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.
As I said already, it is good to have a short definition so that everyone can be focused, provided that short definition conveys the bare essence of the concept.
And my idea is that if we proceed with already a short text, and give our comments on it, and of course revise the short definition as we go forth, it is more fruitful than if no definition is ever given formally and succinctly and everyone just talks and no one is concerned with whether the talk is getting anywhere to a consensus on the issue or to an agreement to a definite impasse.
Ryrge
And who appointed you arbiter of what is or is not acceptable as a definition?
Hueff's definition is more than ample without the word "human" or "man" in it, IMO.
I said already to disregard the phrase, in re God's existence.
And I repeated already several times that I am not into proving or disproving God's existence.
Let us all at this point examine ourselves, are are interested in the topic, What is evidence, or we are opposed to the topic and thus to the question, What is evidence.
Because if you are opposed to this question, then I am asking why.
Perhaps you don't like the way I am doing it here as the author of the thread, then tell me how I should conduct it, okay?
Anyway, let us all be calm and just work on what is evidence, not bringing in the question or even the mention of evidence from theists or atheists on the existence of God.
And I apologize for also reacting to perhaps one poster here on his post about his relevancy here even on the matter he wrote about of evidence for God, if I get him correctly.
That is also his right and my sense of courtesy.
Ryrge
07-22-2011, 03:48 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
A number of people have given you plenty to work with - what's the problem? If you are not satisfied then stop asking and give your own summation and move on - GAWD it is getting annoying.
A number of people have given you plenty to work with - what's the problem? If you are not satisfied then stop asking and give your own summation and move on - GAWD it is getting annoying.
You all must not remember his 9 thousand page thread trying to get everybody to agree to his definition...."Maker of everything having a beginning"
No, I am no arbiter but a prompter of definitions, yes; and yes there are directions we are pursuing now.
No one has appointed me arbiter on definitions, but as a poster and the author of this thread I am proposing that we all work on a consensus on what is a acceptable short definition of what is evidence and then also as we go along revise it as necessary.
Yes, I am moving on.
Will you now think about how evidence operates, namely, the mechanism?
And also give more examples of evidence, so that with more examples we can get more coverage of evidence and thus get more fields of human inquiry where evidence is in demand?
I am now talking with GldnRule about her insight that anything is evidence for something, suspecting that, that is the key to the mechanism on how evidence works.
Now, if I can only keep GldnRule interested in her insight.
To everyone, please give examples of evidence and also very important, what is the target of evidence which evidence is to substantiate.
Paging GldnRule, please talk to me.
Anyway, if you care to, where do you think this thread should go into now?
But of course if you want it to be dumped you can take that up with the authorities here, I for one am interested in pursuing it because we have not come to the consensus on what is a generic concept of evidence that is applicable to all fields of human inquiry where evidence is sought for to substantiate things in need of substantiating.
You might insist that there is no universal generic concept of evidence, so this thread is futile.
That is your opinion, do you have (laugh now) evidence?
GldnRule says something which I can see to be very insightful on the issue of what is evidence, namely, that anything can be evidence of something, even of itself.
I suppose that would be right; specifically dealing within the realm of experience. And that is why I said that evidence is highly subjective.
Quote:
That is the key to the mechanism of how evidence operates.
how so? Are you agreeing that for evidence to exist there must exist a "thinker" that thinks about it?
Quote:
But as regards a thing being evidence of itself and itself being concerned about evidence of itself, I said to Hueff that thing for me means anything at all, and that includes human being, or a concept in the mind of man.
yes I suppose, but English isn’t a perfect language, words have various meanings, and in school I learned that persons, things, places, and ideas were different concepts. So if we are to use the word “thing” it must come with an asterisk explaining that it is the broad encompassing definition.
Quote:
I have in mind that man is also concerned with evidence for his own existence, and someone has come to the thought that man is himself the evidence to himself for his own concern of his own existence of himself as evidence of his own existence.
Consider the thinker who says, "Cogito ergo sum."
Oh… it has been considered. The implication of the philosopher was actually a bit broader: that any individual thinking thing’s thoughts are self-evident truths, as it relates to them. In less broad terms, our physical existence is only experienced as sense-data. So our physical existence is not a self evident truth. Our existence in general, however [in this case defining our identity with our general thoughts (feelings and senses included)], is obvious; since it is true by definition. Since I think, I exist… if only as thoughts. “Cogito ergo sum” -> “I think, therefore I am.” What a bland statement; a relic of human thought; an unfinished statement; a fraction of the fundamental truth. But I digressed; this fraction of truth is quite subjective, in very much the literal sense, since we all appear to be separate individuals.
