No Evidence Vs Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
While something happened to the body, the investigator's will not initially know what. From the investigator's point of view, there will be potential scenarios supported by the evidence. As more evidence is gathered, it may be possible to dismiss some scenarios. Eventually, it may be possible to assign a high provability to one scenario (i.e. if the coroner finds evidence of trauma on the skull consistent with a hammer blow). Since the investigators were not there when the body died, they will never know everything that transpired, but they may eventually be able to assign a high provability to one scenario (and sometimes they may not depending on the available evidence).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:18 AM)pablo Wrote:  Try thinking of your scenario as a crime scene, and putting together a case for trial.
If you're trying to lead me into absolute truths, I'm not biting.

This. There's evidence that's good enough to get 12 human beings to agree with your version of events, and there's evidence that stands up to testing in a controlled environment, i.e. helium causes a balloon to float and must therefore be lighter than air (just the first example that came to mind).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:17 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  I'm not sure if we're talking about scientific evidence, legal evidence, or what

I'm speaking of evidence void of any real qualifiers.

Quote:but I'd say any observable condition that informs your conclusion, regardless of the conclusion's correctness could be considered evidence.

So the the very fact that I'm drawing a conclusion makes the "observable condition" evidence? Regardless if the conclusion I draw is wrong, faulty, or even stupid .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:18 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But you're saying it's only after they come to a correct conclusion, the most plausible of the group of conclusions, that the "clues" as you put it, become evidence?

Try thinking of your scenario as a crime scene, and putting together a case for trial.
If you're trying to lead me into absolute truths, I'm not biting.

I'm just trying to get an idea of where the line between no evidence, and evidence begins. Just like I might ask a creationist where the line between one kind and another kind begins and ends.

So far from this thread, some here claim it's dependent on whether the explanation is true or not, others claim it's just by a conclusion being drawn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:17 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  I'm not sure if we're talking about scientific evidence, legal evidence, or what

I'm speaking of evidence void of any real qualifiers.

Quote:but I'd say any observable condition that informs your conclusion, regardless of the conclusion's correctness could be considered evidence.

So the the very fact that I'm drawing a conclusion makes the "observable condition" evidence? Regardless if the conclusion I draw is wrong, faulty, or even stupid .

Is it evidence if it doesn't support any plausible theory?
Is it 'possible evidence' if a plausible theory has not yet been reached?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
06-05-2015, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2015 10:47 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:38 AM)pablo Wrote:  Is it evidence if it doesn't support any plausible theory?
Is it 'possible evidence' if a plausible theory has not yet been reached?


I'd say it's evidence regardless, as long as a conclusion is being drawn from it.

And I'd argue those that think otherwise are going to find themselves falling into a series of contradictions.

Let's say your assumptions are correct, what would it mean when you ask someone for evidence? Are you merely requesting that they provide you a plausible theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:38 AM)pablo Wrote:  Is it evidence if it doesn't support any plausible theory?
Is it 'possible evidence' if a plausible theory has not yet been reached?


I'd say it's evidence regardless, as long as a conclusion is being drawn from it.

And I'd argue those that think otherwise are going to find themselves falling into a series of contradictions.

I suppose that depends on how far you are willing to expand the meaning of the word.
There are different types of evidence, with more specific meanings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:38 AM)pablo Wrote:  Is it evidence if it doesn't support any plausible theory?
Is it 'possible evidence' if a plausible theory has not yet been reached?


I'd say it's evidence regardless, as long as a conclusion is being drawn from it.

And I'd argue those that think otherwise are going to find themselves falling into a series of contradictions.

Let's say your assumptions are correct, what would it mean when you ask someone for evidence? Are you merely requesting that they provide you a plausible theory?

It is evidence if it is objectively observable; conclusions have nothing to do with what qualifies as evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-05-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:50 AM)pablo Wrote:  I suppose that depends on how far you are willing to expand the meaning of the word.
There are different types of evidence, with more specific meanings.

Is there a universal meaning, when we commonly say, "there is no evidence"? Or would the specific meaning likely be unknown to us, unless the individual asking for evidence specifies?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:38 AM)pablo Wrote:  Is it evidence if it doesn't support any plausible theory?
Is it 'possible evidence' if a plausible theory has not yet been reached?


I'd say it's evidence regardless, as long as a conclusion is being drawn from it.

And I'd argue those that think otherwise are going to find themselves falling into a series of contradictions.

Let's say your assumptions are correct, what would it mean when you ask someone for evidence? Are you merely requesting that they provide you a plausible theory?

EVIDENCE OF WHAT?

That's the point. There is no just asking someone for 'evidence" in a phrase like that.

In your interpretation, what Isn't evidence?

I guess your annoyed at people saying "the bible isn't evidence" because you're taking these phrases as some accurate point of being stated instead of more eloquently acknowledge points by people of any sensible intellect that often will instead say, The bible is poor evidence for a higher being or God's existence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: