When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

[stvdv]

For me I am more interested in what stands to reason moreso than mere fact exchanges.
treat every conversation as a matter of evidence .... does not reveal anything important about how people reason the things they do.

I love conversations about intuitions, and hypotheticals. Speculations can also be interesting.
My fault on RF is that I enjoy hypothetical conversations too much. So I engage in that kind of thing. But oh well!

Question: IF I use the word "hypothetical" as below, is this seen as a "hypothesis" laying the "burden of proof on me"? (I was told recently on RF)
e.g.: IF I would start an OP with "Hypothetical God is the Bible God", meaning "In this OP I assume God is the Bible God and exclude other descriptions of God, because this is the Christian DIR; and I try to keep it simple". IF it lays "burden of proof on me", how should I word it to achieve what I want w/o having to prove it?

The Scientific Burden of Proof: In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.
It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:

• If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
• If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.

Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run). Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).

 

[stvdv]

I have had a most profound spiritual life that has given ME all the proof "I" need to believe it's rock solid factual. So am secure in my spiritual beliefs/path and could care less if spiritually broken people foolishly ask for "proof" which would be impossible to give them. It therefore comes down to how secure you are in your beliefs or feel you have to "prove" every little thing about your beliefs.

Thank you for sharing. I agree with this.

1) Spiritual Truth can never be proven by Science, because Science is below the mind and Spirituality is above the mind
2) IF the Truth is known THEN it can be claimed without "burden of proof". IF not known THEN "burden of proof" applies
3) IF the Truth is known THEN the Knower will NOT provide evidence. ONLY the ones who don't know provide evidence

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not cut and paste except to refer tor reference. i have a strong academic background in science, philosophy and logic, and I wanted to cut to basics to differentiate between the objective, subjective, and the concept of evidentialism, which I will go into further. I believe that it clearly easily understood how the concept of evidentialism applies in Methodological Naturalism in science, but it is a more difficult subject in theology and philosophy where physical evidence is not the basis for justification. This is the subject I will address further.
...

The justification for doing science had no physical evidence. The justification for it is subjective, where as the correct result using natural science is physical evidence. The reasons for choosing to do science are subjective.
Just wanted to clarify.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Question: IF I use the word "hypothetical" as below, is this seen as a "hypothesis" laying the "burden of proof on me"? (I was told recently on RF)
e.g.: IF I would start an OP with "Hypothetical God is the Bible God", meaning "In this OP I assume God is the Bible God and exclude other descriptions of God, because this is the Christian DIR; and I try to keep it simple". IF so, how should I word it to achieve what I want w/o having to prove it?

That is not science. Hypothesis have different being in science as per Popper. We can go over it, but it is like theory. That word has also different meanings depending on context.

 

[stvdv]

Since properly I don't believe in evidence like you do

I like your reply. Thanks.

I think you also totally missed the point I made in the OP. I asked "when do I need to provide evidence?"
I did not share in this OP "how I believe in evidence". So, you couldn't know how I believe in evidence till now.
Coincidentally I just replied, a few minutes ago, to someone else giving it a bit away. So now you should be able to know
I think you might be very surprised if you knew "how I believe in giving evidence"

Since properly I don't believe in evidence like you do most of the question doesn't make sense to me. But I looked them over and gave them as second chance and have no answered.

You still surprise me here

But to be honest I am bit irritated with you, because you use a certain POW on evidence that I don't hold. But some of your questions got me thinking. Some of them are good and how I am honest with you. I get turned off by one of the question and didn't react very well.

Regards
Mikkel

To be honest is the best, and I appreciate that. How you phrased it, you getting irritated by my, does not upset me (might have otherwise)
Was not my intention, but if I would have known that most of my questions don't make sense to you, and you could not answer even one, then I might have tried it (okay that is a joke, but if it worked would not be too bad, would it?), just to give you the opportunity to easily answer question 8

I am curious which one turned you off (4 maybe, or 5. Can't be 1,2,3 I guess
Oh and for your information, the first 3 starting with IMO: does not mean that this is my opinion (it's the opinion of the one selecting it !!!)

Question: I googled and found POW=prisoner of war. Must mean something else I think. Could not find it though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like your reply. Thanks.

