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

[Reg Prescott]

You brought it up first, in this very thread.

 

You're still off topic. Please do not respond to this non-modnote.

[swansont]

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!

 

Credibly would include not cherry picking. You might notice the criteria are listed with an "and", but you did not highlight or address those points, and you have ignored other parts of ajb's response.

[ajb]

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

That is an interesting point. What is credible to one person may not be credible to another person. This has to be the case otherwise there would be no religion!

 

Anyway, the point is if you sit down and examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind you see that the evidence is not credible.

 

This is what I mean and all that I could have even meant. Trying to argue semantics here will not make the situation any clearer.

[Reg Prescott]

Just woke up - VERY early (coz of thoughts of evidence)

 

Well, here's a couple of starters:

 

1. To John (and anyone else who feels as he does). You have claimed in no uncertain terms that: there is no evidence for God. It seems to me, given the way you view these matters, that this claim is indistinguishable from a claim: there is no God.

 

Let us suppose just for the sake of argument that God really does exist. Furthermore, many of the claims made on his behalf by the devout are indeed true, i.e. the universe and all creatures great and small are his divine handiwork, he does indeed answer the occasional prayer, perform the occasional miracle, and so on and so forth.

 

Given this hypothetical scenario, would the statement there is no evidence for God be true?

 

Or should we now say: I thought there was no evidence for God but I was wrong ?

 

(This seems to parallel the situation with Bigfoot, alien visitations, and whatnot. Once again I emphasize I don't believe any of these things. But let's say that poor Mrs Smith really was abducted by aliens, then how can we possibly deny that there was evidence of alien visitation? The evidence was as good as it gets; it's just that the rest of us refused to accept it.)

 

 

2. To ajb and others: the question of inapplicability. Let's grant (although I don't) that you have identified the defining features of scientific evidence, viz., objectivity, consistency, repeatability, and all the rest. I'll just pick away at repeatability below for illustration.

 

Now we have to consider the fact that science, by and large, deals with repeatable patterns in nature, laws, and so forth. But the subject matter of other disciplines -- history, for example -- concerns itself with one-time, non-repeatable, unique events. Surely it is unreasonable to demand of other disciplines that they comply with standards of evidence from another domain (physics, say) whose subject matter is quite incommensurable?

 

"We cannot reproduce the assassination of Caesar in our labs, therefore ..." what? There is no evidence that Caesar was assassinated?

 

 

 

As for this...

 

That is an interesting point. What is credible to one person may not be credible to another person. This has to be the case otherwise there would be no religion!

Anyway, the point is if you sit down and examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind you see that the evidence is not credible.

This is what I mean and all that I could have even meant. Trying to argue semantics here will not make the situation any clearer.

 

This is not semantic nitpicking, comrade. This is vacuous circular reasoning on your part, I'm afraid, at least as far as I can see. Observe:

 

1. There is no credible evidence for a god or gods to the right people (i.e. "those who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and conclude that the evidence is incredible)

 

2. The right people are those who find the putative evidence incredible

 

 

Or put another way : There is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods except to those who deem the evidence credible.

 

Compare : There are no black swans except for the ones that are black.

 

 

(To break the circularity here, you would have to admit the possibility that there might be people "who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and DO NOT conclude that the evidence is incredible. And I think we all know there ARE scientists who believe in God. Now, if I present one of these embarrassing creatures to you as a counterexample, only to be rejected on the grounds that "Pfft! He does not have an open but scientific mind" I trust it's clear that we're back on the merry-go-round again.)

 

If credibility is your standard for evidential acceptability, then quite simply: they have evidence. You may find it - and perhaps I do too -- silly, far-fetched, irrational, and just well... incredible. But this is all besides the point. Credibility is an epistemic notion; they find the evidence credible, therefore they satisfy your criterion of evidential acceptibility, therefore they have evidence.

 

QED

 

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

 

2. To ajb and others: the question of inapplicability. Let's grant (although I don't) that you have identified the defining features of scientific evidence, viz., objectivity, consistency, repeatability, and all the rest. I'll just pick away at repeatability below for illustration.

 

Now we have to consider the fact that science, by and large, deals with repeatable patterns in nature, laws, and so forth. But the subject matter of other disciplines -- history, for example -- concerns itself with one-time, non-repeatable, unique events. Surely it is unreasonable to demand of other disciplines that they comply with standards of evidence from another domain (physics, say) whose subject matter is quite incommensurable?

