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?

[Diagoras]

Here, in a debate forum, your statement is tantamount to an admission that you have no argument.

Before I leave. This is the kind of accusation I mean. I have presented my arguments, my reasons for the views I hold, the record is accessible in the history. That these may have failed to change your opinion does not detract from that fact, that my opinion differs from yours is a fact of life. I have not done anything wrong just because you do not accept my arguments. The incessant attacks on me and my character my mental health and so on all because you do not like my views, is frankly disgusting.

1. I note that you haven't disputed my summary of Jose Fly's exchange with you. Does that mean that you accept it as reasonable?

2. You state that your opinion differs from mine (really Jose Fly's), but can you not agree that in a debate thread, there's an expectation of bringing more than just opinions? We're trying to understand very different worldview, sure - but unless debaters back up their opinions with some evidence or logic, none of us are going to progress in understanding.

3. You're not being accused of having done something 'wrong'. Regarding your posting style, there's been a claim that you 'duck out of' arguments (or simply ignore them), although to your credit, you did one time ask for a link to where you "may have missed" a particular point. As you say yourself, "the record is accessible in the history", so the most effective way to nullify that claim (of 'ducking') is to address the underlying argument.

4. "Incessant" is perhaps a rather strong term. What you perceived as one direct comment on your mental health was at least explained shortly afterwards. I'm neither a Moderator nor one of the involved parties, and my personal opinion on the matter is that the original comment didn't help further debate. That being said, I understand the best way to handle these types of thing is to either report the post concerned, or perhaps to address the poster by way of private message. You may well have already done this, of course - but bringing it up in the thread again in the way you did is more likely to aggravate, rather than conciliate. It's hard to let a perceived slur pass, but this forum has good (IMHO) mechanisms for addressing them.

5. It's not especially clear from the fact that you chose to reply to me that your disagreement stems from an exchange with someone else. I've never impugned your mental health

6. You're the 'lone voice' on the other side here. No dishonour in pointing that out from time to time, as there have been a few different aspects to the original thread's point to address.

[The Barbarian]

I believe it was Ken Miller who described the ID creationists' approach as "Seeing God in the darkness of our ignorance rather than in the light of our knowledge". I've always liked that.

I've met Dr. Miller. He has a very good (and occasionally pointed) sense of humor.

[Difflugia]

The fossil record is everywhere discontinuous, how can you use that to insist that the process that led to the fossils was continuous?

The fossil record is consistent with a continuous process but equally consistent with a discontinuous process; in the same way the twenty jigsaw pieces is consistent with an overlapping model and a non overlapping model, you simply cannot prove from the samples which model is correct.

This is the hill you've chosen to stand on, but you've also steadfastly refused to engage with molecular data. By their very nature, both methods produce a series of snapshots. Metazoan fossils generally produce a series of snapshots that could be likened to a storyboard. Even a storyboard, however, can be seen as evidence of a continuous process when viewed together with cladistic evidence that points toward a particular mechanism of change. If we instead allow for an ephemeral, yet somehow real designer, it's possible to view the "snapshot" and "storyboard" analogies as not being illusory, but artifacts of a process of divine snapshots. The mechanism you've proposed (God periodically deigning to create a new snapshot) amounts to little more than handwaving, but as you've pointed out, the storyboard effect of the fossil record of certain kinds of organisms would be consistent with your mechanism.

Molecular evidence, though, is different. Every living and recently dead individual organism in existence becomes a potential snapshot. We no longer have to content ourselves with storyboards, but have graduated to motion pictures. Every frame of a motion picture is a snapshot, but when the snapshots are close enough together, it becomes vanishingly unlikely that each frame is independent of the ones before it and after it. As more frames are added, the overall picture becomes less and less consistent with a discontinuous process where each frame is the result of a discrete creative act by an ephemeral divine agency.

