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.
Though I agree that science is a tool (tools are things, as are processes), and highly congratulate you on your astute observation of "projection" among some theists, science is very much a thing which contains processes and other "things" such as "notations". It is not just a process itself. Again, the word "essentially" is getting in the way of our agreement because personal preferences aren't objective. And this has always been identified as a major problem within academic philosophy, the meanings and use of language. Within the context of our scuffle: you and I are not agreeing on what it means to be a "thing."
I am not sure on what grounds to call it anything but a methodology. Just because it has internal procedures and notations. In fact science itself doesnt have much notation. Science is just a methodology. The areas in which that methodology is applied.... such as biology or engineering.... is what has the notation.
Now what I want to have from you is an explanation of why you were unaware that eyewitness testimony happens in courtrooms. Or, if you were aware of it, an explanation of why you needed someone else to provide a specific example of it for you.
Here is your short definition of what is evidence:
Observation in support of a proposition.
And here is my short definition of what is evidence:
Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
I said already that your definition is applicable in the laboratory and in the post-graduate classroom.
And my definition is intended to be accessible to man in the street, and I submit that it is broader than yours.
So, you submit that your definition is broader than mine. Please give an example of evidence that your definition could handle that mine could not. Remember if the proposition "aliens exist" is true, then aliens do in reality exist.
Oh, and by the way my short version of my definition is:
An observation submitted in support of a proposition.
What does it matter? Eyewitness testimony in an of itself is an example of legal evidence.
Quote:
Testimony is one kind of legal evidence, there is also documentary evidence, and there is the object or real evidence.
So you admit there are different kinds of evidence? Then what is the point of this increasingly asinine thread?
Obviously testimony is different and distinct from scientific evidence. End of story.
Quote:
Evidence in law is the most practical and important usefulness of evidence in human society.
Again, that is your personal opinion and NOT FACT.
Quote:
There is the law of evidence and the rules of evidence.
And correct me if I am mistaken, from stock reading evidence the word itself first appeared in English in the sphere of law, in particular in the determination by society on who is entitled by right to what, and also who is to be punished for what transgression or omission in society.
Wrong again. The legal definition did not appear until 1500 or so and was likely used from the french or latin in English well before then
"evidence." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 25 Jul. 2011.
Please give to readers here a concrete specific example of testimony-evidence, for example.., but you are the one I am requesting for a concrete specific example of evidence in the category of testimonial evidence.
[/quote]
Nope. The purpose of the OP was to attempt to show that there was only one type of evidence. By your own omission that has been shown to be false.
I have no further interest in your moving of goal posts.
So, evidence is an observation submitted as support of a proposition, often accompanied by arguments that show how the observation supports the proposition. Now what?
I see two main reasons why some people don't end up believing a proposition is true:
1) issues with the evidence; and
2) issues with the arguments.
Issues with the evidence might include concerns with the source of the evidence, assumptions that were made about the evidence, the validity of the evidence, the accuracy of the evidence, the objectivity of the evidence, etc.
Issues with the arguments might include concerns with logical fallacies, non sequiturs, false assumptions, etc.
So, are we ready to discuss why we atheists don't find the evidence and arguments submitted by theists in support of god's existence convincing or persuasive?
So, are we ready to discuss why we atheists don't find the evidence and arguments submitted by theists in support of god's existence convincing or persuasive?
Sure. Any evidence that a theist has about the existence of God is neither measurable nor repeatable. Don't even get me started on falsifiable.
Now what I want to have from you is an explanation of why you were unaware that eyewitness testimony happens in courtrooms. Or, if you were aware of it, an explanation of why you needed someone else to provide a specific example of it for you.
Please just read your link and locate which witness exactly is testifying to what thing exactly, that is what I mean by an example of a witness' testimony.
Here is what I would consider an apt account of a witness' testimony as an example of legal evidence:
Witness John Doe states that he saw his neighbor Jane Dee enter the garage of the home in front of them both John Doe and Jane Dee and drove away with the car of their neighbor owner of that car, namely, one Jacob Dodge.
Please you yourself read your link and give me your account as per paragraph immediately preceding from me above for an example of a witness' testimony which is supposed to be an example of legal evidence.
Okay?
Besides, I am not asking you, but someone else, ikb0714, just the same you can answer for him.
If you find my messages verbose, sorry, I sympathize with you, but that is my way of writing to make my thoughts clearly obvious to readers specially when it has to do with exchange of thoughts.
And still I am sorry that atheists do not get my point but give me the impression that they are talking past my point instead purposely to evade the issue.
So, let us just be patient, and never suffer impatience to conquer our good intentions in the exchange of thoughts, so that communication at all costs will proceed clearly, etc., etc., etc., etc.
If you think that your definition is more broad, I can accept your valuation of course, if you insist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
So, you submit that your definition is broader than mine. Please give an example of evidence that your definition could handle that mine could not. Remember if the proposition "aliens exist" is true, then aliens do in reality exist.
Oh, and by the way my short version of my definition is:
An observation submitted in support of a proposition.
I am saying that my definition of what is evidence is more broad than yours, you cannot accept that?
Well, in which case I will grant you that your definition is more broad than mine, in your own estimation, is that okay now with you?
Let us not be kids that must be insistent in my whatever being more or less than your whatever, everyone to his own valuation in his own estimation or verbalization of the valuation however subjective the valuation as the verbalization.
Now, you want me to convince everyone that aside from subjective valuation, I must prove that the proposition is true objectively, etc., etc., etc., etc.
In which case I will just tell you that you are being petulant, that is my subjective valuation.
Just the same, you just continue to use your definition and I continue to use my definition, and let the readers just use both or one or neither of our definitions, for they might and certainly could have their own definitions in their own wording, which to themselves is the best for their own subjective purposes.
Summing up: if I may, you and I we have provided two short definitions for readers to think about and use as occasion dictates, or ditch.
Or you want now to go into a poll on the posters of this forum?
That is your call.
While you are considering all these matters, I am looking for another example of what is evidence: to examine to determine where is the evidence, what is the target of the evidence, and how or what is the mechanism how evidence operates.
I will present the next example of evidence in my next message here, and you are invited to join me in the examination for the three objectives stated above.
Ryrge, I have never seen so many words used to say so little. Not only are your posts empty of meaning, but they are also confusing to read...In my opinion this is evidence of an empty or a confused mind.
You are bereft of rhetorical devices, but not to worry, there is hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Ryrge, I have never seen so many words used to say so little. Not only are your posts empty of meaning, but they are also confusing to read...In my opinion this is evidence of an empty or a confused mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Ryrge, I have never seen so many words used to say so little. Not only are your posts empty of meaning, but they are also confusing to read...In my opinion this is evidence of an empty or a confused mind.
You are bereft of rhetorical devices.
But since you get to know the very little from the many words I say, congratulations, you are not far from coming to enlightenment from me.
Ryrce
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.
Please give the particulars from your link of an example of a witness' testimony.
