Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[Evidence is] "an observation by man submitted in support of a proposition."
Why don't you just say simply "in support of the existence of a thing."
Remember the definition of evidence needs to be broad enough to include all cases in which the word "evidence" is applicable. And not all evidence is submitted to establish the existence of a thing. Some evidence is presented to establish that some event happened (or did not happen), or that two variables have a certain relationship (or don't have a certain relationship), or that someone is innocent (or guilty) of what they are accused of.
By the way, the statement, "this thing (fill in the blank) exists," is a proposition. So, using my definition, an example might be, "evidence is the observation of a spacecraft by man submitted in support of the proposition aliens exist".
If the proposition "aliens exist" is true, then aliens exist. In this example, the proposition is not "I think aliens exist", which if true would only establish that indeed I think aliens exist. A proposition is a statement.
From Merriam-Webster dictionary on the entry of proposition:
Quote:
1
a (1): something offered for consideration or acceptance :proposal(2): a request for sexual intercourse b: the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset c: a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
2 a: an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false b: the objective meaning of a proposition
3 : something of an indicated kind to be dealt with <the farm was never a paying proposition>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
A proposition is a thought in your mind, evidence is going to establish that you have a proposition in your mind that is true?
Okay, with all due respect, please expound.
Is it clear now?
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 07-24-2011 at 07:35 AM..
Here is a report of alien life, good for us to use for examining the mechanism of evidence.
Take this report of evidence of alien life found in meteorites.
[ By the way, Hueff, thing means everything, so an event is a thing that occurred, so also even a concept in the mind of a thinker; in brief I have said at least twice or even thrice that when I use the term thing in my definition of evidence as "Anything man knows leading him to know another thing," I mean in the most broadest embrace of thing as opposed to no thing. Thus thing in my definition includes events, concepts in man's mind, humans, words, whatever that is not no thing, in a few words, thing means anything that exists anyhow, anywhere, anytime which man can discourse about -- note however nothing is not anything man can discourse about strictly and directly but only improperly by reference to existing things. ]
I think this report is a useful example of evidence for us two to examine the mechanism how evidence operates, while waiting for GldnRule to make his presence here.
[ By the way, Hueff, thing means everything, so an event is a thing that occurred, so also even a concept in the mind of a thinker; in brief I have said at least twice or even thrice that when I use the term thing in my definition of evidence as "Anything man knows leading him to know another thing," I mean in the most broadest embrace of thing as opposed to no thing. Thus thing in my definition includes events, concepts in man's mind, humans, words, whatever that is not no thing, in a few words, thing means anything that exists anyhow, anywhere, anytime which man can discourse about -- note however nothing is not anything man can discourse about strictly and directly but only improperly by reference to existing things. ]
I think I am pretty aware of what the word "thing" means. And I think I have shown "at least twice or even thrice" why the word "proposition" covers every applicable possibility. I thought we were just going to go forward with the three definitions, if so, let's quit rehashing why you object to my word proposition and why I find "thing" not the best word to use.
Now in regards to the alien evidence, I am still unsure what you want me to do with it. You keep saying it the same way "examine the mechanism how evidence operates" and I keep telling you that I don't know what you mean by that. I guessed once and you said that actually what I provided was another example, so how about you go first?
Journal of Cosmology, 2011, Vol 13,
JournalofCosmology.com March, 2011
________________________________________
Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites
Richard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
Synopsis
Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.
Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. With one exception as it was off topic, all commentaries received were published on March 7 through March 10, 2011...
Here, I will try to determine what is the mechanism employed by Hoover whereby he infers from the existence of bacteria fossils in meteorites the existence of life outside earth.
1. The target which evidence is to substantiate the existence of (the target):
Existence of life outside earth,
2. The evidence substantiating the target's existence:
Bacteria fossils in meteorites.
The way I see it, there is a link between 1 and 2.
