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.
What you consider evidence is very different from what someone else considers evidence. For you, scripture may be man-made; the form of the world may be created by natural selection; religious experiences such as feeling the presence of God may be delusions or wishful thinking. Religious people do not base their beliefs on lack of evidence. They believe they have the evidence. Their evidence may not satisfy you. Similarly, your evidence does not satisfy them...if it did, they would believe exactly the same as you do. Clearly, this isn't the case.
You're right. WE should develop a functional definition of "evidence" and proof, as well as clarifying that oft-misused definition of "theory"
(As in, the persistent and loud yelling from the scientifically illiterate that "Evolution's ONLY a THEORY!", suggesting it's some nefarious, half-baked assumptive early unproven hypothesis, versus the well documented, hard-evidence kind of stuff that's now overflowing in the global scientifically acquired knowledge bank!).
For me, evidence is the stuff you either happened upon by chance when it occurs right under your nose (like a UFO landing just as you turned on your new HD video camera, and the lighting's real good, and "they" walk out and say "Heh-Loh-Earth-ling!".)...
Or, alternately, you set up an experiment to provide support for, or against, your particular test hypothesis, and you honestly report the results, and your defensible conclusions. As well as the experiment's failures, if that's the case.
Or, you desperately hope your pre-determined ideas are valid, and thus you exclude anything that doesn't support them, and in addition insult those with a higher level of intellectual honesty who might differ based on rational logic. And then you call your stuff, verifiable or not, "good evidence".
Under that same category of incontrovertible "evidence", you also accept spiritual beliefs, testimonials from true believers absent any other corroborative "evidence", and what you ardently "feel". Sadly, such evidence is always contradictory (five different believers producing five or even ten completelydifferent versions, outcomes or consequences...), strongly indicating it's ephemeral and faith-based, as opposed to actual and verifiable, value.
Yep; we do need some hard and fast definitions, to be sure!
What you consider evidence is very different from what someone else considers evidence. For you, scripture may be man-made; the form of the world may be created by natural selection; religious experiences such as feeling the presence of God may be delusions or wishful thinking. Religious people do not base their beliefs on lack of evidence. They believe they have the evidence. Their evidence may not satisfy you. Similarly, your evidence does not satisfy them...if it did, they would believe exactly the same as you do. Clearly, this isn't the case.
We have a winner.
And I will add; how one interprets the evidence is a factor.
I know of several hotels in my area that are documented to be haunted. Spend a night in one and interpret your experiencial evidence.
One person will say this is proof of the spiritual world. The skeptic will call it one's imagination.
"no evidence" means there is not a single thing pointing that way.
It's a deeper question than that. What is this "thing's" agenda, motives, purpose for existence, costs, benefits, stylin' hat, or mascot?
I would be willing to bet we all devote time, effort and energy to something without evidence of it's truthfulness or actual value. Money is a prime example. It's just an accepted part of human nature.
You're right. WE should develop a functional definition of "evidence" and proof, as well as clarifying that oft-misused definition of "theory"
(As in, the persistent and loud yelling from the scientifically illiterate that "Evolution's ONLY a THEORY!", suggesting it's some nefarious, half-baked assumptive early unproven hypothesis, versus the well documented, hard-evidence kind of stuff that's now overflowing in the global scientifically acquired knowledge bank!).
For me, evidence is the stuff you either happened upon by chance when it occurs right under your nose (like a UFO landing just as you turned on your new HD video camera, and the lighting's real good, and "they" walk out and say "Heh-Loh-Earth-ling!".)...
Or, alternately, you set up an experiment to provide support for, or against, your particular test hypothesis, and you honestly report the results, and your defensible conclusions. As well as the experiment's failures, if that's the case.
Or, you desperately hope your pre-determined ideas are valid, and thus you exclude anything that doesn't support them, and in addition insult those with a higher level of intellectual honesty who might differ based on rational logic. And then you call your stuff, verifiable or not, "good evidence".
Under that same category of incontrovertible "evidence", you also accept spiritual beliefs, testimonials from true believers absent any other corroborative "evidence", and what you ardently "feel". Sadly, such evidence is always contradictory (five different believers producing five or even ten completelydifferent versions, outcomes or consequences...), strongly indicating it's ephemeral and faith-based, as opposed to actual and verifiable, value.
Yep; we do need some hard and fast definitions, to be sure!
Remember rifle...evidence can be direct, indirect, or circumstantial.
Also, I submit...some opinions are so categorically held, that they can be considered a fact.
For example...Beauty is obviously a subjective quality...it's purely a matter of opinion. BUT...Here is a scenario---There is a woman you have never seen. Her name is Rima Fakih (the new Miss U.S.A.). Most other people have seen her. You pose the question to a vast amount of them: Is Rima Fakih beautiful? So many would say, "Yes she is"...it would be enough of a consensus for you to determine that Rima Fakih is, in fact, beautiful...even though beauty is completely subjective. And if someone were to subsequently ask YOU--Is Rima Fakih beautiful?...you could say, "Yes she is."...with confidence you are correct in making that statement...even though you had never seen her yourself.
Even Ad pop can determine the merit of information under the right circumstances.
Plus, add to that...nothing is infallible. Regardless of how much you've tested...you could still be wrong. So, no "evidence" can ever be absolute.
Kinda makes me feel there is no such thing as "pure" evidence...only, "what we think is correct at this time".
i wanna ask why do u commit your life to your wife/husband. a perfect stranger before you got to know them. what is your evidence that they are worth committing for? do you need science to prove that they are worth spending the rest of your life with?
i wanna ask why do u commit your life to your wife/husband. a perfect stranger before you got to know them. what is your evidence that they are worth committing for?
If someone give you an imaginery spouse, would you commit to it? The person who gives you such imaginery spouse will collect
money from you on behave of the spouse.
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.
