Popper, Confirmation, and Evidence (split from "Is religion being picked on?")

[Reg Prescott]

I think you are mistaken- (1) the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God.

 

(2) Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence.

(3) There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth.

If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it.

 

Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers.

Did you think that through before you asked?

 

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious. (I've numbered them for convenience)

 

 

(1) The definitions are clear enough? This is news to me. Please share these definitions with us so that those poor beleaguered souls who've spent decades trying to explicate the concept of "evidence" in science, and meeting very little success, might finally rest. It seems to me that "evidence" in science is simply that which people commonly regarded as being involved in the scientific enterprise call evidence.

 

 

(2) Well, that's one opinion. It's not the opinion of Karl Popper and his followers, though, who renounce inductive confirmation (evidence) altogether; after all, on their account, every Tom Dick and Harry (the Marxist, the Freudian, the Christian, the Muslim, the fan of fortune telling, the alien nut...) with a theory to hawk boasts a mountain of supporting evidence. Have a look at this summary:

 

http://schriftman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/what-is-science-what-is-pseudoscience-karl-poppers-solution/

 

"Popper’s emphasis on criticism stems from his rejection of the most straightforward criterion of demarcation, according to which scientific claims are special because they are confirmed by observational evidence and because they explain observations.

Kasser explains Popper’s view that pseudosciences, such as astrology, are chock full of appeals to observational evidence. Hence, Popper thought, observation is cheap. It is essentially interpretation of experience in terms of one’s theory. The pseudoscientist finds confirming evidence everywhere (for example, in the many case studies of Freud and Adler).

 

Furthermore, apparent counterevidence can be turned aside or even turned into confirming evidence by a clever pseudoscientist. Freud and Adler had ready explanations for any observational result. For Popper, no evidence falsifies a pseudoscientific claim and almost everything confirms it. As a result, Popper came to see the two standard virtues of scientific theories as explanatory power and confirmation by a large number of instances as closer to being vices than virtues.

 

Fitting the data well is, thus, not the mark of a scientific theory."

 

 

 

(3) I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement. Or a Hubble telescope on the roof. How about you?

 

 

 

The moral of the story here, boys and girls, is a familiar one. Ask ten people, including scientists themselves, what constitutes scientific evidence and you're likely to get ten different answers. Same goes for the agenda of science, the Scientific Method, and so on, and so forth. Each one is convinced there is a simple (it's clear!) answer to the question. he has it (of course!), and presumably anyone who has a different answer is just plain wrong (duh!).

 

A bit like religion if you think about it.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Jagella]

I think you are mistaken- the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God.

What are those definitions, and who defined them?

Depending on which god we are considering, it is often claimed that there is evidence. Mormons have their eyewitnesses to the gold tablets given to Joseph smith by an angel. Fundamentalist Christians have their Bible prophecies. Muslims have a Koran written by an apparently illiterate man.

I find none of this convincing, but I don't dismiss it out of hand either.

Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence. There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth.

That's the way it should be in my opinion.

If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it.

I agree that such intolerance is abhorrent, but haven't some atheists committed the same crimes against those who disagree with them?

Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers.

As far as I know, John Lennox has never killed an unbeliever.

In any case, I'm not saying that the religious are being picked on. I'm just investigating the claim.

Jagella

[Reg Prescott]

I'd like to add the following to my previous post:

 

 

 

Here's another quote from the link I posted above:

 

"He [Popper], instead, argued that Einstein’s theory was distinguished from those of Marx, Freud, and Adler by its openness to criticism. This provides the key to Popper’s solution to the problem of demarcation."

 

Well, well, well! If openness to criticism is what distinguishes science from the rabble, I'm wondering why I was just assigned another "-1" bad reputation point by a disgruntled reader, giving me a grand total of 26, when all I've done in these forums since joining a few weeks ago is present reasoned arguments, never being abusive to anyone.

 

What also is overlooked by the rabid button pushers is that I'm not even criticizing science; what I criticize is the exaggerated, unjustified, empty, or just plain untrue claims made on behalf of science by her overzealous and ill-informed supporters.

 

Would you rather we try our best to characterize science nicely? Or accurately?

 

If you feel my arguments are flawed, give the reputation button a much needed break and refute them - with reason. Please!

