This is not a thread for bashing on religion. The forum rules on civility and complaining still apply.
This thread is meant to be a welcoming and inviting place for Atheists, Antitheists, and Agnoists to talk about their beliefs and experiences.
edited 3rd Oct '14 1:27:15 PM by Madrugada
That documents and testimonies can be used to establish or rebut claims in court of law does not make them evidence.
We may use the word “evidence” referring to them in shorthand or sleight of hand, and we have been confusing them in the past (“this Holy Book is evidence that my faith is the only truth!”, etc.) and often still do as of now; which is why the scientific method is the only reliable one to understand the reality that cannot be changed as in is, and what can be changed so we can choose what ought.
E g: we know from objective evidence that death is irreversible (although there may be some documents and testimonies to the contrary), but whether one ought to kill someone or not requires agency.
Objects have no agency. OTOH subjects (as in little old us), the kind that make documents and bear witness, do have agency.
Although I can see why it is so hard.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: They [documents and testimonies] are [evidence], and called that as well.
That we may use the word “evidence” for them in shorthand or sleight of hand in some less exacting disciplines doesn’t make them so, and that some say they are does not make them so either.
The credibility given to a testimony or to a document depends somewhat on the credibility given to the witnesses or the authors of the document, that is on the faith we have in these people.
Evidence doesn’t require faith at all, we either know it or we don’t. And to adequately evaluate evidence requires a healthy dose of scepticism.
Quote: I am also surprised you would dispute that.
I dispute that because that is disputable; I am not surprised at your surprise though, as my it runs counter to the many cultures we’re familiar with, certainly to the the various cultures I come from.
Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Jul 23rd 2018 at 3:30:30 PM
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: You appear to have your own definition of the word "evidence".
Not my definition, one based on how the word is commonly understood at present. Evidence as in grounded on real, known, and observable facts, not on what people say about them, as in a document or a testimony.
Quote: This certainly isn't the case for legal evidence,…
The law is made by people and could define evidence as lawmakers well please, like say, “whatever Dear Leader says is evidence, and an overwhelming one at that.”
The law of your land, or mine for that matter, is irrelevant when it comes to understanding evidence of what is,
[edit: as in objective reality such as the shape of our Earth, the speed of light, the age of rocks, these sort of things.]
Quote: …which your own vocation relies upon.
What’s my vocation got to do with any of it (not that you’d know what my vocation is)?
Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Jul 25th 2018 at 12:33:40 PM
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friendI doubt most people's understanding is that documents or testimony cannot be evidence. Nor do I see that being excluded with the dictionary definition.
I suppose they could. Words' meanings are also defined by people. Again here you're talking like scientific evidence is the only thing that deals with "is".
You told me you're an attorney before. That was my point. Your field uses documents and testimony for evidence all the time. Isn't that a contradiction to your stance?
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: I doubt most people's understanding is that documents or testimony cannot be evidence.
I addressed this earlier, Jul 22nd 2018
:
Quote: We may use the word “evidence” referring to them [documents, testimonies] in shorthand or sleight of hand, and we have been confusing them in the past (“this Holy Book is evidence that my faith is the only truth!”, etc.) and often still do as of now; which is why the scientific method is the only reliable one to understand the reality that cannot be changed as in is, and what can be changed so we can choose what ought.
You wrote further:
Quote: I suppose they could. Words' meanings are also defined by people. Again here you're talking like scientific evidence is the only thing that deals with "is".
It is according to present rational understanding, as distinct from words of human intermediates whether though documents or testimonies; then again in some cultures, hearsay is considered as evidence.
Forgive me that I repeat myself:
Just as a map of an island is not the island;
and a text describing a tree is not the tree;
and a picture of a house is not the house;
and the word “grapefruit” is not a grapefruit;
a document or a testimony about an object or an event is no evidence for either object or event.
Then you wrote:
Quote: You told me you're an attorney before. That was my point.