I think you also totally missed the point I made in the OP. I asked "when do I need to provide evidence?"
I did not share in this OP "how I believe in evidence". So, you couldn't know how I believe in evidence till now.
Coincidentally I just replied, a few minutes ago, to someone else giving it a bit away. So now you should be able to know
I think you might be very surprised if you knew "how I believe in giving evidence"


You still surprise me here


To be honest is the best, and I appreciate that. How you phrased it, you getting irritated by my, does not upset me (might have otherwise)
Was not my intention, but if I would have known that most of my questions don't make sense to you, and you could not answer even one, then I might have tried it (okay that is a joke, but if it worked would not be too bad, would it?), just to give you the opportunity to easily answer question 8

I am curious which one turned you off (4 maybe, or 5. Can't be 1,2,3 I guess
Oh and for your information, the first 3 starting with IMO: does not mean that this is my opinion (it's the opinion of the one selecting it !!!)

Question: I googled and found POW=prisoner of war. Must mean something else I think. Could not find it though.

POV not POW, English is not my first language. More later. Real Life calls.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for sharing. I agree with this.

1) Spiritual Truth can never be proven by Science, because Science is below the mind and Spirituality is above the mind
2) IF the Truth is known THEN it can be claimed without "burden of proof". IF not known THEN "burden of proof" applies
3) IF the Truth is known THEN the Knower will NOT provide evidence. ONLY the ones who don't know provide evidence

I had to wrap my mind around it, but I get, I think. I am not that spiritual, I am a skeptic western style. So my force is the absurd as the limits of the understanding with knowledge in the western tradition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like your reply. Thanks.

I think you also totally missed the point I made in the OP. I asked "when do I need to provide evidence?"
I did not share in this OP "how I believe in evidence". So, you couldn't know how I believe in evidence till now.
Coincidentally I just replied, a few minutes ago, to someone else giving it a bit away. So now you should be able to know
I think you might be very surprised if you knew "how I believe in giving evidence"


You still surprise me here


To be honest is the best, and I appreciate that. How you phrased it, you getting irritated by my, does not upset me (might have otherwise)
Was not my intention, but if I would have known that most of my questions don't make sense to you, and you could not answer even one, then I might have tried it (okay that is a joke, but if it worked would not be too bad, would it?), just to give you the opportunity to easily answer question 8

I am curious which one turned you off (4 maybe, or 5. Can't be 1,2,3 I guess
Oh and for your information, the first 3 starting with IMO: does not mean that this is my opinion (it's the opinion of the one selecting it !!!)

Question: I googled and found POW=prisoner of war. Must mean something else I think. Could not find it though.

Take 2:
I have read your post you reference to and as far as I can tell, we agree on your understand of Truth for the Spiritual, though I don't personally use evidence like you do, I get it and accept that you do it, like you.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[stvdv]

Now for evidence there is an hidden assumption in some debates. You have to be able to give in the end positive evidence, which makes positive sense. The underlying core assumption is that everything must add up with reason, logic AND evidence (strong logic as coherent AND).
But since I am a skeptic, I can give evidence as negative for the limits of that everything must add up with reason, logic AND evidence. So what happens, is in effect psychology. Some people don't accept the possibility that there is a limit to reason, logic AND evidence.

But, on RF all believe "there is a limit to reason, logic AND evidence" I think. At least the down to earth Scientific people should think that way.

So the moment how ever indirect we hit different versions of the meaning of the universe, life and everything and somebody goes Universal We for all humans, I go skeptic, because that there is no such evidence in practice for all humans. You can subjective believe in it, but then I just believe differently.

So to wrap up, sometimes negative evidence, which does make positive sense, is subjectively valid if you accept it. If it is not subjective valid to you, you end up denying valid evidence, because it doesn't live up to your assumption that all evidence must be positive and make positive sense.

On earth our minds are flooded by duality, hence of course there is no evidence that fits all humans when it comes to Spirituality
Can you share an example of negative evidence as compared to positive evidence (first time I hear those terms)

If you want it as a sort of absurd. I love absurd, meaningless, doesn't make sense and all those other variants, because that is the bread and butter of skepticism. I doubt, so I can find the limits of knowledge. The positive practical application of what works as applied science I leave to others. If you want the end purpose of this form of skepticism, it is there. Nobody, how ever it has been tried, has given positive evidence of Objective Authority* for what really matters. To me we always end in morality and ethics as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

That also applies to some non-religious people. So I never bother to divide on the line of spiritual or not. It always if wide enough ends with moral relativism or Objective Authority.

I wanted to reply "I don't love absurd", but I do like "Ice man" and "Aghoris" and the wonderful Hindu Gods and their stories. Some might even call that absurd. I also have no problem that Jesus was able to walk on water, why not? I don't understand that people have trouble with that. Probably they think they are God, and what they can or can't is the limit. I believe "not even the sky is the limit"

What really matters to me ... nothing on this earth, as everything on this earth is ever changing. Still I do my best and take things serious
I have no problem using the word Spiritual or Science. They are just words that can be helpful to explain things, that's all there is to me

 

[Magic Man]

When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

You never have to provide evidence. You only have to if you want a good debate where you give an argument and support it.