Edited October 29, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Jagella]

 

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious. (I've numbered them for convenience)

 

 

(1) The definitions are clear enough? This is news to me. Please share these definitions with us so that those poor beleaguered souls who've spent decades trying to explicate the concept of "evidence" in science, and meeting very little success, might finally rest. It seems to me that "evidence" in science is simply that which people commonly regarded as being involved in the scientific enterprise call evidence.

 

 

(2) Well, that's one opinion. It's not the opinion of Karl Popper and his followers, though, who renounce inductive confirmation (evidence) altogether, after all every Tom Dick and Harry (the Marxist, the Freudian, the Christian, the alien nut...) with a theory to hawk boasts a mountain of supporting evidence. Have a look at this summary:

 

http://schriftman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/what-is-science-what-is-pseudoscience-karl-poppers-solution/

 

"Popper’s emphasis on criticism stems from his rejection of the most straightforward criterion of demarcation, according to which scientific claims are special because they are confirmed by observational evidence and because they explain observations.

Kasser explains Popper’s view that pseudosciences, such as astrology, are chock full of appeals to observational evidence. Hence, Popper thought, observation is cheap. It is essentially interpretation of experience in terms of one’s theory. The pseudoscientist finds confirming evidence everywhere (for example, in the many case studies of Freud and Adler).

 

Furthermore, apparent counterevidence can be turned aside or even turned into confirming evidence by a clever pseudoscientist. Freud and Adler had ready explanations for any observational result. For Popper, no evidence falsifies a pseudoscientific claim and almost everything confirms it. As a result, Popper came to see the two standard virtues of scientific theories as explanatory power and confirmation by a large number of instances as closer to being vices than virtues.

 

Fitting the data well is, thus, not the mark of a scientific theory."

 

 

 

(3) I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement. Or a Hubble telescope on the roof. How about you?

 

 

 

The moral of the story here, boys and girls, is a familiar one. Ask ten people, including scientists themselves, what constitutes scientific evidence and you're likely to get ten different answers. Same goes for the agenda of science, the Scientific Method, and so on, and so forth. Each one is convinced there is a simple (it's clear!) answer to the question. he has it (of course!), and presumably anyone who has a different answer is just plain wrong (duh!).

 

A bit like religion if you think about it.

Great response! I love science, but I hate intolerance of differing points of view.

 

Jagella

[Strange]

Without meaning to be argumentative,

 

[ydoaPs]

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious.

Considering your objections are taking Popper as a serious contender, it looks like you're just being argumentative. Popper's theory bears no resemblance to actual scientific practice. If you ask scientists if they believe their theory is true, they'll often tell you "yes". Popper can't tell you whether or not something is likely to be true. Popper can only get rid of false ones. Well, not even that. Popper can only get rid of false programmes (see Duhem, Lakatos, or Quine for more explanation), even if the part associated with the actual theory is true.

 

Popper's account is just Modus Tollens.

 

Theory A implies observation B.

Rather than observation B, we observe an observation inconsistent with B.

Therefore theory A is wrong.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about whether or not any of the other theories are likely to be true. Popper gives absolutely no reason to trust well-tested theories. Yet, scientists do. Observation consistent with a theory does in fact make scientists trust their theory more.

 

Popper also can't account for the Lakatosian behavior of scientists. When we thought that we observed neutrinos travelling faster than light, the science community didn't just chuck the Standard Model. We still use it. Falsification alone underdetermines the truth value of the falsified theory because of holism. In Lakatosian terms, a theory is its hard core (the laws and whatnot of the theory) and an associated belt of auxiliary assumptions (like how many things are in the system under consideration). So, rather than tossing out the whole thing and never using the Standard Model again, the science community acted in a Lakatosian way: they checked the belt of auxiliary assumption. It turns out that there was a loose connection in the wiring. Popper can't allow for this. This is also how we discovered a few planets in our own solar system; our calculated orbits for the planets we knew about didn't match observation. Our best theories of astrophysics were falsified. Did we throw them out? No. We checked for more planets, and we found them.

 

As Dorling shows, probability theory has a firm place for Lakatosian scientific epistemology. But more than that, it tells you when to check the auxiliary assumptions and when to toss the hard core. Probability theory explicates Lakatos's positive and negative heuristics.