Hoover knows about bacteria fossils in meteorites (the evidence) which landed on earth, and he is of the idea (the target of the evidence) that there is life outside earth (target evidence is to substantiate the existence of); so his mind dawns on the link common between evidence and the target of the evidence, namely, bacteria, and he reasons thus: bacteria fossils on earth mean life on earth, bacteria fossils in meteorites from outer space fallen on earth from outer space mean life outside earth.
The mechanism how evidence operates is the linkage between evidence and the target evidence is to substantiate the existence of (the target).
So, when I read from GldnRule saying that anything can be the evidence of something, which is also my thinking from way back when I started to examine the whole question of what is evidence and how it operates, I was so impressed by his insight, because it is also what I am thinking all the time.
To put it in very brief plain clear simple words:
Anything can be the evidence of something if you can find the link between them.
Nozz says that evidence is a procedure, and that is also most insightful, indeed evidence is a procedure of finding the link between the evidence and the target evidence is to substantiate the existence of.
The mechanism of evidence how it operates is the ways and means by which our mind detects the link between the thing that is evidence and the thing whose existence evidence is to substantiate, namely, to establish that it is existing in objective reality outside concepts in our mind.
So I thought I have to learn what exactly is evidence, for if I do not know what is evidence how can I go forth into the universe to seek for evidence that substantiates the existence of God.
Like almost all terms in human vocabulary the term "evidence" varies depending upon which setting you are referring to. Obviously the term evidence has separate but related meaning in science versus in law.
Therefore you need to clarify what setting you are referring to.
Since I doubt you will do that or even worse be ridiculously verbose about it, I am going to presume you are referring to scientific evidence since that is what most atheists are looking for when they say "evidence of gods existence".
Evidence in science is a measurable (usually quantifiable as opposed to qualitative) piece of controlled data obtained via scientific methodology that can be replicated under the same conditions.
So evidence for god's existence would need to be both measurable and repeatable to start with.
I still submit that there is a generic concept of evidence and a generic mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Like almost all terms in human vocabulary the term "evidence" varies depending upon which setting you are referring to. Obviously the term evidence has separate but related meaning in science versus in law.
Therefore you need to clarify what setting you are referring to.
Since I doubt you will do that or even worse be ridiculously verbose about it, I am going to presume you are referring to scientific evidence since that is what most atheists are looking for when they say "evidence of gods existence".
Evidence in science is a measurable (usually quantifiable as opposed to qualitative) piece of controlled data obtained via scientific methodology that can be replicated under the same conditions.
So evidence for god's existence would need to be both measurable and repeatable to start with.
I still submit that there is a generic concept of evidence and a generic mechanism of evidence how it operates, that apply in all fields of human inquiry.
I invite you to give an example of evidence in law.
I still submit that there is a generic concept of evidence and a generic mechanism of evidence how it operates, that apply in all fields of human inquiry.
Submit? Based on what? You are trying to make a simple issue of differing definitions to a larger philosophical issue. Which it is not.
That is like claiming the word "read" does not have multiple definitions but has a larger generic mechanism blah blah blah.
Ignoring the FACT that some words have more than one meaning is ignorance at its finest. Notice the etymology between those two words??
Quote:
invite you to give an example of evidence in law.
First you ask for a definition, that when given you reject for no valid reason.
Then you ask for an example? To what end? So you can reject that as well.
If you are interested in an actual discourse that is fine, but you are doing the thing that irks scientists most, deciding on the answer to a question based on your feelings or opinion FIRST.
You FEEL that there is some sort of universal "mechanism" to evidence so reject FACTS (like the existence of multiple definitions for the same word). What exactly is the point to this thread if you are going to reject perfectly good definitions given to you?
Here, I will try to determine what is the mechanism employed by Hoover whereby he infers from the existence of bacteria fossils in meteorites the existence of life outside earth.
1. The target which evidence is to substantiate the existence of (the target):
Existence of life outside earth,
2. The evidence substantiating the target's existence:
Bacteria fossils in meteorites.