 

"We cannot reproduce the assassination of Caesar in our labs, therefore ..." what? There is no evidence that Caesar was assassinated?

 

 

Yes, it is unreasonable. Nobody has suggested that it be the case. One wonders why you bring up this red herring.

 

This is not semantic nitpicking, comrade. This is vacuous circular reasoning on your part, I'm afraid, at least as far as I can see. Observe:

 

1. There is no credible evidence for a god or gods to the right people (i.e. "those who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and conclude that the evidence is incredible)

 

2. The right people are those who find the putative evidence incredible

 

 

ajb's standard was "credible, consistent, repeatable and objective evidence"

 

That's an and, not an or. For it to boil down to credibility the evidence must first be consistent, repeatable and objective.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Yes, it is unreasonable. Nobody has suggested that it be the case. One wonders why you bring up this red herring.

 

"I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science." - John Cuthber (post 25)

[swansont]

 

"I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science." - John Cuthber (post 25)

 

Nothing like ripping the context completely from a quote, eh?

 

If they are going to claim that they have objective evidence that God exists, sure, you need to hold it to a scientific standard of evidence. But that's not anything like the history example you proposed. God is not a unique, historical event.

[Reg Prescott]

 

1. Nothing like ripping the context completely from a quote, eh?

 

2. If they are going to claim that they have objective evidence that God exists, sure, you need to hold it to a scientific standard of evidence. But that's not anything like the history example you proposed. God is not a unique, historical event.

 

1. Ok, here's the entire post:

 

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.

2. You said : "God is not a unique, historical event"

God is the theory, not the evidence. Your demand is that the evidence be repeatable. For many Christians, strong evidence for the existence of God (the theory) comes from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the evidence).

This evidence is not repeatable.

[iNow]

Ergo, your standard of evidence is too low. What you're doing is equivalent to accepting thunder as valid evidence for the existence of Thor.

Edited November 1, 2015 by iNow

[Reg Prescott]

Ergo, your standard of evidence is too low. What you're doing is equivalent to accepting lightning as valid evidence for the existence of Thor.

 

... and the goalposts are moved once more.

 

I was addressing Swansont's claim that "God is not a unique, historical event". This claim is unobjectionable, but he is confusing the theory with the evidence. The evidence (the case of Jesus or any other prophet) IS a unique historical event.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[iNow]

I've made no claim. No goal posts have moved. My core point remains. The problem is clearly that your threshold for acceptable evidence is far too low, especially given the extraordinary nature of the god conjecture. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Edited November 1, 2015 by iNow

[Reg Prescott]

I've made no claim. No goal posts have moved. My core point remains. The problem is clearly that your threshold for acceptable evidence is far too low, especially given the extraordinary nature of the god conjecture. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

I have not advanced any threshold of acceptable evidence. I have pointed out inconsistencies in other members' standards of evidence.

 

I think I made it clear earlier that personally I find the evidence for God a load of bollocks.

[iNow]

God is the theory, not the evidence.

What specific test could one perform to disprove this "theory?"

[Reg Prescott]

What specific test could one perform to disprove this "theory?"

 

I can't think of any.

[iNow]

I can't think of any.

In which case, this entire thread debating over the nature and definition of evidence is an irrelevant waste of time... aka red herring... since even you openly stipulate there is nothing that could disprove the god idea. Have fun.

[Reg Prescott]

In which case, this entire thread debating over the nature and definition of evidence is an irrelevant waste of time... aka red herring... since even you openly stipulate there is nothing that could disprove the god idea. Have fun.

 

What's the problem? Since the God theory is unfalsifiable, it's unscientific? Once again I see no objection so long as you're all consistent.

 

But John Cuthbert originally told us that it is the accumulation of supporting evidence, not falsifying evidence, which distinguishes science. Meanwhile, ydoaPs (post 6) tells us basically that Popper and his doctrine of falsifiabilty bears no resemblance to real science.

 

So which is it?

Edited November 1, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[iNow]

God is not a theory. It's an ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability that differs from person to person and even day to day within the same individual.

[Reg Prescott]

God is not a theory. It's an ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability that differs from person to person and even day to day within the same individual.

 

Well, Richard Dawkins, for one, has asserted on many occasions that he regards that "ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability" as a scientific hypothesis. He even wrote a book about it.

 

This is just another example (how many do I have to adduce?!) of the inconsistency I'm referring to. As I said in the opening post:

 

"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!)."