 

The probabilistic framework also lets us know when an experiment makes a theory more likely to be true. It explains why scientists trust well tested theories more than untested theories, even though, on Popper's account, there should be no difference in trust between a theory that is tested and unfalsified and a theory that has not been tested.

 

Popper doesn't look anything like science. It's not even a plausible contender. It never has been.

[John Cuthber]

 

Without meaning to be argumentative, John, I'd say all your claims above might most charitably be described as dubious. (I've numbered them for convenience)

 

 

(1) The definitions are clear enough? This is news to me. Please share these definitions with us so that those poor beleaguered souls who've spent decades trying to explicate the concept of "evidence" in science, and meeting very little success, might finally rest. It seems to me that "evidence" in science is simply that which people commonly regarded as being involved in the scientific enterprise call evidence.

 

 

(2) Well, that's one opinion. It's not the opinion of Karl Popper and his followers, though, who renounce inductive confirmation (evidence) altogether; after all, on their account, every Tom Dick and Harry (the Marxist, the Freudian, the Christian, the Muslim, the fan of fortune telling, the alien nut...) with a theory to hawk boasts a mountain of supporting evidence. Have a look at this summary:

 

http://schriftman.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/what-is-science-what-is-pseudoscience-karl-poppers-solution/

 

"Popper’s emphasis on criticism stems from his rejection of the most straightforward criterion of demarcation, according to which scientific claims are special because they are confirmed by observational evidence and because they explain observations.

Kasser explains Popper’s view that pseudosciences, such as astrology, are chock full of appeals to observational evidence. Hence, Popper thought, observation is cheap. It is essentially interpretation of experience in terms of one’s theory. The pseudoscientist finds confirming evidence everywhere (for example, in the many case studies of Freud and Adler).

 

Furthermore, apparent counterevidence can be turned aside or even turned into confirming evidence by a clever pseudoscientist. Freud and Adler had ready explanations for any observational result. For Popper, no evidence falsifies a pseudoscientific claim and almost everything confirms it. As a result, Popper came to see the two standard virtues of scientific theories as explanatory power and confirmation by a large number of instances as closer to being vices than virtues.

 

Fitting the data well is, thus, not the mark of a scientific theory."

 

 

 

(3) I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement. Or a Hubble telescope on the roof. How about you?

 

 

 

The moral of the story here, boys and girls, is a familiar one. Ask ten people, including scientists themselves, what constitutes scientific evidence and you're likely to get ten different answers. Same goes for the agenda of science, the Scientific Method, and so on, and so forth. Each one is convinced there is a simple (it's clear!) answer to the question. he has it (of course!), and presumably anyone who has a different answer is just plain wrong (duh!).

 

A bit like religion if you think about it.

 

1 the definitions of evidence are readily available in dictionaries.

Why are you pretending that it's not well defined?

2 Popper's best known assertion is that if it isn't testable, it isn't science. The tests are made against the evidence.

So the idea that Popper didn't think science was about evidence is bizarre.

3 you also don't have an understanding of the phrase "in principle"

but I do.

Great response! I love science, but I hate intolerance of differing points of view.

 

Jagella

How very unfortunate for you because reality can have an utterly unshakable intolerance of different points of view.

For example, my point of view is that if you step out of the top floor window of a sky scraper you are likely to die.

Reality goes along with me in practically every case where this has been tested.

presumably, you hate reality for this lack of understanding of different points of view.

 

Do you understand that some "points of view" are objectively just plain wrong?

Should I tolerate someone who thinks it's a good idea to sell vodka to school kids, or am I allowed to be intolerant of that point of view?

[Reg Prescott]

Considering your objections are taking Popper as a serious contender, it looks like you're just being argumentative. Popper's theory bears no resemblance to actual scientific practice. If you ask scientists if they believe their theory is true, they'll often tell you "yes". Popper can't tell you whether or not something is likely to be true. Popper can only get rid of false ones. Well, not even that. Popper can only get rid of false programmes (see Duhem, Lakatos, or Quine for more explanation), even if the part associated with the actual theory is true.

 

Now we're entering the realm of absurdity, I'm afraid. I spent many a long frustrating hour in another thread arguing -- alone! -- against a bloodthirsty pack who either explicitly asserted or implicitly endorsed one particular wolf's (patently absurd -- as your remarks above make clear) claims to the effect that science has nothing to do with truth (It's merely concerned with producing models that are empirically adequate, on their account).