Quote:
As regards…
For example the definition of what is man in two words is rational animal, that says everything that is the essential barebone of man, compared to whatever volumes of words that can be said and still miss the essence of man.
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to dishumble ourselves “a rational animal.” Perhaps one that pretends to have the ability, yes. Or one that partially has the ability, perhaps. I prefer the word human over “man” of course. Having the ability to be "rational" or think conceptually, and seemingly belonging to the animal kingdom, hardly begin to describe what it means to be human. So a more specific and descriptive definition might be necessary. Some concepts are too complex and important to be unfairly striped of their characteristics. For example: the barebones is not what it means to be a body. I’m sure that “conceptually thinking bodies” are a dime a dozen in our universe. Furthermore, what it means to be the “essence” of something is highly subjective, and is more in the realm of art preferences then in truth qualia.
...
I highly agree with Hueff, however. What Nozz seems to be putting forward is the process of a rational argument which uses evidence, not the definition of evidence itself.
...
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-22-2011 at 05:43 PM..
Will you now think about how evidence operates, namely, the mechanism?
And also give more examples of evidence, so that with more examples we can get more coverage of evidence and thus get more fields of human inquiry where evidence is in demand?
Again> Evidence is not a thing, it is a process. Just like science is not a thing, it is a methodology.
Evidence can be ANYTHING that supports your claims. IT really is that simple. Again:
1) State your claim making it clear what you are claiming.
2) List what you think is evidence.
3) Explain exactly how anything you say in step 2 supports what you claimed in step 1.
Is there anything at all that is not subjective with human knowledge and discourse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Originally Posted by Ryrge
GldnRule says something which I can see to be very insightful on the issue of what is evidence, namely, that anything can be evidence of something, even of itself.
I suppose that would be right; specifically dealing within the realm of experience. And that is why I said that evidence is highly subjective.
[...]
Is there anything at all that is not subjective with human knowledge and discourse?
I like very much to continue with you on your insight that evidence is highly subjective, because this issue is crucial to the crafting of a generic concept of evidence that is applicable in every field of human inquiry where evidence is demanded by people who do demand evidence.
YES! "Evidence can be ANYTHING that supports your claims. IT really is that simple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Will you now think about how evidence operates, namely, the mechanism?
And also give more examples of evidence, so that with more examples we can get more coverage of evidence and thus get more fields of human inquiry where evidence is in demand?
Again> Evidence is not a thing, it is a process. Just like science is not a thing, it is a methodology.
Evidence can be ANYTHING that supports your claims. IT really is that simple. Again:
1) State your claim making it clear what you are claiming.
2) List what you think is evidence.
3) Explain exactly how anything you say in step 2 supports what you claimed in step 1.
It really is as simple as that.
YES! "Evidence can be ANYTHING that supports your claims. IT really is that simple."
The task then is to make others see that your evidence supports your claim.
If they don't then you ask them why?
And from their answers to your question why, you look for the kind of evidence that is evidence to them that supports your claim.
Or you ask them what then is evidence for them, and use their concept of evidence to look for evidence and show them that on their concept of evidence your claim is supported by the evidence you do have which is in accordance with their concept of evidence.
Theres nothing more comical, humorous, and grotesque for humans to believe we are the only ones in the universe...Do you believe in magic? Does something come from nothing? Why is it that you have the remote ability to even question existence with an electro-physiological brain which isnt even the largest in the animal kingdom. How can a phsychologist study personality or the mind seperate from the brain. Why is it that only humans have personalities that enable them to know themselves and become personally "you". If science is the attempt of understanding physical reality, why is it that we are even able to attempt the understanding of the understanding of reality through philosophy.LOL. Science will lead you to a first cause and center of all things and energy, while true religion will link this first cause of science to the father of all beings/ personalities/ spirits. Speaking of the universe how is energy niether created or destroyed and how is the cosmos strung across gravity with god-like calculation and stability....where does gravity come from and how do you even begin to explain how nebulae form? Dont worry we are only human and these answers will come later. For now humble yourself dramatically
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.
Are you attracted or opposed to this thread?
