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?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #231

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:26 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:34 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 1:19 pm 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.
No this is what it looks like when you evade my questions habitually.

Chomsky doesn't believe one needs qualifications to question established beliefs and you clearly do, so who of you is correct? You really don't like this question for some reason, that's very telling...

How can you reject an argument you've not heard? I ask this because that's what you are doing when you "disqualify" a person's arguments on the basis they don't hold this or that certification.

Now please, no smoke and mirrors, no hand waving about what this has to do with that and so on, just answer the question. Do qualifications matter or don't they and if you feel they do then why should your opinion be given more credence than Chomsky's? you do understand the question I take it?

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 #232

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:34 pm No this is what it looks like when you evade questions habitually.
I showed you where I answered your questions. You ignored it.

Once again you accuse others of your own faults.
Chomsky doesn't believe one needs qualifications to question established beliefs and you clearly do
That's simply not true; I did not say that. Why do you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty?
You really don't like this question for some reason.
Because you're being very dishonest.
Now please, no smoke and mirrors, no hand waving about what this has to do with that and so on, just answer the question. Do qualifications matter or don't they and if you feel they do when why should your opinion be given more credence than Chomsky's? you do understand the question I take it?
Tell ya' what....I'll answer that question right after you answer the ones I asked you yesterday. You see, I don't play the game where the creationist ignores the questions I ask but then demands I answer theirs.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #233

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:41 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:34 pm No this is what it looks like when you evade questions habitually.
I showed you where I answered your questions. You ignored it.

Once again you accuse others of your own faults.
Chomsky doesn't believe one needs qualifications to question established beliefs and you clearly do
That's simply not true; I did not say that. Why do you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty?
You really don't like this question for some reason.
Because you're being very dishonest.
Now please, no smoke and mirrors, no hand waving about what this has to do with that and so on, just answer the question. Do qualifications matter or don't they and if you feel they do when why should your opinion be given more credence than Chomsky's? you do understand the question I take it?
Tell ya' what....I'll answer that question right after you answer the ones I asked you yesterday. You see, I don't play the game where the creationist ignores the questions I ask but then demands I answer theirs.
How can my question be "dishonest"? here you go all over again, can't you see? smoke and mirrors, hand waving, evasion over and over and over...

Here's what YOU said in this thread:
But from my POV and experiences, the vast, vast majority of people who challenge or reject evolution are not qualified to do so.
So how can you say that and not also be saying that qualifications do matter? they must matter - to you - else you would not have written that!!!!

Now one more time, do you or don't you agree with Noam Chomsky? (hint it's either yes or no)

[-X

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 #234

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:57 pm How can my question be "dishonest"?
Geez dude, you're really struggling here. Here is what you posted that is dishonest: "Chomsky doesn't believe one needs qualifications to question established beliefs and you clearly do".

I've never said that and I've told you so before, yet you continue to claim that I did.
Here's what YOU said in this thread:
But from my POV and experiences, the vast, vast majority of people who challenge or reject evolution are not qualified to do so.
So how can you say that and not also be saying that qualifications do matter? they must matter - to you - else you would not have written that!!!!
Wow....really? All I did was describe what I've seen, and you're trying to turn that into me making rules and demands?

Is this the best you can do?

And I notice yet again that you ignored my question about the dissenters list.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #235

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:05 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 3:57 pm How can my question be "dishonest"?
Geez dude, you're really struggling here. Here is what you posted that is dishonest: "Chomsky doesn't believe one needs qualifications to question established beliefs and you clearly do".

I've never said that and I've told you so before, yet you continue to claim that I did.
Here's what YOU said in this thread:
But from my POV and experiences, the vast, vast majority of people who challenge or reject evolution are not qualified to do so.
So how can you say that and not also be saying that qualifications do matter? they must matter - to you - else you would not have written that!!!!
Wow....really? All I did was describe what I've seen, and you're trying to turn that into me making rules and demands?

Is this the best you can do?

And I notice yet again that you ignored my question about the dissenters list.
do you or don't you agree with Noam Chomsky? (hint it's either yes or no) perhaps this is a hard question for you? maybe, just maybe, you aren't qualified to discuss this subject and that's why you are struggling...