If you refer to my lower post on page 191 dated Jul 18th 2018
, I wrote then and there (and haven’t edited it just before now):
Quote: I’m no attorney,
Emphasis added.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend"We may use the word “evidence” referring to them [documents, testimonies] in shorthand or sleight of hand, and we have been confusing them in the past (“this Holy Book is evidence that my faith is the only truth!”, etc.) and often still do as of now; which is why the scientific method is the only reliable one to understand the reality that cannot be changed as in is, and what can be changed so we can choose what ought."
You addressed it yes. I don't agree though now anymore than then however. Of course, I don't mean the mere existence of a document constitutes evidence. That depends on the specifics.
"It is according to present rational understanding, as distinct from words of human intermediates whether though documents or testimonies; then again in some cultures, hearsay is considered as evidence. Forgive me that I repeat myself: Just as a map of an island is not the island; and a text describing a tree is not the tree; and a picture of a house is not the house; and the word “grapefruit” is not a grapefruit; a document or a testimony about an object or an event is no evidence for either object or event."
Rational understanding according to whom? I'm not suggesting we simply accept all testimony or documents. On the other hand, it's not just irrational to dismiss them, but impossible. Do you really dismiss the word or writing of anyone who relates an experience you haven't had, and can't ever scientifically test? No. How could anyone?
"If you refer to my lower post on page 191 dated Jul 18th 2018, I wrote then and there (and haven’t edited it just before now)"
I misread that, clearly. My mistake.
Edited by Fireblood on Jul 25th 2018 at 10:53:28 AM
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: Of course, I don't mean the mere existence of a document constitutes evidence.
[…]
Do you really dismiss the word or writing of anyone who relates an experience you haven't had, and can't ever scientifically test? No. How could anyone?
To evaluate what is as in what constitutes reality, as Old Phil who you rightly quote in your signature, would have it, we can only rely on what doesn’t require belief and faith in their authors and witnesses, which documents and testimonies can’t do without.
Evidence is all that stands on its own whether we believe in it or not.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend![]()
Fireblood, forgive me for not addressing one of your questions in my previous comment:
Quote: Do you really dismiss the word or writing of anyone who relates an experience you haven't had, and can't ever scientifically test? No. How could anyone?
If that word or writing relates anyone’s experience whose possibility can be scientifically attested, I will consider its plausibility but not admit it as evidence, since it’d require faith in that anyone.
And since some anvils need be dropped:
Evidence! Doesn’t! Require! Faith!
"To evaluate what is as in what constitutes reality, as Old Phil who you rightly quote in your signature, would have it, we can only rely on what doesn’t require belief and faith in their authors and witnesses, which documents and testimonies can’t do without.
Evidence is all that stands on its own whether we believe in it or not."
So you're saying you don't ever act on the word of someone else, when there's no scientific data back it up? I find that difficult to believe. Even with science there is a certain amount of faith, or trust, that comes into play, since we haven't personally observed or tested what is concluded in most cases. We must rely on the spoken or written word of others.
"If that word or writing relates anyone’s experience whose possibility can be scientifically attested, I will consider its plausibility but not admit it as evidence, since it’d require faith in that anyone."
Following from this, I take it you reject anecdotes your parents relate of you as a child, or similar examples, since they cannot be confirmed scientifically? It seems not your own early history, along with the world's in large part, remains an unknown under this standard.
What is it you suggest in history or law? That if there is no scientific evidence, we simply reject any contention? I see no reason to do that, within reason, nor accept your view of what evidence means.
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: So you're saying you don't ever act on the word of someone else, when there's no scientific data back it up?
When there’s scientific evidence backing it up as congruent with reality i e: part of what is, thus rejecting anything supernatural, conspiracy theories, the occult, etc. Or when the word in question is contradicted by evidence, whether that word is sincere or not (as in perjury).
When the word is congruent with reality yet lacks corroboration by evidence, only there can I choose whether to put faith in said word then act on it, or not.
You added:
Quote: Even with science there is a certain amount of faith, or trust, that comes into play, since we haven't personally observed or tested what is concluded in most cases.
Faith is not required in science, despite that some may want to put their faith in it. The scientific method is based on available observable and measurable evidence, not merely on hearsay thereof.