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

 

See the section on "Critical Reception"

 

"Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other"

Edited November 1, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[iNow]

Well, Richard Dawkins, for one, has asserted on many occasions that he regards that "ill-defined three letter word with no objective characteristics and no predictive ability" as a scientific hypothesis. He even wrote a book about it.

<snip>

See the section on "Critical Reception"

<snip>

Dawkins argues that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other

For someone who speaks so often of goal post moving, you sure don't seem to mind doing it yourself. I was clearly discussing the concept of scientific theory and now you've introduced the alternate idea of a scientific hypothesis in its place. Do you do card tricks, too?

 

My point remains. God is not a theory in the scientific sense, and no amount of equivocation, conflation, or misdirection from you will alter that core fact.

[Reg Prescott]

For someone who speaks so often of goal post moving, you sure don't seem to mind doing it yourself. I was clearly discussing the concept of scientific theory and now you've introduced the alternate idea of a scientific hypothesis in its place. Do you do card tricks, too?

 

My point remains. God is not a theory in the scientific sense, and no amount of equivocation, conflation, or misdirection from you will alter that core fact.

 

Tsk tsk. Shame on me. I hereby acknowledge that iNow said theory and not hypothesis. We might also note in passing that he originally said simply theory (post 42) which later morphed into scientific theory in post 44.

 

The distinction between the two/three is left as a homework exercise to the reader. (Is there a graduation ceremony or its equivalent when a hypothesis officially earns the epithet theory? ). Less flippantly, though, it is a distinction which tends to be emphasized by the scientific community -- perhaps understandably as a defense against Creationist sneers that [insert theory] is only a theory -- and largely disregarded in the philosophy of science where the two terms are often used interchangeably. Hence my own carelessness.

 

Apologies!

 

Speaking personally, inasmuch as the the epistemic warrant for the existence of God can be described as dubious at best, he remains -- to this shameless goalpost mover anyway -- a theoretical entity par excellence.

 

It is a distinction, moreover, to which Dawkins himself seems to pay little regard. From the same Wiki link above:

 

"As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God."

Edited November 1, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Ophiolite]

@SillyBilly.

I have read all of the thread. Carefully. I found several of your arguments had definite traction, to the extent that I considered countering some of the negative reps you had received.

 

But, as I read on, I found your style to be unfortunate. Either you have the misfortune to write in a supercilious and arrogant manner by accident, or - more likely - you derive some peculiar pleasure from behaving like a passive-aggressive *******. If you genuinely want your arguments to be considered then I strongly urge you to lose that style. If, on the other hand, you delight in stirring people up, perhaps gaining some sense of superiority from the exercise, then please do continue. More negative reps and eventual banishment then may be close at hand.

[John Cuthber]

 

"As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God."

And, there go the goalposts again.

Did you think we wouldn't notice that there's a difference between "God is a theory" and "theory of a universe with a God."?

[swansont]

 

2. You said : "God is not a unique, historical event"

God is the theory, not the evidence. Your demand is that the evidence be repeatable. For many Christians, strong evidence for the existence of God (the theory) comes from the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the evidence).

This evidence is not repeatable.

 

Your previous example was of a unique historical event. Thank you for confirming that it was not a proper analogy to the discussion. Confirming events in history requires more than a single, or small number, of eyewitness events. Historians look for corroborating evidence. Even in matters of law, which has another standard of evidence, it is recognized that eyewitness events are unreliable. And the life and teachings of someone don't even rise to the standard of eyewitness evidence — Jesus didn't write the Bible, and it wasn't written during his lifetime. And teachings? You can make up anything you want. There no standard of truth for "teachings". People make big bucks today (or run for public office) on teachings that are utter crap on the "truthfulness" scale.

 

Repeatability is not a requirement that a specific event be repeatable, nor can you limit what people consider as possible evidence. For events that happened in the past and can't be reconstructed, on way the evidence can be repeatable is that multiple people can observe the evidence (something which fails for personal experiences). The supernova in 1054 AD, for example, is not accepted only because there was a bright light that a lot of people saw back then, but also because anyone (in principle) can observe the Crab nebula today, and can observe it expanding over time, and that's all consistent with the theory of supernovae. If an event can be repeated, then we had better get similar evidence, consistent with the theory. We see other supernovae, and they give us similar results.

 

The evidence for God can't be restricted to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is also proposed that God created the universe, and interacts with people. These are other phenomena that can be tested. There should be physical evidence left behind by some of the things God supposedly did, but that evidence isn't there.