For most regular things, generally there's no need to provide evidence. It all depends on context. If you told me right now that you are a democrat living in California, I wouldn't ask for evidence, because it's unnecessary. Your claim might not be true, but it doesn't matter to me right now whether it is or isn't. On the other hand, if you were making crazy claims and bashing California and democrats, then I'd question your claim of being a democrat living in California. At that point it would matter whether that was true.

It would be a rare occasion that something like "I can hold my breath" would be important enough to question through a request for evidence.

Generally religious claims regarding facts about the universe require evidence. "My god exists" definitely needs evidence (again, unless you don't care about a good debate or convincing anyone of your position). "Jesus was the son of God" needs evidence. "Prayer works." Any time you're claiming something factual about the universe.

There is also a difference between someone believing in say panentheism, and it is just their way of looking at the universe. It's not about facts and convincing others of their beliefs. If someone describes their beliefs like that to me, I won't really ask for evidence because it's unnecessary.

 

[stvdv]

I prefer to deal with the specific issues of evidentialism in theology and philosophy, since in the Methodological Naturalism the bounds are more clearly defined.

That indeed is interesting how and if evidence work with Spirituality, and to come to a mutual understanding between Science and Spirituality in regard to "evidence", because otherwise there easily arises a lot of miscommunication between both, which leads nowhere but irritation usually

I started this OP to get a glimpse of what people expect "evidence" to be when making a Spiritual claim. The replies gave me a good picture, so now I try to figure out HOW & IF Spiritual evidence can be (not) shared, or maybe just by advanced Spiritual beings. Does Spiritual evidence exist or not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But, on RF all believe "there is a limit to reason, logic AND evidence" I think. At least the down to earth Scientific people should think that way.

Maybe, but I doubt it. There are not just Ayn Rand Objectivists but in general there are different belief systems, that do believe that reason, logic AND evidence apply to everything. Now I don't know for RF, but I have come across them elsewhere.

On earth our minds are flooded by duality, hence of course there is no evidence that fits all humans when it comes to Spirituality

I only live on earth in practice. I have been an atheist and skeptic for to long and have gotten used to it. Now I am no longer an atheist, but in practice I am still a naturalist. My belief in God is a very limited one and in practice I am a non-believer for most case of Spirituality.

Can you share an example of negative evidence as compared to positive evidence (first time I hear those terms)

To show that 2+2=5 is false, but that it is correct that it is false, is negative evidence.

I wanted to reply "I don't love absurd", but I do like "Ice man" and "Aghoris" and the wonderful Hindu Gods and their stories. Some might even call that absurd. I also have no problem that Jesus was able to walk on water, why not? I don't understand that people have trouble with that. Probably they think they are God, and what they can or can't is the limit. I believe "not even the sky is the limit"

Look up reductio ad absurdum, if you don't already know that one as for absurd. So for your Truth, I sincerely hope it works for you.

What really matters to me ... nothing on this earth, as everything on this earth is ever changing. Still I do my best and take things serious
I have no problem using the word Spiritual or Science. They are just words that can be helpful to explain things, that's all there is to me

I like that.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That indeed is interesting how and if evidence work with Spirituality, and to come to a mutual understanding between Science and Spirituality in regard to "evidence", because otherwise there easily arises a lot of miscommunication between both, which leads nowhere but irritation usually

I started this OP to get a glimpse of what people expect "evidence" to be when making a Spiritual claim. The replies gave me a good picture, so now I try to figure out HOW & IF Spiritual evidence can be (not) shared, or maybe just by advanced Spiritual beings. Does Spiritual evidence exist or not?

Don't get me wrong, when I use belief. I don't mean it is derogative sense. Spiritual Evidence is a first person subjective experience of it making totally sense or otherwise a vey deep positive feeling. There might be other versions with Buddhism.
But to me it requires belief to connect it to the Spiritual as you do. I accept it works for you and I am glad that it works. But I do it differently.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[stvdv]

Yes. I took ASL class and Deaf culture with the Deaf and learned about cultural appropriation and the hearing using their cultural languistic cues for their own sake. I was already sensitive to people's religions because of culture but I got it more with the Deaf being the huge trust factor needed between hearing and Deaf.

