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.
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
That is a very much needed spiritual message, appreciate it, but will you join the thread?
Still with your three steps there is no mechanism of how evidence operates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
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.
Still with your three steps there is no mechanism of how evidence operates.
Suppose we join together to work on the insight of GldnRule that anything can be the evidence of something, even of itself.
Let us first agree on an example of evidence also very important stating what is the target of the evidence which is to support the thing or as you put it the claim (i.e., the thing claimed), then work backward to see how they are related the thing claimed and the evidence supporting the thing claimed.
I have given the example of a man all alone hearing big noise behind him indicating that a huge heavy rock is rolling toward him, and he knows right away that there is danger to him, so he starts quickly to run away for dear life.
If you cannot accept that as an example of evidence (big noise etc.) and the target of the evidence (danger to life), then please propose an example from your own experience or thinking or reading or accounts from other people.
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.
Science is not a process, if that is what you mean by "methodology." There are processes within science, yes. But science is a natural philosophy (an idea/thing) which maintains that observations, reputable notations, and inductions are the best way to be closest to objective truth. Again, as I think me and Hueff agree, the steps you are stating are the steps of a "rational argument" not of "evidence." The steps of the rational argument call for the USE of evidence in step two, but they do not further define what evidence is other than one facet of how it might work. Your definition of evidence, as I bolded it, is highly agreeable, if not for how subjective the word "supports" is.
Though your overuse of the word “agenda” in one of your posts had me seriously questioning your sanity… I am saving this thread, not because of anyone, but because of Hueff’s contributions.
Evidence is “an experience that is noted (obviously by a thinking thing) in support of a proposition” (also 10 words, lol).
Where does that definition not apply? [Edit - in light of Nozz's wakeup call: evidence is "anything noted in support of a proposition" (7 words); it doesn't just have to be an experience I suppose, an idea can be attemptedly used in support of a proposition too]
Of course, I was fully aware that some would reject the word “experience” for a more scientific word like “observation;”
while others would pounce on it to support personal propositions;
and that is why I chose that word, to move this thread forward to where it was always meant to go (as I concluded upon the O.P.).
But I am less a scientist than an makeshift philosopher; so the word “experience” is preferred by me over the word “observation” which jumps to the conclusion that things experienced are physically real, or that all “experienced things” are seen by the eye, which they don’t have to be.
And you can make fun of me for being one of those “very deep philosophers who doesn’t care to join human society;” I chose truth over thoughtless ease. And though more “down to earth/natural philosophers” may pretend that my positions are absurd, all they do is lie to themselves for the ease of it.
I don’t need to lie to myself in order to join human society. I think, therefore I am: agnostic. It is because I think… that I can never be certain of anything other than that.
And if God doesn’t/can’t doubt, then it is not a fully thinking thing. And though being a more fully thinking thing (having the ability to doubt) might be an imperfection, I highly doubt it.
But in more topicful terms, my prior definitions for evidence are highly irrelevant, since Hueff explained his terms in an agreeable fashion for me.
Other than pretending that humans are the only things that can grasp concepts, I have no objections with your definition either, as long as it agrees with mine: that we say we “know” things, simply for the ease of it (not that ease is a bad thing; I sometimes find it rather useful).
Quote:
[Next]… go to the mechanism how evidence operates or give more examples of evidence and explain.
I do not wish to seek examples right now. Either way, I and others have already started to give mechanisms; plus, I do not want to go finishing through this thread for them right now… perhaps later.
Perhaps if you were more specific on what you mean by “operates” then I will feel I have not answered such ponderings already.
...
Yes, you talk about: Indications, targets, and resolutions… but where is the “truth qualia” in all of that? Even though there might be many anecdotal examples and objective samples, there is no “absolute certainty” within any of that. Though I do see certainty in that which is true by definition, such as: “there are exactly 2.54 cm in 1 inch” or “I think fully (I can doubt), therefore I am: agnostic.”
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-22-2011 at 06:17 PM..
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?
YES to your first line. Your task IS to make others see that it supports your claim.
As for your second line... normally you do not have to ask. People will normally be all too willing to tell you why your evidence does not support your claim without you needing to ask.
Science is not a process, if that is what you mean by "methodology." There are processes within science, yes. But science is a natural philosophy
Science essentially is a methodology yes. It is not a "thing". Science is a methodology more than anything else. It is the methodology of collating data, postulating a hypothesis that fits that data, and forming from that hypothesis a "Theory" by means of testing, experiment and prediction, followed by peer review.
It is comical to read theists on a forum like this talk about how "science can not prove this" or "science was wrong about that" or "let me see science do the other". Science can not be right, or wrong, or discover anything any more than a hammer can build a house!
Science, like the hammer, is a tool.... a tool that humans use to discover and progress. To treat it as anything but a tool... a methodology.... is to mistake what it is. Theists straw man it almost in god like terms. Like their god they talk about science as if IT does the discovering, or the thinking or the progress. So wrapped up in their external projections towards a god are they, that they talk of our science in the same terms.... as if it was an external entity doing the work for us, and in which we place our faith...... rather than a simple mindless tool that we use like any other to find our way in this world.
Science essentially is a methodology yes. It is not a "thing". Science is a methodology more than anything else. It is the methodology of collating data, postulating a hypothesis that fits that data, and forming from that hypothesis a "Theory" by means of testing, experiment and prediction, followed by peer review.
It is comical to read theists on a forum like this talk about how "science can not prove this" or "science was wrong about that" or "let me see science do the other". Science can not be right, or wrong, or discover anything any more than a hammer can build a house!
Science, like the hammer, is a tool.... a tool that humans use to discover and progress. To treat it as anything but a tool... a methodology.... is to mistake what it is. Theists straw man it almost in god like terms. Like their god they talk about science as if IT does the discovering, or the thinking or the progress. So wrapped up in their external projections towards a god are they, that they talk of our science in the same terms.... as if it was an external entity doing the work for us, and in which we place our faith...... rather than a simple mindless tool that we use like any other to find our way in this world.
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."
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-22-2011 at 06:42 PM..
...I do not wish to seek examples right now.
[...]
Unless Ryrge:
what you are actually seeking is a counter-example, such as: "there is, in fact, no rock rolling behind the thinker; and instead he was confused by the flapping of a bird's wings" (or "butterfly's wings" if you want it to be more traditionally philosophical, thanks Kung Futzi )
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-22-2011 at 06:59 PM..
Dear Luminous Truth, please give me an example of evidence.
[...]
As Hueff pointed out, convincing evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Evidence, however, is in the eye of the presenter.
Even though I said I wouldn't:
Evidence: I can see myself reading and writing these words,
Conclusion: I am reading and writing these words,
In this case, we went from the experienced evidence to an assumed truth.
But there is also the "logic that follows": all literature that is written this way is considered inferior, this literature is written that way, therefore this literature is considered inferior.
Or the "proposed definitions": I was told blue is a color; I was also told yellow is a color, therefore (by the meaning of the word "type") blue is a type of color.
Quote:
I was asking you, Luminous, whether there is anything at all not subjective in man's knowledge and discourse?
I don't believe so, no. until we can merge our minds together as one, we won’t know truthfully about "objective things" such as love or what perception (not color, it’s pretty yellow by definition) the sun actually shines, if any objective individual qualia at all. And even if we merge all existing thoughts as one, they would not be "objective" per say, if objective means "truthful and real." objective is usually taken to mean "physically existent" however. So by scientific standard, the perception of a rock for which all conceptually thinking and sensing things can perceive is "objective." For ease of thought, of course.
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.
Still with your three steps there is no mechanism of how evidence operates.
)