The puzzle that you offered in the OP really is a very good analogy for the evidence and the different ways of looking at it, but it's not just the circles and their relationships that are the point of contention, but whether the pieces actually fit together in a single picture or not. Analysis of the fossil record can be seen as beginning a puzzle and finding areas where the pieces fit together, but that are yet unconnected to each other. The molecular data have brought us to the end stage of puzzle building, though, where we begin to connect smaller areas together into larger ones. We correct some of the mistaken guesses we made along the way, but as we do, we're realizing that we were right all along about what the overall picture looked like even as we fill in more details that we hadn't guessed at. It's the creationists, even the ones that you insist are scientists by some definition, that continue to insist that each puzzle piece is actually independent of its obvious neighbors and that the apparent picture as a whole is illusory. Your argument is that even as the puzzle is being assembled before your eyes, the pieces are still "consistent" with a discrete process that didn't actually start with a combined picture, but that God created each piece as a separate, independent action and it's effectively coincidence that they just happen to fit so perfectly together in a way that's "consistent" with a massive jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of thousands of pieces.

[Bust Nak]

The fossil record is everywhere discontinuous, how can you use that to insist that the process that led to the fossils was continuous?

I told you exactly why. We can do that because of its excellent fit for scientific predictions. As I keep restating in my last few posts, you need to look beyond mere consistency and instead look at fitness. I do have to ask though, what do you mean by "discontinuous" here? Surely you weren't expecting to see fossils of one animal in the process of giving birth, where the offspring is identifiably a different species to the parent; so why don't go to examples like horse fossil record count as continuous?

Later on, I read this in your exchange with someone else: "If you regard the fossil record or parts thereof as exhibiting continuity and I do not, then we can only leave it at that..." So it's only your interpretation that the fossil record is discontinuous? This seem to me, like it's rendered your challenge moot, it's not that the puzzle pieces are not showing overlaps, it's just your interpretation that there is no overlap.

The fossil record is consistent with a continuous process but equally consistent with a discontinuous process; in the same way the twenty jigsaw pieces is consistent with an overlapping model and a non overlapping model, you simply cannot prove from the samples which model is correct.

That's why we need to be careful about words such as prove or proof, in the scientific context. As they say, proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So tell me SH.....why are you here in a debate forum?

None of your business.

Okay....I literally laughed out loud at that (good thing I have the place to myself).

I'm here to engage in debates (because I enjoy debating and I like to write). So when I see someone make assertions about the fossil record (e.g., "exhibits discontinuity everywhere", "has no examples of gradual transitions") that I know are incorrect, I post information countering those assertions.

My expectation, because we're in a debate forum, is that the person who made the original assertion will either attempt to rebut the information or concede that the assertion was wrong. That's how debates work after all.

Clearly you and I are here for different reasons.

Your biased opinion changes nothing, my reasons for participating in the forum are none of your business, absolutely irrelevant.

You of course being on the back foot often when arguing with me, want these things to matter, you want my reasons for being here to matter, you want my religious views to matter, you want the books I read to matter.

It is a diversionary tactic for you, attack me on the basis of these factors because you cannot sustain polite discourse with me.

It is classic ad-hominem, arguing about the person themselves rather than the subject.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here, in a debate forum, your statement is tantamount to an admission that you have no argument.

Before I leave. This is the kind of accusation I mean. I have presented my arguments, my reasons for the views I hold, the record is accessible in the history. That these may have failed to change your opinion does not detract from that fact, that my opinion differs from yours is a fact of life. I have not done anything wrong just because you do not accept my arguments. The incessant attacks on me and my character my mental health and so on all because you do not like my views, is frankly disgusting.

1. I note that you haven't disputed my summary of Jose Fly's exchange with you. Does that mean that you accept it as reasonable?

2. You state that your opinion differs from mine (really Jose Fly's), but can you not agree that in a debate thread, there's an expectation of bringing more than just opinions? We're trying to understand very different worldview, sure - but unless debaters back up their opinions with some evidence or logic, none of us are going to progress in understanding.

3. You're not being accused of having done something 'wrong'. Regarding your posting style, there's been a claim that you 'duck out of' arguments (or simply ignore them), although to your credit, you did one time ask for a link to where you "may have missed" a particular point. As you say yourself, "the record is accessible in the history", so the most effective way to nullify that claim (of 'ducking') is to address the underlying argument.