People who are deaf usually excel in their other sense perception it seems to me. Less mental, more feeling. Recently I saw a deaf girl explaining in a very cute way how she perceived hearing people and their "dumb remarks". Really beautiful, so different from non-deaf people's replies, I almost shared this on RF, but was unsure if others have interest. One of my favorite detectives was "Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye" (the only one I bought on DVD)

I understand it in religion but it does bother me about the trust. I don't see myself as untrustworthy and most the time on RF I forget what I'm told only because of my brain issues in addition to. So the convo would be "present time" for understanding and curiousity on RF not taking notes.

I can't imagine people posting thousands of posts to remember them afterwards. And RF search is not my favorite (Google is much easier)
A few days ago I thought "What is the use of being on RF? Is it finding information, or just virtual learning in the moment, doing introspection etc. I never take notes. Sometimes I think "wow, this is nice to remember". For me RF is most useful for doing introspection and learning about myself through little virtual interaction

She asked if she can use his words and ideas in his book. He says, "no words are mine for they all came from god."

Makes you think.

Makes you wise. My favorite books when young were "Winnetou & Old Shatterhand", native american Indian stories. I hated the injustice though.

Also, though, unless one is rude, how does a stranger on the other side of the world take advantage of ones ideas and experiences from the other?

Internet plays a big factor in al of this. Copyrights are violated, not even known anymore. Difficult to protect "your things". In a way this can be used to realize what the old native american Indian said "no words are mine for they all came from god.". Everything can be used to transform ourselves

That and personally, I've never thought strangers don't deserve my attention. In general, I read here when asked if they learned something, it's almost like putting a barrier to only learn from people they know but i.e. saying they don't care about people they don't. "They're just online people" or even treat people online as if we're not real people.

I was amazed to hear people say this
But actually they only declare one thing "I lack compassion, empathy", and they might be drifting into "matrix-type-of-people". Scary thought

 

[Brian2]

You can either provide your evidence with your claim. Or provide it if asked. In either case you show you can back up your claim with evidence. These i consider to be honest speeches

Then there are those who make claims without evidence and either ignore request for it to be presented or come out with the clincher "prove me wrong". These just make me think, "yeah right. another one, time to move on"

Sorry I did not provide evidence for NDEs being evidence for a spirit in a person. In that thread for one I was overwhelmed with posts which I still have not answered and may never. Also I think I told you there were about 30 million reported cases in medical journals etc and many of them could be seen as no more than brain function at such a time (if you are that way inclined) but also many seem to be definite evidence of out of body experiences that could be verified. You did not want to believe me and wanted evidence and I did not want to go through 30 million cases to find the evidence and thought if you are interested then surely you can seek it out for yourself.
Nevertheless I have found a little video on the subject for you. I hope it supplies evidence for you of something.

 

[stvdv]

To show that 2+2=5 is false, but that it is correct that it is false, is negative evidence.

Thank you for the example. Might take some time to sink in I think. I don't see the logic in this as "negative evidence". I will sleep on it

Look up reductio ad absurdum, if you don't already know that one as for absurd. So for your Truth, I sincerely hope it works for you.

I did not know that Latin phrase. Absurd is also just a subjective expression. I find it an absurd idea to smoke cigarettes, knowing the horrible smell and taste, and knowing the ill effects on the body and nerve system and what not. Others love their cigarette. On earth there is only relative truth IMO

 

[stvdv]

Don't get me wrong, when I use belief. I don't mean it is derogative sense. Spiritual Evidence is a first person subjective experience of it making totally sense or otherwise a vey deep positive feeling. There might be other versions with Buddhism.
But to me it requires belief to connect it to the Spiritual as you do. I accept it works for you and I am glad that it works. But I do it differently.

Regards and love
Mikkel

Spirituality to me a personal path, so I understand you do things differently.
Living a Spiritual life means to me in essence: "Hurt Never Help Ever"

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry I did not provide evidence for NDEs being evidence for a spirit in a person. In that thread for one I was overwhelmed with posts which I still have not answered and may never. Also I think I told you there were about 30 million reported cases in medical journals etc and many of them could be seen as no more than brain function at such a time (if you are that way inclined) but also many seem to be definite evidence of out of body experiences that could be verified. You did not want to believe me and wanted evidence and I did not want to go through 30 million cases to find the evidence and thought if you are interested then surely you can seek it out for yourself.
Nevertheless I have found a little video on the subject for you. I hope it supplies evidence for you of something.

Don't be sorry


Falsifiable evidence is the key, evidence that can be reliably checked each time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't be sorry


Falsifiable evidence is the key, evidence that can be reliably checked each time.

If you can do that for these categories, I will listen to you.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[ChristineM]

If you can do that for these categories, I will listen to you.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

None of those are about evidence, and i assume you have not actually read that page because it backs up what i was saying a couple of days ago

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations... Thanks