Further:
Quote: We must rely on the spoken or written word of others.
We must rely, not on faith in their spoken or written word, but on the reliability of their method, for if some of them are in error or dishonest, there will be more than enough others just as competent to correct it, with no need to have faith in any given person.
Had the scientific method been unreliable itself we’d have no reliable knowledge of our world beyond our daily immediate environment; no tool of technology which relies upon said science would function, not as in exploding telephones but as in telephones you could never switch on.
Further:
Quote: Following from this, I take it you reject anecdotes your parents relate of you as a child, or similar examples, since they cannot be confirmed scientifically?
Yes, wonderful stories of wraiths, spirits, and magical creatures; along with stories of things that could have happened but were disqualified by contrary evidence.
The remaining such anecdotes being categorised as “maybe?”
More:
Quote: What is it you suggest in history or law? That if there is no scientific evidence, we simply reject any contention?
It would be reasonable to examine the contention in question in light of the scientific evidence of its possibility and/or plausibility; which is why things like denial of historical events confirmed by scientific evidence, conspiracy theories, tall tales of the supernatural, all without a shred of scientific evidence etc. are now mostly rejected by law and history in any reasonable society; to the dismay of the superstitious, of the slanderers and falsifiers, and of their credulous followers crying foul infringement of their frozen peaches or some other fruit.
The remaining contentions being put under various degrees of “maybe?” until confirmed or disqualified by scientific evidence.
Then:
Quote: I see no reason to do that, within reason, nor accept your view of what evidence means.
That is your opinion.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend"When there’s scientific evidence backing it up as congruent with reality i e: part of what is, thus rejecting anything supernatural, conspiracy theories, the occult, etc. Or when the word in question is contradicted by evidence, whether that word is sincere or not (as in perjury). When the word is congruent with reality yet lacks corroboration by evidence, only there can I choose whether to put faith in said word then act on it, or not."
Okay, that's fair.
"Faith is not required in science, despite that some may want to put their faith in it. The scientific method is based on available observable and measurable evidence, not merely on hearsay thereof."
I didn't mean to do science. Rather for those of us who haven't personally done these experiments or understand the scientific data it takes a (reasonable) trust.
"We must rely, not on faith in their spoken or written word, but on the reliability of their method, for if some of them are in error or dishonest, there will be more than enough others just as competent to correct it, with no need to have faith in any given person. Had the scientific method been unreliable itself we’d have no reliable knowledge of our world beyond our daily immediate environment; no tool of technology which relies upon said science would function, not as in exploding telephones but as in telephones you could never switch on."
True, but we can't know that in every particular instance they will have it right. Error and fraud still exist in science.
"Yes, wonderful stories of wraiths, spirits, and magical creatures; along with stories of things that could have happened but were disqualified by contrary evidence. The remaining such anecdotes being categorised as “maybe?”"
I mean more of ordinary things, not those that are unsupported or contradicted by science. You've probably answered that already though by your first reply to the post above.
"It would be reasonable to examine the contention in question in light of the scientific evidence of its possibility and/or plausibility; which is why things like denial of historical events confirmed by scientific evidence, conspiracy theories, tall tales of the supernatural, all without a shred of scientific evidence etc. are now mostly rejected by law and history in any reasonable society; to the dismay of the superstitious, of the slanderers and falsifiers, and of their credulous followers crying foul infringement of their frozen peaches or some other fruit. The remaining contentions being put under various degrees of “maybe?” until confirmed or disqualified by scientific evidence."
I agree they should be rejected. More specifically though if there's no scientific evidence in a particular case (as often happens) should we just remain agnostic or act on the data which exists? Obviously how well it agrees with science is a factor.
"That is your opinion."
Yes, of course, and likewise.
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: I didn't mean to do science. Rather for those of us who haven't personally done these experiments or understand the scientific data it takes a (reasonable) trust.
Which I addressed in my previous, if you don’t mind my quoting myself:
“We must rely, not on faith in their spoken or written word, but on the reliability of their method,…”
You added:
Quote: True, but we can't know that in every particular instance they will have it right. Error and fraud still exist in science.