4. "Incessant" is perhaps a rather strong term. What you perceived as one direct comment on your mental health was at least explained shortly afterwards. I'm neither a Moderator nor one of the involved parties, and my personal opinion on the matter is that the original comment didn't help further debate. That being said, I understand the best way to handle these types of thing is to either report the post concerned, or perhaps to address the poster by way of private message. You may well have already done this, of course - but bringing it up in the thread again in the way you did is more likely to aggravate, rather than conciliate. It's hard to let a perceived slur pass, but this forum has good (IMHO) mechanisms for addressing them.

5. It's not especially clear from the fact that you chose to reply to me that your disagreement stems from an exchange with someone else. I've never impugned your mental health

6. You're the 'lone voice' on the other side here. No dishonour in pointing that out from time to time, as there have been a few different aspects to the original thread's point to address.

More ad-hominem, look if you really feel I'm an insincere debating opponent then ignore me, I could speak volumes myself and express personal opinions about several people here, but that's not how a mature adult debates in my experience.

If I were to do the same to you or Jose as you and he are now doing, what would we have? endless name calling, "he said she said", character attacks and so on, it would descend into madness and lead nowhere.

Perhaps some desire me to get exasperated, then I like you will launch an ad-hominem attack and then get dragged over the coals by the moderator and perhaps reprimanded or even banned - perhaps that's what some here seek to accomplish?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Please just look, this very thread was progressing with polite exchanges, different views yes, but it was moving along until this post - a clear unmistakable personal attack and insult:

Wow.....I'm at a loss. This is where I start to question why I bother to do this. Part of me thinks I'm just picking on people who struggle with mental health issues, which I don't believe is ethical.

I ask (but don't expect to get an answer...) is that a polite reasoned relevant response to what I wrote? of course it isn't.

If someone demands to know which books I've read on genetics and I refuse to answer, is that really to be highlighted as a failure on my part? is that really me "ducking out"? Of course I am not going to answer questions that are immaterial to the subject and sadly a great many often are here.

The thread is all but lost now, just another name calling hangout, a character assassination, accusations, insults.

[Tcg]

Please just look, the thread was progressing with polite exchanges, different views yes, but it was moving along until this post - a clear unmistakable personal attack and insult:

Wow.....I'm at a loss. This is where I start to question why I bother to do this. Part of me thinks I'm just picking on people who struggle with mental health issues, which I don't believe is ethical.

I ask (but don't expect to get an answer...) is that a polite reasoned relevant response to what I wrote? of course it isn't.

If someone demands to know which books I've read on genetics and I refuse to answer, is that really to be highlighted as a failure on my part? is that really me "ducking out"? Of course I am not going to answer questions that are immaterial to the subject and sadly a great many often are here.

The thread is all but lost now, just another name calling hangout, a character assassination, accusations, insults.

Moderator Comment

Another reminder about rule 17 which states:

17. Do not comment on any rule infractions made by others. Ignore any rule violations made by others and only respond by reporting it to the moderators.

Please return to discussing the issues rather than rehashing your complaints publicly.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jose Fly]

Your biased opinion changes nothing, my reasons for participating in the forum are none of your business, absolutely irrelevant.

Okay. Like I said, I'm here to engage in debates. But that doesn't seem to be the case for you, which is fine.

You of course being on the back foot often when arguing with me, want these things to matter, you want my reasons for being here to matter, you want my religious views to matter, you want the books I read to matter.

It is a diversionary tactic for you, attack me on the basis of these factors because you cannot sustain polite discourse with me.

It is classic ad-hominem, arguing about the person themselves rather than the subject.

No, it was more about the disconnect between my purposes for being here, my assumptions about why you're here, and your actual reasons for being here. I'm here to debate, and since this is specifically a debate forum I assumed you were here for the same reason. Obviously I was mistaken, which led to some issues.

If you ever feel like engaging in a debate, I'm willing to do so. In the meantime, I will stop assuming you are here to debate.

[Jose Fly]

I believe it was Ken Miller who described the ID creationists' approach as "Seeing God in the darkness of our ignorance rather than in the light of our knowledge". I've always liked that.

I've met Dr. Miller. He has a very good (and occasionally pointed) sense of humor.

He certainly gives that impression in the videos I've seen him in. Seems like a pretty nice guy too.