pretty much meets the definition of 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?

You ask for evidence I show you the list and you hand wave it away, so typical, no data, no numbers, no universal definition of what "qualifies" one to even express dissent, all you have is your personal belief to go on, nothing more.

Locked