Which I addressed with, (again, if you don’t mind):
“…For if some of them are in error or dishonest, there will be more than enough others just as competent to correct it, with no need to have faith in any given person.”
Further:
Quote: I mean more of ordinary things, not those that are unsupported or contradicted by science. You've probably answered that already though by your first reply to the post above.
Yes, with: “The remaining such anecdotes being categorised as ‘maybe?’”
Then:
Quote: More specifically though if there's no scientific evidence in a particular case (as often happens) should we just remain agnostic or act on the data which exists?
If the contention in question has scientific evidence supporting the possibility of such event or phenomenon, even if we have none supporting the one in question, then we could exercise cautious judgement as to the faith we could have in the witness or the author of a document, as in various degrees of “maybe?” until confirmed or disqualified by scientific evidence.
However, we still can only rely on scientific evidence to tell whether such contention is in the realm of possibility, as in is, even if we have none for this particular contention.
Each of us having a right to one’s opinions, not to one’s facts.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend"Which I addressed in my previous, if you don’t mind my quoting myself: “We must rely, not on faith in their spoken or written word, but on the reliability of their method,…”"
I also addressed this, and it seems like we mostly agree anyway.
"Which I addressed with, (again, if you don’t mind): “…For if some of them are in error or dishonest, there will be more than enough others just as competent to correct it, with no need to have faith in any given person.”"
Agreed, but I'd say that's our trust in the scientific method and community as a whole. This may be more a semantic issue though.
"Yes, with: “The remaining such anecdotes being categorised as ‘maybe?’”"
It seems pretty difficult to have a systematic "maybe" in regards to accounts of your own past. Perhaps that's just me however.
"If the contention in question has scientific evidence supporting the possibility of such event or phenomenon, even if we have none supporting the one in question, then we could exercise cautious judgement as to the faith we could have in the witness or the author of a document, as in various degrees of “maybe?” until confirmed or disqualified by scientific evidence. However, we still can only rely on scientific evidence to tell whether such contention is in the realm of possibility, as in is, even if we have none for this particular contention."
Sounds reasonable. The background scientific knowledge is certainly something to set our parameters by. Let me run some more specific examples past you. In most probate cases, as I understand, wills' validity are established through the witnesses who were there when it was signed. Good or not, do you think? In some cases handwriting analysis can also be used if that was actually handwritten, though I'm not sure whether that's considered science. Or take a criminal case. Assuming the only thing you have is eyewitness testimony, and it doesn't contradict scientific facts, is that (at least in theory) enough to convict do you think?
"Each of us having a right to one’s opinions, not to one’s facts."
Of course.
Guys, can I throw some gas in the fire with a Bio
Logos
-link? Indeed, did David Hume banish miracles?
What do you mean one of the links is an evolution denialist Young Earth Creationist site
?
![]()
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: Agreed, but I'd say that's our trust in the scientific method and community as a whole. This may be more a semantic issue though.
It’s more an observation on the reliability of the scientific method, and the human community as a whole, as most humans would be competent if properly trained, whether scientists, engineers, farmers, no honest job being contemptible.
You added:
Quote: It seems pretty difficult to have a systematic "maybe" in regards to accounts of your own past.
Varying degrees of “maybe?” based on subjective assessment of the human witness or document author, not being evidence but next best thing till confirmed or disqualified by evidence.
Again, this “maybe?” only being valid if not contrary to events whose possibility is backed up by scientific evidence as congruent with reality, i e: is; so no alien abductions, vampire attacks, incubi et succubi, or zombie apocalypse, as fun as those could be.
Then:
Quote: Assuming the only thing you have is eyewitness testimony, and it doesn't contradict scientific facts, is that (at least in theory) enough to convict do you think?
Depending on subjective evaluation of eyewitness/es (I suppose at least two would be preferable), then again it varies according to jurisdiction. We keep learning as we go along.
I suppose we could never eliminate judicial error, though we could reduce it optimally by increasing reliance on scientific evidence as possible.
Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Jul 29th 2018 at 8:02:26 AM
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend"It’s more an observation on the reliability of the scientific method, and the human community as a whole, as most humans would be competent if properly trained, whether scientists, engineers, farmers, no honest job being contemptible."
I think we agree, even if we aren't putting it in quite the same terms.
"Varying degrees of “maybe?” based on subjective assessment of the human witness or document author, not being evidence but next best thing till confirmed or disqualified by evidence. Again, this “maybe?” only being valid if not contrary to events whose possibility is backed up by scientific evidence as congruent with reality, i e: is; so no alien abductions, vampire attacks, incubi et succubi, or zombie apocalypse, as fun as those could be."
I guess here the difference would be I'd see no reason not to accept these accounts when they seem trustworthy (i.e. no contradictions or scientific impossibilities) and of course these things are evidence for me, even if not so firm as science.
Theoretically, what do you think it would take to prove UFO abductions etc.?
"Depending on subjective evaluation of eyewitness/es (I suppose at least two would be preferable), then again it varies according to jurisdiction. We keep learning as we go along. I suppose we could never eliminate judicial error, though we could reduce it optimally by increasing reliance on scientific evidence as possible."
So far as I know they require at least two eyewitnesses. You're right we can probably never eliminate every error, although they have taken measures now to avoid influencing eyewitnesses', and of course scientific evidence is used when it's available.
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: I guess here the difference would be I'd see no reason not to accept these accounts when they seem trustworthy (i.e. no contradictions or scientific impossibilities) and of course these things are evidence for me, even if not so firm as science.
As I said earlier, these accounts cannot constitute evidence for me, as they still require belief in the persons who tell them, belief without which they’d just go away.
Evidence is all that which won’t go away, i e: reality, i e: what is.
Old Phil got that thing right.
Quote: Theoretically, what do you think it would take to prove UFO abductions etc.?
Some extraordinary evidence in proportion to the extraordinary nature of the claim.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friendSorry for the delay in my reply, it's been busy this week for me.
"As I said earlier, these accounts cannot constitute evidence for me, as they still require belief in the persons who tell them, belief without which they’d just go away. Evidence is all that which won’t go away, i e: reality, i e: what is. Old Phil got that thing right."
Go away how? We do not always have direct evidence for things, though it's to be hoped for. Whether testimony or a document relates something real is an issue of course, but they can. In any case, what would you call them then, if they're not evidence?
"Some extraordinary evidence in proportion to the extraordinary nature of the claim."
Like what? A crashed ship with video recordings in its computer which showed abductions, for instance?
Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: Go away how?
Documents and testimonies require our believing in their validity or rather the validity of their authors and witnesses, once we stopped believing in them, it’s that very validity that goes away.
Evidence requires no belief.
Quote: In any case, what would you call them then, if they're not evidence?
Documents, testimonies, by people telling what they believe happened which may or may not have happened.
In my previous I wrote about what it would take to prove all sorts of extraordinary claims (UFO abductions, etc.):
“Some extraordinary evidence in proportion to the extraordinary nature of the claim.”
To which you replied by:
Quote: Like what? A crashed ship with video recordings in its computer which showed abductions, for instance?
Being a layman, I wouldn’t imagine about what I lack enough knowledge about.
"Documents and testimonies require our believing in their validity or rather the validity of their authors and witnesses, once we stopped believing in them, it’s that very validity that goes away. Evidence requires no belief."
If you define evidence as that, then yes. I don't however. In any case it's rare that evidence would be so unequivocal as to require no belief.
"Documents, testimonies, by people telling what they believe happened which may or may not have happened."
So no term for them as a whole then.
"Being a layman, I wouldn’t imagine about what I lack enough knowledge about."
Fine.

Quote: I'm a paralegal. They are all different kinds of evidence, though separate rules for them do exist.
[…]
As not everything that "is" can fall under science, this is inevitable.
Should documents and testimonies be presented in your court of law about alien abductions or visitations by long-gone saints, whether the legal system of your prefecture considers them as evidence is irrelevant. Until there is actual evidence, as in scientific evidence, for such events actually occurring, they’re to be dismissed as not in the realm of is.
Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend