What are the standards for evidence?

[Jeremiahcp]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well love would be tough to prove as a form of evidence if you've never loved someone, or have been ever loved by someone before.

I think evidence comes through establishment for which people can see or experience for themselves whether it is the case or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal an informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

With that example, it depends on culture. My culture (American), parents want their children to fly when they get old to take care of themselves. They love us by letting us flap our own wings. While in many Asian countries, the opposite is true. My friend told me once she is glad she lives with family (she's 34) because now she can take care of them like they took care of her.

So, her standards of whether my mother loved me was based on her cultural upbringing. My being in a diverse upbringing, my standards would be to let her live her standards rather than make her conform to mine.

If someone says god exist because they experienced him when they saved their daughter's life, and that's all they have, it depends on how you judge what is truth and what is not. I think the standard would not be universally set but asked first to see what standards the other person has. Then help them based on their standards and not our own.

I talked with a therapist years ago and he was telling me about one client of his had hallucinations. He didn't give him medication for the hallucinations but because he was harming himself from the stress. When he "got used" to the hallucinations and was able to work and build his life up, he no longer needed therapeutic help.

Instead of the therapist invalidating his views and saying that his client is seeing things that wasn't there, the therapist (he told me) says he knows he sees something and he treats the client as if that thing or event happened. Using that event or stresser to delve more into how it affected his client, and then find standards of what is "real" and what is not to where the client is comfortable with his hallucinations without thinking himself as crazy.

So, it really depends. If you're thinking of others, use their criteria. If you're thinking of yourself, what's your religious belief. If it's individual, it could be anything. If it's communal and cultural, standards would be agreed upon by the group.

If one person believes in god and another person does not, they are both in the same boat. If they needed a standard to know who is right and who is not, they'd have to find a common foundation and critieria to judge whether the standards are agreed on by both. Once agreed, then they can use that standard to test whether one person is right and the other person is not.

But the only universal standards is the laws of nature. Anything outside of that is our interpretation of ourselves, people around us, and our environment and place in the world.

 

[Sunstone]

I quite broadly define "evidence" as "anything of an empirical or rational nature offered in support of a truth-claim about a state of affairs." The reason I hold to such a broad definition is to avoid the problem of drawing a precise boundary between "evidence" and "non-evidence". That is, I don't think a precise boundary is all that easy to define.

However, I do roughly assess evidence according to where I think it lies on a scale of from "very weak" to "very strong". And that's the simple framework that I start with when approaching what standards there might be for evidence.

The devil is in the details, though, of exactly what makes some evidence weak and other evidence strong.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think there is a contextual elements here that people innately recognize.

If I said, "my favorite color is green", most level headed people would consider my word evidence enough to accept that my favorite color is green; however, if I said, "I own five Ferrari cars" people's skepticism level would probably rise; they may even want additional evidence before accepting it as true. If I said, "I have magical powers", then their disbelief flies off the scales, my word would no longer count as evidence. Setting is another contextual element, two friends shooting the breeze over coffee have a different set of standards, something unwritten but culturally learned. An academic paper on the other hand has to meet certain standards that are more clearly defined and more stringently applied. This is all stuff we learned as we developed socially, and at least on an informal level apply innately. Formal standards, however, I think have to be specifically learned.

 

[idav]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

I agree the authority is with the individual especially personal experience which is a form of personal evidence. It's easier when something can be verified outside of personal experience which is when people would be more able to give the benefit of doubt.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I quite broadly define "evidence" as "anything of an empirical or rational nature offered in support of a truth-claim about a state of affairs." The reason I hold to such a broad definition is to avoid the problem of drawing a precise boundary between "evidence" and "non-evidence". That is, I don't think a precise boundary is all that easy to define.

However, I do roughly assess evidence according to where I think it lies on a scale of from "very weak" to "very strong". And that's the simple framework that I start with when approaching what standards there might be for evidence.

The devil is in the details, though, of exactly what makes some evidence weak and other evidence strong.

"However, I do roughly assess evidence according to where I think it lies on a scale of from "very weak" to "very strong". And that's the simple framework that I start with when approaching what standards there might be for evidence."

I agree, it is important to realize that evidence carries a credibility factor as well. Personal and completely subjective "evidence" tends to be much weaker than intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

 

[sun rise]

I quite broadly define "evidence" as "anything of an empirical or rational nature offered in support of a truth-claim about a state of affairs." The reason I hold to such a broad definition is to avoid the problem of drawing a precise boundary between "evidence" and "non-evidence". That is, I don't think a precise boundary is all that easy to define.

However, I do roughly assess evidence according to where I think it lies on a scale of from "very weak" to "very strong". And that's the simple framework that I start with when approaching what standards there might be for evidence.

The devil is in the details, though, of exactly what makes some evidence weak and other evidence strong.

In physical science, the question is pretty straight forward although I just read an article which asserted the the old 95% confidence interval was way off and the standard needed to be much tighter. But even with such questions, repeatability by different researchers over time is a gold standard test. When it gets to medicine, however, even repeatability is a hard test given how often something is asserted to be proven which is later called into question. Even with this back-and-forth issue, the standard is pretty well defined.

When a question leaves the realm of science, the believability becomes much more subjective.

So at the weak end of the spectrum, I might say "I believe you". That would become "I have evidence" and finally "I have proof". So an example would be "I believe my mother loves me" to "my mother demonstrates her love by self-sacrifice" to "measurements of oxytocin and brain wave activity are indications of the emotion of love".

 

[HonestJoe]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

I don’t think the kind of thing you’re thinking of are about evidence in itself but interpretation of it. Nobody is going to deny that you’ve seen a sunrise but will challenge you if you say it’s evidence that the sun orbits the Earth.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

Pretty much every decisions we reach is based on scientific method of some form (however fuzzily). We take in information then interpret and process it to reach conclusions. The nature of the decision just determines how much evidence we require to settle on a conclusion, how important it is, what the consequences of getting it wrong are, whether sticking with “not sure” is valid etc.

To be blunt, I don’t really care whether your mother loves you or not so I’d probably take your statement (along with all the other knowledge and experience I have about mothers, love etc.) on face value. If your mother’s love (or lack thereof ) somehow became a life-or-death matter for me, I’d want a bit more than the word of a stranger on an internet forum to make reach a definitive conclusion.

 

[bobhikes]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

My point would be that for fact the standards should be high and equal across the board; however, not all statements need to be fact. Faith works with circumstantial evidence and for most statements that works fine. Saying my mother loves me is done with faith and could probably never be proved factually.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I said, "my favorite color is green", most level headed people would consider my word evidence enough to accept that my favorite color is green; ...

What does it serve to render evident?

Perhaps claims and evidence are not the same thing, and perhaps it makes perfect sense to at least provisionally accept some claims as true in the absences of evidence -- particularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Your claimed color preference strikes me as one of those cases.

At the other end of the spectrum, to quote Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."​

 

[The magical volleyball]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

How do you know your mother loves you?

What evidence have you gathered to arrive at that conclusion?

 

[SalixIncendium]

In the simplest terms, standard of evidence is based on whether the perspective is objective or subjective:

"My favorite color is green" is a purely subjective statement. It is neither measurable or quantifiable.
"I own five Ferraris" is a purely objective statement. It is both measurable and quantifiable.

Empirical evidence exists for objective claims, however, it typically does not exist for subjective claims due to the lack of the claimant's ability to measure or quantify said claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If I said, "my favorite color is green", most level headed people would consider my word evidence enough to accept that my favorite color is green; however, if I said, "I own five Ferrari cars" people's skepticism level would probably rise; they may even want additional evidence before accepting it as true. If I said, "I have magical powers", then their disbelief flies off the scales, my word would no longer count as evidence.

That would be consistent with Sagan's assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[1] It would be easy to accept your claim that your favorite color is green since that's commonly the case, you have no apparent motive for lying, and nothing is at stake if it is untrue and I believe it. The claim that your mother loves you fits in this category.

[2] Owning five Ferraris is very uncommon if you're not a Ferrari dealer, and there is a clear motive for lying: To try to create a false impression of wealth and success. But still, nothing is at stake if I guess wrong. I would probably take you at your word if I thought that you could afford five Ferraris. If you were Jay Leno, for example - a known car collector and wealthy man - I'd probably believe you with a more than 90% confidence level, but not if your financial circumstances are unknown to me, in which case I'd probably consider the claim less than 10% likely. Word would be enough in one case, but not the other.

[3] Possessing magical powers is the most extraordinary claim, and so requires at least an actual demonstration, and even that might not be sufficient inasmuch as most of us are well aware that magicians routinely create illusions in which naturalistic phenomena appear to violate known physical laws. People very much have a motive for trying to falsely convince others that they are powerful. Also, there is much more at stake if I believe or disbelieve such a claim incorrectly. Thus, of the three examples, this is the only one where it matters if I get it right.

One's word would obviously never be enough with such an extraordinary claim, and short of transferring those powers to me and allowing me to practice magic myself, I don't think that you could convince me with any lesser demonstration that I wasn't seeing another magic trick. Even if I were the one doing what appeared to be magic, I should remain skeptical and consider other explanations, such as the harnessing forces of nature to the point of making it appear that they are being suspended by an advance in science unknown to me.

Still, since I have no test, observation, argument, or algorithm that rules out the possibility that magic exists, that is, that violations of the known laws of our reality on command might occur, I understand that there is some finite possibility, however small, that magic exists and that I might witness it some day, so technically, even here, to be logically rigorous, I must remain agnostic as I am with cases [1] and [2].​

It's not difficult to know where to put the kind of god claims we hear most often on this spectrum: To the right (less likely) of [3]. In the case of the gods of the Abrahamic religions, for instance, we are not only being to asked to accept magic (supernatural power), but also, the existence of an immortal, sentient, omniscient, omnipotent agent, additional qualifications that make such a claim even more extraordinary.

 

[DavidFirth]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

Is it God's word? Yes. It is truth.

Is it God's word? No. It may or may not be truth.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is it God's word? Yes. It is truth.

Is it God's word? No. It may or may not be truth.

Before I jump in headlong, define for me "God's word."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What does it serve to render evident?

Perhaps claims and evidence are not the same thing, and perhaps it makes perfect sense to at least provisionally accept some claims as true in the absences of evidence -- particularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Your claimed color preference strikes me as one of those cases.

At the other end of the spectrum, to quote Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."​

I don't see why some claims can not also be evidence; they use witness testimony in legal matters all the time as evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

How do you know your mother loves you?

What evidence have you gathered to arrive at that conclusion?

You want me defend the notion that my mother loves me? The woman that gave me life, raised me and that I have known my entire life. Do you have something worthwhile to add? As I am not seeing a whole lot of evidence that you do.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see why some claims can not also be evidence; ...

And yet you employ the modifier 'some', suggesting that you understand why 'some' claims may not be evidence. How would you distinguish the two?

 

[DavidFirth]

Before I jump in headlong, define for me "God's word."

The Bible.