From the thread People who don’t think like you do
I can see this getting too heated for IMHO, so, voila, a new thread here: Cardinal: Your post summed up pretty much everything that had me shaking my head about the ignorance displayed by the non-Dopers described in the previous posts.
This is such utter bollocks!
If it is “personal and not directly replicable”, as you stated in your post, then, almost by definition, it is NOT evidence!
Not only do you post stupidity like the above, you are also disingenuous.
It is startlingly apparent that the words “facts” and “evidence” are meaningless to you.
[ol]
[li]A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.[/li][li]Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face.[/li][li]Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.[/ol][/li]NONE of the listed meanings require that “evidence” be replicable or demonstrable to others.
Before you go calling people “stupid” and “disingenous” because they use a word in a way that contradicts its definition, maybe you should read the definition yourself, eh?
To be “A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment,” it has to be, like a broken window, clearly visible and demonstable to observers. Soemthing indicative, and outward sign is by its definiton soemthing that must be replicable. Ditto for the third definition.
Subjective feelings and signs that are not visible to others cannot constitute evidence in an argument. “God revealed to me that I’m right and you’re wrong” ain’t evidence.
No it doesn’t. Are you saying I can’t use a “thing” to form a conclusion or judgement (however incorrect it may be) unless I can show that “thing” to others?
I’ll grant you the legal definition; however, Cardinal clearly wasn’t using the word in a legal context.
Of course it is. It just isn’t particularly valuable or useful evidence when dealing with someone that doesn’t trust you, because it can’t be proven to anyone other then the person who experienced it.
The pink elephant with the purple wings killed that man. That’s my evidence, your honor. I am the only one who can see him, but it’s still evidence. :rolleyes:
Yes, it is evidence. It’s not good evidence. It’s not evidence to anyone other than the person who observed the alleged aerial pachyderm, but it’s still evidence.
That makes no sense. Evidence is a thing that can be shown to others to bolster an argument. Subjective impressions and delusions are not evidence, except perhaps of the mental state of the person making the claim.
No, it’s not. There’s no requirement that evidence has to be “shown to others.” It’s anything that a person uses to draw a conclusion. Let’s say I come home late at night, and find my trashcan overturned and its contents strewn about my yard. There are tiny little clawed footprints all over the place. I conclude, “Must have been raccoons,” and proceed to clean up the mess, wipe away the footprints, and then never tell anyone about it. Does that mean that the footprints and overturned trashcans are not “evidence” that there was a raccoon in my yard? If not, what term do I use to describe what I saw that led me to make that conclusion?
Or, if you want to stick to hallucinatory arguments, lets say that I do see a flying purple elephant, and because of this, I conclude that I’m going crazy. Is the elephant not evidence that supports my conclusion, even if I cannot show that evidence to anyone else?
Y’all are confusing evidence with the conclusions drawn from the evidence. Even if the conclusion is bad, the criteria used to derive that conclusion is still, by definition, “evidence.”
Okay, so depending on our accepted definition of “evidence”, a personal and internal manifestation of a realization of “God” is either NOT evidence, or else it is USELESS evidence. Seems as though everyone agrees on at least that much.
If the OP would be willing to modify his/her statement to make the above assertion, rather than a firm statement that such feelings are absolutely not evidence, then the discussion could continue along more meaningful lines than the definition of “evidence”, and the driving point of the OP (subjective feelings and signs are not valid support for an argument with others) would be essentially unchanged.
Like the OP, you’ve confused evidence with experiment. It’s an experiment that must be repeatable. Evidence need not satisfy all people. Evidence need only satisfy those people who believe the claim. That’s why one person requires more or less evidence than another.
The dictionary didn’t use the broken window on account of it being something everyone could see. It used it on account of how some people could interpret it as a sign of a burglary. It could also be a sign of a thrown rock. Or a sign of a hurricane. Or a sign of anger. Or a sign that kids had played baseball nearby. Or a sign that there had been insurance fraud. And on and on and on.
You just don’t want people of faith to be able to say that they have evidence for their beliefs. Why, I cannot fathom. I’m sure you think that everything about you is all rational and reasonable, but your incessant expression of hatred and jealousy toward other people’s faith is sufficient evidence to me that you have some deeper issues.
Delusions? You can be such a jackass sometimes. (Yeah, yeah, I know I can too, but that doesn’t absolve you.)
I could have made my point without the last two paragraphs above. I’m sorry, Gobear. I shouldn’t have lashed out at you that way. I hope you can understand how tiresome it might become to be repeatedly called delusional.
nocturnal_tick: I could probably have toned down the language in the OP and posted it in GD instead. But I hardly ever go in GD these days (ever since the election madness, in fact), and besides it might still have ended up getting shoved across here anyway.
As Roland Orzabal points out, the thread has, rather annoyingly, rapidly become a pissing match over the definition of ‘evidence’.
“What did you expect?” I hear you cry
Nevertheless, there are two types of ‘evidence’ being discussed here: the kind that is backed up by some sort of physical manifestation that is observable by others (the broken window), and the other, which I asserted wasn’t sufficiently solid to class as ‘evidence’, that consists only of a person’s assertions about themselves and their situations. The original point of the OP: that Cardinal’s post in the other thread confused these personal experiences with facts, is getting lost.
In a legal proceeding, we consider for what purpose the evidence is offered. What are we trying to prove?
For example, conviction of a prior felony is NOT evidence that the accused committed the current crime. But it is evidence that the accused is a felon, which may be relevant to prove the crime of felon in possesion of a firearm.
In this case, i think the debate hinges on what, precisely, the evidence is offered to prove. “Personal and not directly replicable” IS strong evidence if it’s offered to show why the individual accepts a proposition. It’s NOT strong evidence if it’s offered to show why YOU should accept the same proposition.
I believe there’s a ben-wa ball set, a ten of hearts, and two copies of Mein Kampf in that suitcase. I believe it because I saw them placed into the suitcase. Should YOU believe it? That depends on how much you trust what I say I saw.
I believe there’s a ben-wa ball set, a ten of hearts, and two copies of Mein Kampf in that suitcase. I believe it because those items were on top of the suitcase the last time I looked, and now they’re gone, so where else could they be? Should YOU believe it? That depends on how much you trust what I say I saw, AND how much you credit my inference.
In either case, the information is evidence. Its strength depends on what it’s offered to prove, and how much credibility you assign to the source.
I thought it was an excellent point. Central to many of the gay rights debates we have here is the argument over wether or not homosexuality is a choice. The most common rebuttal to the idea that it is, is personal testimony of people who are gay, and cannot make themselves be attracted to people of the opposite sex. How can this evidence possibly be shown to anyone else? It is an entirely internal observation, devoid of any sort of external proof. If this isn’t evidence, what is it? What would be a more appropriate term for that sort of observation?
The OP’s quotation of Cardinal makes it look like Cardinal is saying that the existence of a spiritual realm is a fact.
What Cardinal said is this:
So I think Cardinal is saying that the “fact” is that the Bible says that there is such a thing as spiritual evidence. I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but it’s not a ridiculous claim that the bible would say such a thing.
I’m not trying to say that bluecanary was quoting disengenuously; his interpretation of what “fact” refers to is fairly reasonable as well.
As for whether “spiritual evidence” is evidence at all, I’m inclined to say it could be…but it represents a pathetically low standard of evidence. I’m also unconvinced that spiritual evidence actually exists, and isn’t just a fabrication to justify irrational beliefs.
I think the concept of “non-overlapping magesteria” can be helpful here. Objective conclusions require support from objective evidence. Subjective evidence can be sufficient to support a subjective conclusion.