The way I see it, there is a link between 1 and 2.
Hoover knows about bacteria fossils in meteorites (the evidence) which landed on earth, and he is of the idea (the target of the evidence) that there is life outside earth (target evidence is to substantiate the existence of); so his mind dawns on the link common between evidence and the target of the evidence, namely, bacteria, and he reasons thus: bacteria fossils on earth mean life on earth, bacteria fossils in meteorites from outer space fallen on earth from outer space mean life outside earth.
The mechanism how evidence operates is the linkage between evidence and the target evidence is to substantiate the existence of (the target).
Hmmp. I'll tell you how I would say it. The observation of bacterial fossils in metorites was submitted by Hoover as evidence in support of the proposition that extraterrestrial life once existed. The "link" as you put it between the observation and the proposition is the argument. And the argument might go something like this, "The fossilized bacteria are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, and are not Earthly contaminants because they are found in fresh slices of the meteorites and fossils cannot form in meteorites during the short time the meteorites have been on Earth".
This idea that arguments are used to show how observations can support propositions (or "link" observations to propositions) is nothing new. All of this was known long before we ever started this thread. I sometimes feel like you are working so hard to think through this, and it has already been done. You strike me as intelligent, but not at all educated in this subject matter. You are inventing new definitions and new terms like "target evidence", that actually impede communication. But, I applaud the fact that you are at least trying to understand the concept of evidence.
We have differing opinions, withal we can still exchange thoughts further on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Submit? Based on what? You are trying to make a simple issue of differing definitions to a larger philosophical issue. Which it is not.
That is like claiming the word "read" does not have multiple definitions but has a larger generic mechanism blah blah blah.
Ignoring the FACT that some words have more than one meaning is ignorance at its finest. Notice the etymology between those two words??
First you ask for a definition, that when given you reject for no valid reason.
Then you ask for an example? To what end? So you can reject that as well.
If you are interested in an actual discourse that is fine, but you are doing the thing that irks scientists most, deciding on the answer to a question based on your feelings or opinion FIRST.
You FEEL that there is some sort of universal "mechanism" to evidence so reject FACTS (like the existence of multiple definitions for the same word). What exactly is the point to this thread if you are going to reject perfectly good definitions given to you?
I give my opinions and you give yours.
On the basis of your opinions and my opinions we can still have the possibility of exchange to come to a concurring view on some specific aspects of our differing opinions, can't we?
You say that evidence has different meanings in different settings, I hear you.
I say that just the same there is a generic concept and a generic mechanism in evidence in all fields of human inquiry.
So, that is how you and I differ.
By way of trying to get what is an example of evidence in law, so that I can see whether it has a common ground with evidence in science, I am asking you for an example of evidence in law.
That is where the exchange is at this point between you and me.
You do not accept the idea of a target of evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
[...]
You are inventing new definitions and new terms like "target evidence", that actually impede communication. But, I applaud the fact that you are at least trying to understand the concept of evidence.
You do not accept the idea of a target of evidence?
And I define the target of evidence as the thing that evidence is directed to, to substantiate the existence of the target.
May I then ask if you don't have a target of evidence as I define in the immediately preceding paragraph, how can you even look for evidence?
That is why I am always asking people who do talk about the need for evidence, first what is evidence according to their stock knowledge, and second to give examples of evidence, showing what is the target of evidence their each example of evidence is targeting to substantiate the existence of.
In the case of bacteria fossils in meteorites, that is the evidence; and the target of the evidence is the existence of life outside earth.
And the mechanism how evidence operates?
It is the mechanism of the human mind to see the link between bacteria fossils in life on earth and in life outside earth, namely, both bacteria on earth and bacteria in meteorites leave fossils, and bacteria are found on earth and bacteria are found in meteorites.
Ryrge
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is a report of alien life, good for us to use for examining the mechanism of evidence.
