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 submitted as support for an idea.
There you go, ten words. Eight words if you delete the first two.
I acknowledge the issue that was raised about the word observation, but I think the suggested replacement word "experience" is even more objectionable to me. Let me be clear by what I mean when I say observation: the noting of a fact or occurrence. This includes causal observations and scientific observations gathered methodically and/or with instruments.
I do not claim that observations are objective, or are beyond questioning. I think we should not only question whether an observation actually supports a claim, but also whether the observation itself is valid. Errors can be and often are made during observations.
An issue I have with many of the proposed definitions of evidence in this thread is I feel they fail to distinguish the difference between evidence and argument. An argument can be submitted in support of an idea, but that is not evidence. Evidence must be an observation (an observation of a stained dress in a criminal trial; an observation of a testimony given by a witness who in turn made an observation of a crime scene; an observation of a fossil). An argument is a point or series of reasons presented to support or oppose a proposition; it may cite evidence but it is not evidence itself.
I also object to the use of the phrase "something you know". I don't think people "know" half of what they think they "know". Saying you made an observation acknowledges that you could be mistaken. Claiming to know something suggests it is a fact and you could not possibly be wrong.
As in everything else, so also in evidence, don't forget man in relation to the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
[Ryrge says, (evidence is) anything man knows leading him to know another thing.]
A slight modification of your "short" definition, and I'm good, Ryrge.
"Anything known of, that could or does lead to the knowing of it or something else."
In your "short" definition, the knowledge actually has to lead to other knowledge to be "evidence". I feel that anything that has the potential to clue you in to something...is necessarily "evidence". Which then makes EVERYTHING "evidence".
EVERYTHING is "evidence" of SOMETHING...even if just itself.
"Evidence" is then anything and everything, both physical and conceptual, that could or does lead to the realization of it or anything else.
You say: "[Evidence is] Anything known of, that could or does lead to the knowing of it or something else."
I like to put man in the definition of evidence, because man is the concern of man in everything that man is and thinks and does and suffers also.
That means man is concerned with the whole universe where he resides in and is part and parcel of.
So, if I may, please reword your proposed definition of evidence above, to put man in it.
You also say: "EVERYTHING is "evidence" of SOMETHING...even if just itself."
Yes, that is a very from my own thinking insightful statement from you.
I agree with you completely, everything is evidence of something else even if just of itself.
But I like to hear of an example of a thing that is evidence of itself, of course you understand that, that thing that is evidence of itself is concerned with having evidence of itself.
Take human being, does he have to possess evidence of himself to be existing which evidence is himself existing?
Think about that.
First man must have evidence of himself to be existing from himself as evidence, then he can go forth and seek evidence of anything and everything in the unverse where he is residing in and part and parcel of to be existing on the basis again of evidence.
I am glad that we are getting to know the intricacies of the whole issue of what is evidence, and people should not be so quick to declare that there is no evidence or there is evidence for this or that whatever.
But first, we must come to a very short definition of what is evidence, then by way of getting to know what is evidence in all its as I said intricacies work on commenting on the short definition. that will make our work more orderly, more focused, and thus more fruitful.
Just develop the habit of few words but relevant and pithy ones, and of course plain, clear, simple ones.
I like to suggest that you put man in your definition of evidence and still make it short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Evidence is an observation submitted as support for an idea.
There you go, ten words. Eight words if you delete the first two.
I acknowledge the issue that was raised about the word observation, but I think the suggested replacement word "experience" is even more objectionable to me. Let me be clear by what I mean when I say observation: the noting of a fact or occurrence. This includes causal observations and scientific observations gathered methodically and/or with instruments.
I do not claim that observations are objective, or are beyond questioning. I think we should not only question whether an observation actually supports a claim, but also whether the observation itself is valid. Errors can be and often are made during observations.
An issue I have with many of the proposed definitions of evidence in this thread is I feel they fail to distinguish the difference between evidence and argument. An argument can be submitted in support of an idea, but that is not evidence. Evidence must be an observation (an observation of a stained dress in a criminal trial; an observation of a testimony given by a witness who in turn made an observation of a crime scene; an observation of a fossil). An argument is a point or series of reasons presented to support or oppose a proposition; it may cite evidence but it is not evidence itself.
I also object to the use of the phrase "something you know". I don't think people "know" half of what they think they "know". Saying you made an observation acknowledges that you could be mistaken. Claiming to know something suggests it is a fact and you could not possibly be wrong.
I like to suggest that you put man in your definition of evidence and still make it short.
I like to suggest that you put man in your definition of evidence and still make it short.
Ryrge
Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human.
I like the original better with it left unsaid but understood that each part is done by a human.
Nothing is evidence of anything including itself until a human uses it to support an idea. Evidence is not the "thing" itself; the thing becomes evidence the moment it is submitted by a human as evidence of something.
Evidence is not an objective characteristic of a thing. There would be no "evidence" if there were no humans. Everything would still exist, it just would not be evidence because no one would be trying to make a case with it.
Forgive me but can you reduce your new definition to just ten words or less?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human.
I like the original better with it left unsaid but understood that each part is done by a human.
Nothing is evidence of anything including itself until a human uses it to support an idea. Evidence is not the "thing" itself; the thing becomes evidence the moment it is submitted by a human as evidence of something.
Evidence is not an objective characteristic of a thing. There would be no "evidence" if there were no humans. Everything would still exist, it just would not be evidence because no one would be trying to make a case with it.
Forgive me but can you reduce your new definition to just ten words or less?
I have asked GldnRule to give an example of what she said that even a thing is an evidence of itself.