 

Doubtless there are scientists whose only concern is generating empirically adequate models (most notably in quantum physics) with nary a care if their theories are true or not, but to advance this claim on behalf of all scientists in all times, places and disciplines is manifestly preposterous.

 

Take a look for yourself (see post # 66 for a summary of the objectionable claims)

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/page-1

 

 

Also, ydoaPs, you misrepresent me: I am not defending Popper's views. What I am doing is exposing deep confusions on issues such as evidence, the aims of science, the Scientific Method, etc., etc. Time and time again one member asserts in no uncertain terms what these things are -- as if there exists universal consensus on these matters and he could not possibly be wrong -- only to be flatly contradicted in another time and place by another member.

 

John Cuthber did precisely this with his claim -- "Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence" (see post 1 above). I'm pointing out that not everyone agrees; the agenda of science is anything but "clear". Popper and his followers claim the exact opposite: what distinguishes good science is amenability to falsification, not verification. On this account, if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific.

 

(Swansont, for one, apparently adds his personal imprimatur to the Popperian agenda with the following comments from post# 35 of the "Is Religion Being Picked On?" thread : "That's the problem, though. *Everything* is evidence for a supreme being. It's not a falsifiable proposition. Makes for weak prediction, too, except in very vague terms. Which is why it's not unfair to exclude it. It sucks at doing that job." The God theory, then, insofar as it lends itself only to verification but not falsification, "sucks")

 

And you, ydoaPs, have just provided us with yet another example. Why not first tell the hooligans in that thread I linked above that your considered opinion is that science has a great deal to do with truth (see red highlights), and then get back to me.

 

 

 

 

1 the definitions of evidence are readily available in dictionaries.

Why are you pretending that it's not well defined?

2 Popper's best known assertion is that if it isn't testable, it isn't science. The tests are made against the evidence.

So the idea that Popper didn't think science was about evidence is bizarre.

3 you also don't have an understanding of the phrase "in principle"

but I do.

 

 

Three things to say about that:

 

1. The lexicographer is an empirical scientist who reports on how words are used. It is not his duty to provide a philosophical explication of terms such as evidence. You're putting the cart before the horse, I'm afraid.

 

 

2. Bizarre or not, that's the claim. And Popper, with his doctrine of falsification as the mark of good science (contra your earlier remarks about verification being so), has been hugely influential among scientists. I'm afraid you'll have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with your characterization of the agenda of science.

 

Here's your claim again to remind you (see post 1 above) : Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence.

 

You did say "supported by evidence", right? Not "falsified by evidence".

 

 

3. Well, bully for you. I'll pray for enlightenment.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

And you've just provided us with yet another example. Why not first tell the hooligans in that thread I linked above that your considered opinion is that science has a great deal to do with truth (see red highlights), and then get back to me.

 

But that isn't what the highlighted section says.

 

I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what others say or simply enjoy twisting people's words just for the sake of creating an argument.

 

 

2. Bizarre or not, that's the claim. And Popper, with his doctrine of falsification as the mark of good science (contra your earlier remarks about verification being so), has been hugely influential among scientists.

 

You agree that his doctrine was about falsifying theories based on evidence and yet you deny that he considered evidence important. That is beyond bizarre.

 

So it seems that you are just as willing to misrepresent Popper (and other philosophers and scientists) as you are the statements of people on this forum. Or perhaps you don't actually understand much of the great chunks you quote in lieu of making an argument; maybe you just search for a few keywords hoping to keep stirring the pot.

I'm wondering why I was just assigned another "-1" bad reputation point by a disgruntled reader, giving me a grand total of 26, when all I've done in these forums since joining a few weeks ago is present reasoned arguments, never being abusive to anyone.

 

The usual reason that people rapidly accumulate a large number of negative points is because of their attitude rather than simply being wrong, for example. The sort of things that attract negative votes are: being unable to make a rational argument; being incoherent or contradictory; using logical fallacies, such as misrepresenting what people say; refusing to acknowledge factual errors; being tediously arrogant; repeating the same argument even after it has been refuted; and so on.