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 #236

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:07 pm do you or don't you agree with Noam Chomsky? (hint it's either yes or no) perhaps this is a hard question for you? maybe, just maybe, you aren't qualified to discuss this subject and that's why you are struggling...
You're still doing it....ignoring almost everything I post and the questions I ask, while demanding that I answer your questions. I don't even know how Chomsky's statements relate to what I've said (that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and reject common ancestry for purely scientific reasons).

Looks to me like this is all a defense mechanism to cover for the fact that you can't counter what I said. If you had examples of what I've not seen, you would have posted them right away. But since you don't, you try and divert the discussion by dishonestly attributing things to me that I didn't say and introducing items that have nothing to do with what I spoke to (dissenters list, Chomsky quotes).

I'll say it again...this is why creationists always lose in court and science. You can get away with this dishonest nonsense in online forums, but in court and science you certainly can't.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #237

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:27 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:07 pm do you or don't you agree with Noam Chomsky? (hint it's either yes or no) perhaps this is a hard question for you? maybe, just maybe, you aren't qualified to discuss this subject and that's why you are struggling...
You're still doing it....ignoring almost everything I post and the questions I ask, while demanding that I answer your questions. I don't even know how Chomsky's statements relate to what I've said (that I'm not aware of any qualified scientists who deny that evolution occurs and reject common ancestry for purely scientific reasons).

Looks to me like this is all a defense mechanism to cover for the fact that you can't counter what I said. If you had examples of what I've not seen, you would have posted them right away. But since you don't, you try and divert the discussion by dishonestly attributing things to me that I didn't say and introducing items that have nothing to do with what I spoke to (dissenters list, Chomsky quotes).

I'll say it again...this is why creationists always lose in court and science. You can get away with this dishonest nonsense in online forums, but in court and science you certainly can't.
We're done, this is a waste of time and although you may get stimulation from that I certainly do not, when you develop an interest in answering questions we might continue this, until then I consider you unqualified.

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 #238

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:45 pm We're done, this is a waste of time and although you may get stimulation from that I certainly do not, when you develop an interest in answering questions we might continue this, until then I consider you unqualified.
Wow....how utterly bizarre. Here are all the questions I asked just in the last few days that you completely ignored....

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?

How did you go about proving evolution to be viable? (asked multiple times, ignored each time)

Do you have an example of someone who has a solid understanding of evolutionary biology but rejects it for purely scientific reasons?

Why did you post the "dissenters" video? What was your point and how did that video relate to what I said?

Do you disagree that the statement the "dissenters" 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 think the existence of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection is controversial?

What evidence am I refusing to admit?

What specifically have I rejected?

What worldview do you think I am protecting?

Where did I say that unless people are qualified evolutionary biologists then they are not qualified to critique evolution?

Where did I say that only qualified people should be considered?

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?


And you have the audacity to complain about others not answering questions? Again, all I can say is.....wow.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #239

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:03 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:45 pm We're done, this is a waste of time and although you may get stimulation from that I certainly do not, when you develop an interest in answering questions we might continue this, until then I consider you unqualified.
Wow....how utterly bizarre. Here are all the questions I asked just in the last few days that you completely ignored....

Did you also reevaluate your views on things like plate tectonics, glacial erosion, pathogen-caused disease, subatomic particles, and other science related topics? Or was it just evolution?

How did you go about proving evolution to be viable? (asked multiple times, ignored each time)

Do you have an example of someone who has a solid understanding of evolutionary biology but rejects it for purely scientific reasons?

Why did you post the "dissenters" video? What was your point and how did that video relate to what I said?

Do you disagree that the statement the "dissenters" 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 think the existence of evolutionary mechanisms beyond mutation and selection is controversial?

What evidence am I refusing to admit?

What specifically have I rejected?

What worldview do you think I am protecting?

Where did I say that unless people are qualified evolutionary biologists then they are not qualified to critique evolution?

Where did I say that only qualified people should be considered?

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?


And you have the audacity to complain about others not answering questions? Again, all I can say is.....wow.
Yawn. I'm done discussing the subject with you, lets leave it at that - no more retorts or anything from either of us, lets just cease.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The meaning of evidence

Post #240

Post by otseng »

Moderator Action

Locking the thread due to multiple rule infractions.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

Locked