Is there anything known to man that is concerned with coming to an evidence of itself, so that it is itself the evidence for itself, and it is itself concerned with having an evidence which evidence is itself that substantiates its own existence.
Please understand the word thing in the most broad sense that you can imagine a thing to be, like a thing is anything that exists in objective reality or even just as a concept in the mind of man.
I agree with you however on everything that you expound on what is evidence.
Later, when we have cleared up all such preliminary matters which will hopefully give us the untangling of the intricacies of evidence, then we can all proceed to work on the mechanism by which evidence operates.
Forgive me but can you reduce your new definition to just ten words or less?
Forgive me, but you are starting to get annoying. I gave you a definition in 8 words, but then you asked me to put "man" in it, so I put "human" ("man" can be considered sexist) in it exactly where it needed to be and in every place it needed to be and now you want it in ten words or less again.
Sorry, but you requests are arbitrary, so I will not comply, take what I give you or don't. But, I refuse to accommodate your arbitrary requests anymore. If you are serious about discussing this topic, you can legitimately ask for clarification and you can make a substantive critique, but if you are serious, you will dispense with the arbitrary hoops.
Again, here is my 8 word definition of evidence, and if you want to you can mentally insert "by a human" after every other word:
Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human.
I like the original better with it left unsaid but understood that each part is done by a human.
Nothing is evidence of anything including itself until a human uses it to support an idea. Evidence is not the "thing" itself; the thing becomes evidence the moment it is submitted by a human as evidence of something.
Evidence is not an objective characteristic of a thing. There would be no "evidence" if there were no humans. Everything would still exist, it just would not be evidence because no one would be trying to make a case with it.
Hmmmmm...you are making me think, Hueff.
IMO the characteristic of everything being "evidence" is intrinsic.
The sun is illuminating...even if there were no living creatures to see it light things up. It is...because, it is.
Everything is "evidentiary proof" of it's own existence...even if there is no one assessing that issue.
The matter may not ever be considered...but that doesn't render it as nullified. IMO.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
There is no evidence for god except anecdotal "evidence" that cannot be tested EVER using a reasoned, sound and logical approach that anyone can assimilate and arrive at the same conclusion. This is why the theist has faith as it deals in the abstract and unseen aka fantasy.
To find god, you first have to believe, but to believe you must have faith, but only after you have believed will you get the gift of faith. Yeah, that sounds real logical and evidential.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
There is no evidence for god except anecdotal "evidence" that cannot be tested EVER using a reasoned, sound and logical approach that anyone can assimilate and arrive at the same conclusion. This is why the theist has faith as it deals in the abstract and unseen aka fantasy.
To find god, you first have to believe, but to believe you must have faith, but only after you have believed will you get the gift of faith. Yeah, that sounds real logical and evidential.
Circles much?
Seeker...I assume you haven't read all the posts in the thread from the beggining...since the OP had revised the title question, and directed:
"On the matter of relevancy, please just abstain already from God's existence, proof from evidence, etc.
Because God is now out of this thread, it was not my intention to bring in God's existence to prove by evidence, but just to give an orientation to the topic of the thread.
So, just keep to the generic concept of evidence, the kinds of evidence, and important, how it operates....."
Of course, you could post about "God's Existence" anyway, in spite of the OPs request...but I submit, that's kinda rude, in light of said request to abstain from it.
I can easily tell you that you may disregard all my outdrawn descriptions of how evidence is used/works or its various facets.
Hueffenhardt’s definition works quite well with me. And I would like to thank Hueff for crediting my concern about his word choice and his ample clarification. As well as his agreement with me upon the knowledge issue.
On the matter of the existence of the concept of “evidence” without thinkers, I wish to point out to you, Ryrge, that not all conceptual thinkers have to be human. And to GldnRule, I would have to say that “evidence” is a concept that only exists when there are thinkers. A rock is not evidence of itself; a rock is just a rock, by definition. In order for it to be evidence of itself it must be observed* by a thinking thing which wishes to use data of its apparent visual experience as support of the objective existence of the rock.
On further note, I wish to voice concern over the arbitrary word limit upon the sought definition of what evidence is and/or how it operates. Hueff’s lack of patience for your apparently biased moving of the goal posts is duly understandable.
In light of GldnRule’s comment upon things which stand as evidence of themselves and your question upon things which wish to substantiate their own existence, I would have to say that sense-data stand as evidences of themselves, or their “truth quality,” because they are true to each individual thinker that is able to experience the data through what we call our senses. Yet because it is through our senses, our senses must be included as shapers of what we perceive the data to be, in which case we only perceive “sense-data” not “real” data itself. Regardless of name or language, sights, sounds, pains, and other sensed “data” stand for their own validity, if not the validity of objective reality. The fact that you are experiencing sense-data is true by definition, if you are a thinking thing. And as it stands, to get to the second part of the paragraph’s topic, thinking things often seem to seek to try to validate their own existence (in objective reality, I suppose).
Moving to SeekerSA’s concern, I believe Ryrge has pointed out that he no longer wishes to debate the definition of evidence in respect to God’s possible existence. Though “you just have to believe and then you will believe” is a very round argument, I already pointed out before how evidence is mostly a personal thing, being highly subjective. So I would like to point out to you, SeekerSA, that anything can be disbelieved.
What a wonderful thread this turned out to be, though I had ample suspicions upon the ranting motives of the O.P. as it pertained to moderators. I’m glad they were exceptionally put to rest. And I thoroughly hope that Hueff dismisses his concern for Ryrge’s fairness (as I’m sure Ryrge is not acting maliciously or stubbornly confrontational) and those arbitrary limits and additions are disregarded.
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.
As in everything else, so also in evidence, don't forget man in relation to the universe.