 

What's the problem? Since the God theory is unfalsifiable, it's unscientific? Once again I see no objection so long as you're all consistent.

 

But John Cuthbert originally told us that it is the accumulation of supporting evidence, not falsifying evidence, which distinguishes science. Meanwhile, ydoaPs (post 6) tells us basically that Popper and his doctrine of falsifiabilty bears no resemblance to real science.

 

So which is it?

 

Reading the responses in the context of the discussion might help with the problem of mischaracterizing the positions people are stating. You can't just focus on one statement without considering what else has been said and hope to make a valid point.

 

ydoaPs, for example, gave the reason why Popper bears no resemblance to "real science" (his actual words were "actual scientific practice"): that it's too simplistic. It doesn't cover enough. Falsifiability is a component of scientific practice, but it is not the only one. A tire doesn't resemble a car, and yet it is an important part of it.

 

And John Cuthber discussed the concept of falsifiability, and you apparently just missed it.

[ajb]

(This seems to parallel the situation with Bigfoot, alien visitations, and whatnot. Once again I emphasize I don't believe any of these things. But let's say that poor Mrs Smith really was abducted by aliens, then how can we possibly deny that there was evidence of alien visitation? The evidence was as good as it gets; it's just that the rest of us refused to accept it.)

The problem here is independent evidence that supports her claim. We know eyewitnesses are very unreliable.

 

Such evidence as a personal statement from an 'abduction victim' is not going to be objective and we know how the mind play tricks. Generally such statements are not considered credible.

 

"We cannot reproduce the assassination of Caesar in our labs, therefore ..." what? There is no evidence that Caesar was assassinated?

We know that stabbing someone with a knife can kill them. This has been established. We can therefore say that the hypothesis that Caesar was killed by a knife wound is scientifically plausible and does not violate any known principals of science. This we can say for sure. I guess there will always be the possibility that Caesar was not killed in the way that the history books record.

 

 

 

Observe:

 

1. There is no credible evidence for a god or gods to the right people (i.e. "those who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and conclude that the evidence is incredible

)

 

Okay...

 

2. The right people are those who find the putative evidence incredible

I did not mean to imply this. All I am saying is that there is no scientific evidence for supernatural, God or gods. You seem to agree with this?

 

Or put another way : There is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods except to those who deem the evidence credible.

But one cannot deem the evidence scientifically credible.

 

 

 

(To break the circularity here, you would have to admit the possibility that there might be people "who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and DO NOT conclude that the evidence is incredible. And I think we all know there ARE scientists who believe in God. Now, if I present one of these embarrassing creatures to you as a counterexample, only to be rejected on the grounds that "Pfft! He does not have an open but scientific mind" I trust it's clear that we're back on the merry-go-round again.)

I claim that such individuals do not examine their religion and faith in the same way they approach their scientific work.

 

If credibility is your standard for evidential acceptability, then quite simply: they have evidence. You may find it - and perhaps I do too -- silly, far-fetched, irrational, and just well... incredible. But this is all besides the point. Credibility is an epistemic notion; they find the evidence credible, therefore they satisfy your criterion of evidential acceptibility, therefore they have evidence.

To be credible the evidence should fit (at least) with the criteria I set earlier. In particular we need repeatability, consistency and objectivity.

 

Now, enough witness statements handled with care could be credible even if individually they are not.

Repeatability is not a requirement that a specific event be repeatable...

This is a very good point and I would like to add another example.

 

We are unable to recreate the conditions of the early Universe. We cannot run an experiment to observe the evolution of some 'test universe'. Therefore are we forced to say that the standard model of cosmology is unscientific as it is not 'repeatable'?

 

Of course the answer is 'no'; the theory is scientific. The key point is that we have many different experiments and observations that are repeatable even if the Big Bang itself is not. Different groups using different methods can come to the same overall conclusions.

[John Cuthber]

 

(To break the circularity here, you would have to admit the possibility that there might be people "who examine the evidence carefully with an open, but scientific mind" and DO NOT conclude that the evidence is incredible. And I think we all know there ARE scientists who believe in God.

If such an entity existed, he would, of course, present his evidence to the scientific community and we would test it and, if it were valid we would all accept that there's a God.

However, in every case when someone makes such a claim, it turns out that they can't do it.

They are never able to provide actual evidence that stacks up.

They turn out to be "mistaken".