 

I'm sure none of these apply to you so I am also baffled as to the reason.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

 

(3) I don't have a particle accelerator in my basement. Or a Hubble telescope on the roof. How about you?

I don't, and yet it doesn't stop me from doing science. Nor for scores of thousands of other scientists. Nobody requested that you do a specific bit of science, so this is just an ineffective rebuttal.

 

[Reg Prescott]

 

But that isn't what the highlighted section says.

 

I don't know if you are actually incapable of understanding what others say or simply enjoy twisting people's words just for the sake of creating an argument.

 

 

You agree that his doctrine was about falsifying theories based on evidence and yet you deny that he considered evidence important. That is beyond bizarre.

 

So it seems that you are just as willing to misrepresent Popper (and other philosophers and scientists) as you are the statements of people on this forum. Or perhaps you don't actually understand much of the great chunks you quote in lieu of making an argument; maybe you just search for a few keywords hoping to keep stirring the pot.

 

The usual reason that people rapidly accumulate a large number of negative points is because of their attitude rather than simply being wrong, for example. The sort of things that attract negative votes are: being unable to make a rational argument; being incoherent or contradictory; using logical fallacies, such as misrepresenting what people say; refusing to acknowledge factual errors; being tediously arrogant; repeating the same argument even after it has been refuted; and so on.

 

I'm sure none of these apply to you so I am also baffled as to the reason.

 

 

To all it may concern,

 

The poster above has, for some weeks now, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, dedicated himself to a campaign of character assassination against myself. There's little I can do about this -- staff seem either unwilling or unable to intervene -- and I refuse to reciprocate the mudslinging of my assailant, not to mention the infantile but incessant broadside of "-1" reputation points (this site's substitute for a voodoo doll and pins?) . I also refuse to address said poster directly.

 

The purpose of this message is to alert other members, who may be unaware of the situation, such that they might be less inclined to accept this poster's scurrilous defamation attempts at face value.

 

Whether or not I stand guilty of -- inter alia -- arrogance, stupidity, habitually "twisting other people's words", gratuitous troublemaking, fallacious argumentation, rambling incoherently, and a thousand other alleged transgressions is a matter I hope you will each have the integrity to appraise impartially for yourselves.

 

Thank you

 

Colin

Edited October 31, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[iNow]

Answer the criticisms in a mature, reasonable, rational way. Ignore the meta, middle school, mediocre peripheral. The rest works itself out.

[Reg Prescott]

Answer the criticisms in a mature, reasonable, rational way. Ignore the meta, middle school, mediocre peripheral. The rest works itself out.

 

Time permitting, I'll address any criticisms as best and as honestly as I can. It may well be, in some or many cases, that I have no good answer to offer, after all, I'm not claiming any special expertise. What I've largely done so far is simply expose inconsistencies in and among other posters' comments, not push any agenda of my own.

 

What I won't do is address belligerent and abusive posters. I'm genuinely interested in learning and sharing information. I have no interest whatsoever in fighting.

[iNow]

So, in response to my suggestion that you focus more on content you do the exact opposite and focus on even more meta. I'd face palm, but I don't really care.

[Reg Prescott]

So, in response to my suggestion that you focus more on content you do the exact opposite and focus on even more meta. I'd face palm, but I don't really care.

 

Yes, you're right, that was silly of me.

 

I'd hereby like to apologize for my meta-meta-meta response (post 13) to iNow's meta-meta advice (post 12) regarding my meta-analysis (post 11).

 

My meta and meta-meta-meta were immature, irrelevant, deplorable, and should be disregarded.

 

His original meta-meta and subsequent meta-meta-meta-meta (post 14) were poignant, relevant, plorable, and stand as a paragon of, er, something.

 

All passengers are now requested to sit back and enjoy the rest of the flight.

 

Thank you for flying with Apathy Airlines

[Strange]

 

 

To all it may concern,

 

The poster above has, for some weeks now, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, dedicated himself to a campaign of character assassination against myself. There's little I can do about this -- staff seem either unwilling or unable to intervene -- and I refuse to reciprocate the mudslinging of my assailant, not to mention the infantile but incessant broadside of "-1" reputation points (this site's substitute for a voodoo doll and pins?) . I also refuse to address said poster directly.

 

The purpose of this message is to alert other members, who may be unaware of the situation, such that they might be less inclined to accept this poster's scurrilous defamation attempts at face value.

