Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Audie]

Scientific evidence is continually vetted, tested, and regularly scrutinized by other independent or scientific disciplines.
.

Ideally. In practice, not necessarily.

 

[Stevicus]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

What I could never understand is why scientific evidence may be accepted in other fields but not this one. It doesn't have to conflict with people's desire to believe that some sort of deity created the Earth.

One could believe that God created the weather, but I don't know of any creationists who would be against the study of atmospheric sciences or meteorology. One idea doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the other. If I measure and observe that it's 100° outside, then that would be true whether one believes God did it or not.

 

[exchemist]

Actually a negative case of Deism, over ten thousand years or more literally billions of people have claimed proof of their deity(s) and not one has proven valid.

Using proof by cases shows with 100% failure rate thus showing there are no deities. At least in this corner of the universe

I've used this argument often enough, to me its accurate and more than fair, it only takes one success to trash the proof.

Your view would be appreciated.

According to my understanding, that is not a proof by exhaustion. First, proof by exhaustion requires, in the first step, a proof that the set of cases to be proved covers all possible cases. How would you demonstrate that?

Secondly, you are apparently arguing that absence of evidence is proof of absence. This is faulty logic, surely?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not to overlook the simple fact that Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever they are calling it this week, isn't even a theory. It is merely a poorly written hypothesis that has no possibility of being tested.

It could be a hypothesis and/or theory if they wanted it to be. It may turn out to be a falsified theory in the end, but there is nothing stopping them from forming a testable hypothesis.

 

[YmirGF]

It could be a hypothesis and/or theory if they wanted it to be. It may turn out to be a falsified theory in the end, but there is nothing stopping them from forming a testable hypothesis.

I suppose if one is feeling particularly generous, but they don't even rise to that minimum effort which, in and of itself, is quite telling.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Scientific evidence is all well and good when we are considering the viability of a theory of physical interaction. It is of very little use, however, in considering an individual human's subjective experience and understanding 'reality'. Mostly, because reality encompasses far more than mere physical interactions, and far less than the whole of what is. And because individual experiences and understanding of reality are unique even if the reality being experienced, isn't.

If we are talking about ID/creationism, how is that not a physical interaction?

Also, the whole point of the scientific method is to remove as much subjectivity as possible in order to remove human bias from our conclusions.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well, I think they do this because their criteria for evidence is not based on the evidential principals used in science, but rather on their own subjective interpretive experience of "reality".

Is there any difference between fact and opinion in your view?

My point is that the principals used to define evidence in science do not apply to all areas of human thought and experience.

Why not? Science is able to determine what is empirical and what is not, so why can't this be applied everywhere? Why can't we say that one idea is subjective opinion where another idea is scientific fact and/or a supported scientific theory?

But no more-so than those who are equally ignorant of the limitations of the science model of 'evidence'. Which is why whenever the members of these two camps meet, they argue endlessly, and pointlessly, to exhaustion, as neither of them is willing or perhaps even capable of recognizing the other's evidential criteria.

If you don't have limitations on what is and isn't evidence, then you have a meaningless epistemology. When everything is true no matter what, how can you find truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It could be a hypothesis and/or theory if they wanted it to be. It may turn out to be a falsified theory in the end, but there is nothing stopping them from forming a testable hypothesis.

I think that they are rather gun shy in that regard. Their hypotheses have been shot down far too often and far to easily in the past. The last halfway serious claim was that of "irreducible complexity" and that was shown to be wrong. Behe tried to redefine it and it still got easily shot down. Now he totally avoids scientific sources and only talks to and writes for creationists.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Sure, but the creationist is not debating the science. They have already rejected it's validity within their subjective experiential understanding of reality. So it's sort of akin to trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different language even though they're using the same words as you,. Yet they mean something different by them.

Creationists have been trying to argue that creationism is scientific for decades now. That is the whole point of the Intelligent Design movement. ID/creationists have tried over and over to have their ideas taught in science class, not in Sunday school.

The fight that ID/creationism is putting forth also leads to a rather interesting conclusion: even ID/creationists think science is superior to religious belief (i.e. subjective experience). If they didn't think this then they wouldn't be trying so hard to make ID/creationism look like science and trying to get it into science classes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think that they are rather gun shy in that regard. Their hypotheses have been shot down far too often and far to easily in the past. The last halfway serious claim was that of "irrefutable complexity" and that was shown to be wrong. Behe tried to redefine it and it still got easily shot down. Now he totally avoids scientific sources and only talks to and writes for creationists.

I would agree. For the most part, the null hypothesis is rather easy to figure out. There is absolutely no reason why separately created species or kinds would produce a phylogenetic signal between them. The observation of a phylogenetic signal among all vertebrates would certainly falsify ID/creationism which is why ID/creationists continually avoid morphological and genetic comparisons.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I would say that is rather strong evidence against the existence of a God. It would not qualify as scientific evidence since the problem of God's existence would be rather hard to form as a testable hypothesis.

It is used as a mathematical proof, as far as i know, in science its more of a guideline

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

It should be "same facts, different methodology". ID/creationists do not use the scientific method.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What I could never understand is why scientific evidence may be accepted in other fields but not this one. It doesn't have to conflict with people's desire to believe that some sort of deity created the Earth.

One could believe that God created the weather, but I don't know of any creationists who would be against the study of atmospheric sciences or meteorology. One idea doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with the other. If I measure and observe that it's 100° outside, then that would be true whether one believes God did it or not.

I absolutely agree. If someone wants to believe through faith that God acts through nature then science really doesn't pose a problem. There are thousands and thousands of Christian and theist scientists across the globe, and they obviously have no problem doing science. Science is a methodological system and it doesn't make ontological claims. If there is no evidence for something AND no evidence against it, then science is simply silent on the issue.

The only time problems arise is when a person's religious beliefs have God acting contrary to known and observable natural processes, which is the case with ID/creationism.

 

[ChristineM]

This argument only proves that all cases so far presented have failed. Not that all possible cases presented can and will fail. Unless all possible cases have been presented and failed, then the argument itself is invalid. It is just another form of an argument from ignorance. The lack of proof, does not mean that proof does not exist. Proof by consensus is not always a valid proof of certainty(Santa Clause, God(s), etc.). As long as Believers confine their beliefs to the unfalsifiable and unverifiable world of "buckley's" certainty, all claims from the Easter Bunny to an unmoved mover, are virtually and religiously valid. No belief in the supernatural can ever be proven or disproven(prayer, prophecies, miracles, myths and superstitions), by science or logic. In a 4 dimensional reality, science does not have the zero dimensional tools(supernatural) tools necessary to measure, demonstrate, and explain any supernatural phenomena. Therefore, to speak of material "evidence", we are speaking only about its application within the material world only.

Correct, all cases so far, any evidence is open to the same constraints.

No, the proof is quite specific and very fragile, it can have billions of evidences in it's favour, it only requires one to break the proof.

The lack of proof given that billions of people over thousands of years have failed to break the proof make it ignorant how?

And then we go into silly season so i lost interest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, all cases so far, any evidence is open to the same constraints.

No, the proof is quite specific and very fragile, it can have billions of evidences in it's favour, it only requires one to break the proof.

The lack of proof given that billions of people over thousands of years have failed to break the proof make it ignorant how?

And then we go into silly season so i lost interest.

I will grant that by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that you have the proof for your beliefs. We both obviously agree that it is not an absolute proof.

 

[ChristineM]

According to my understanding, that is not a proof by exhaustion. First, proof by exhaustion requires, in the first step, a proof that the set of cases to be proved covers all possible cases. How would you demonstrate that?

Secondly, you are apparently arguing that absence of evidence is proof of absence. This is faulty logic, surely?

No god has popped up to break the proof...

As far as proof by exhaustion is concerned, absence of evidence shows that in all cases to date no god exists.

 

[syo]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

doesn't science always want experiments?

 

[ChristineM]

I will grant that by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that you have the proof for your beliefs. We both obviously agree that it is not an absolute proof.

Does absolute proof exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

doesn't science always want experiments?

It depends upon how one defines "experiments". Many experiments in science can be said to be done through observation. Every new fossil find is a new "experiment". Every new discovery in astronomy is also an experiment. And since these finds can be observed repeatably the experiments are repeatable.

Too often creationists think that experimentation is only done in the laboratory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does absolute proof exist?

From my experience only in mathematics. Yet that is the unreasonable level that creationists demand for concepts that run contrary to their beliefs even though the evidence for their beliefs is amazingly weak. They try to demand that others "prove them wrong" when the burden of proof is upon them. They need be able to give evidence that they are right, since they can't their only alternative is to attack the valid evidence of the opposition.