 

Whether or not I stand guilty of -- inter alia -- arrogance, stupidity, habitually "twisting other people's words", gratuitous troublemaking, fallacious argumentation, rambling incoherently, and a thousand other alleged transgressions is a matter I hope you will each have the integrity to appraise impartially for yourselves.

 

Thank you

 

Colin

 

 

Yeah, yeah.

 

That doesn't change the fact that the section you highlighted ("If you ask scientists if they believe their theory is true, they'll often tell you "yes"") does NOT say what you claim ("your considered opinion is that science has a great deal to do with truth (see red highlights)").

 

And that this is typical of your argumentative style.

 

But I will leave ydoaPs to explain that to you more clearly.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

 

 

2. Bizarre or not, that's the claim. And Popper, with his doctrine of falsification as the mark of good science (contra your earlier remarks about verification being so), has been hugely influential among scientists. I'm afraid you'll have to live with the fact that not everyone agrees with your characterization of the agenda of science.

 

Here's your claim again to remind you (see post 1 above) : Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence.

 

You did say "supported by evidence", right? Not "falsified by evidence".

 

 

This is rather like the old chestnut about absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

If, after years of looking at lots of experiments, none of which refutes a theory, it is reasonable to say that the evidence supports the theory.

Stirctly, what you have to say is that the evidence doesn't falsify the theory.

The point remains that the decision on whether or not to accept (strictly speaking, provisionally accept) the theory is based on the evidence.

 

Let me know when you find some actual evidence for God (or, if you like something that is inconsistent with His absence)

[Reg Prescott]

The atmosphere of acrimony under which this discussion is unfolding is unfortunate. There's no need for it. May we all please try to be civil to one another?

John, let's start with some basics, ok?

1. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in any god or gods. I don't believe there are good reasons for believing in them, at least in this day and age. I'm not defending religion and I'm not attacking science. It's my personal opinion that scientists have much better reasons than religious people for believing the things they do. That said, to hold yourself to one standard, and your adversaries to another, is simply unfair. Surely we can agree on this much? All I'm really asking from yourself, and everyone else, is consistency.

2. We must recognize that the word "evidence" is used in various ways. Peter Achenstein, for example, in his excellent "The Book of Evidence" identifies four distinct usages of the term in the domain of science.

Moving on...

Now, at the most basic level, if we simply take evidence (let's call it evidence1) to be "reasons for believing", we have no dispute to speak of. Scientists have their evidence, and the religious folks have theirs -- no one presumably believes what they do for no reason.

A claim such as "We believe we have good evidence" is entirely uncontroversial. On the other hand, when yourself, or anyone else, advances a claim of the form...

We have evidence; they don't

... clearly you're going beyond the basic interpretation of the term. Evidence (let's call it evidence2) has now apparently transcended mere reasons for belief, and an implicit appeal is made to an objective standard that your own evidence satisfies and theirs doesn't. I'd like to know what that standard is. Surely this is not an unreasonable request?

Is the standard simply science itself? If scientists say it's evidence then it's evidence?

If not, will you please begin by specifying for us the precise nature of the relationship between evidence2 and theory, so that all of us can determine for ourselves who has it and who doesn't. Afterwards we can carry on from there.

Thanks

(I can warn you in advance, if you're not already aware, that philosophers of science have labored over this problem for decades. Surprise, surprise -- they have not attained a consensus.)

[ajb]

We have evidence; they don't

 

... clearly you're going beyond the basic interpretation of the term.

Not that I want to put words in other member's mouths... there is no credible, consistent, repeatable and objective evidence for a God or gods. All 'evidence' that is offered by religion is anecdotal, personal and non-repeatable. Religion does indeed fall short of the 'believability' of science.

[swansont]

The atmosphere of acrimony under which this discussion is unfolding is unfortunate. There's no need for it. May we all please try to be civil to one another?

 

John, let's start with some basics, ok?

 

1. As I made clear earlier, I don't believe in any god or gods. I don't believe there are good reasons for believing in them, at least in this day and age. I'm not defending religion and I'm not attacking science. It's my personal opinion that scientists have much better reasons than religious people for believing the things they do. That said, to hold yourself to one standard, and your adversaries to another, is simply unfair. Surely we can agree on this much? All I'm really asking from yourself, and everyone else, is consistency.

 

2. We must recognize that the word "evidence" is used in various ways. Peter Achenstein, for example, in his excellent "The Book of Evidence" identifies four distinct usages of the term in the domain of science.

 

So is the word "true". All folks are asking is that you be consistent, too. It is neither unreasonable nor acrimonious to hold you to the standard you expect of others.

[Reg Prescott]

So is the word "true". All folks are asking is that you be consistent, too. It is neither unreasonable nor acrimonious to hold you to the standard you expect of others.

 

I hold that the objectionable claim you're alluding to, roughly -- science has nothing to do with truth -- is nonsense, no matter which interpretation of "truth" we adopt: (i) yours = empirical adequacy, or (ii) mine = good old fashioned common or garden truth.

 

But you're off topic, Swansont. Perhaps you might split yourself off into a separate thread -- as you invariably do to me.

 

Thanks

Not that I want to put words in other member's mouths... there is no credible, consistent, repeatable and objective evidence for a God or gods. All 'evidence' that is offered by religion is anecdotal, personal and non-repeatable. Religion does indeed fall short of the 'believability' of science.

 

ajb

 

With respect, I must disagree on grounds of fairness.

 

Not credible? -- To whom? They clearly find it perfectly credible.

 

Not consistent? -- please explain

 

Not repeatable? -- they see the same (what they deem to be) evidence day in day out: birds singing, flowers blooming... you name it

 

Not objective? -- according to what standard?

Edited October 31, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[ajb]

With respect, I must disagree on grounds of fairness.

Okay.

 

Not credible? -- To whom? They clearly find it perfectly credible.

None of the evidence is credible to anyone who stops to examine the evidence carefully. The reasons are as follows.

 

Not consistent? -- please explain

People across all the religions experience different things which they may cite as 'evidence'. There tends to be some consistency within a given religion, but that is easily explained as the people have been indoctrinated in the first place.

 

Not repeatable? -- they see the same (what they deem to be) evidence day in day out: birds singing, flowers blooming... you name it

You have the right idea. There has been no experiment designed that could be conducted more than once and at different locations that would prove the existence of a god. The same is true of many other supernatural phenomena; either the experiments have a null result or the observations are too intermittent to be reliable. More mundane expiations can usually be found.

 

Not objective? -- according to what standard?

All 'evidence' seems very personal and based on pre-existing notions. Christians see the face of Jesus in their burnt toast for example!

[Reg Prescott]

ajb...

 

Well, with regards the first point (credibility) don't you see you've changed your position? You originally told us (post 19) simply that their evidence was not credible - period! Here it is again:

 

"there is no credible, consistent, repeatable and objective evidence for a God or gods"

 

In post 22 above, we now see this qualified as: not credible to the right kind of people:

 

"None of the evidence is credible to anyone who stops to examine the evidence carefully"

 

And who are the right kind of people might I ask? On second thoughts, no need to answer.

 

It just won't do to argue this this way, friend -- credibly!

 

Perhaps we can continue the discussion tomorrow. It's late here and I'm sleepy. Be safe.

[swansont]

I hold that the objectionable claim you're alluding to, roughly -- science has nothing to do with truth -- is nonsense, no matter which interpretation of "truth" we adopt: (i) yours = empirical adequacy, or (ii) mine = good old fashioned common or garden truth.

 

But you're off topic, Swansont. Perhaps you might split yourself off into a separate thread -- as you invariably do to me.

 

Thanks

 

You brought it up first, in this very thread.

[John Cuthber]

 

That said, to hold yourself to one standard, and your adversaries to another, is simply unfair. Surely we can agree on this much? All I'm really asking from yourself, and everyone else, is consistency.

I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science.

Claims should be based on observation logic and evidence.

That is consistency.

Just as soon as someone comes up with evidence for God, we can look at that evidence properly.

 

Surely we ought to hold the "big questions" to at least the same standards as we hold criminal trials.

If they can't justify their point of view "beyond reasonable doubt" there's no reason for us to pay particular attention to religious believers and their opinions.

 

Religion will deserve to be taken seriously, just as soon as it shows that it's actually (or at least, probably) right.

Until then it's something I can dismiss just the same way that I dismiss the idea of fairies in my garden.