Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll 120 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  zannahdoll

  What is fact to you? How do you know? You test it? What is the test based on? Our senses (touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight)? Logical, Valid Arguments? What would the premises be based on? ... the senses? Where do you get your information? Did you personally test all the things you know to be true? Are you an astronomer, biologist, chemist... etc? How did the scientists come to know? Their senses? Mathematical Equations? Where do you read what their findings are? Books? Internet? You trust other's accounts? Only some people's accounts for things but not other people's accounts? Would you agree that the more we learn the more we don't know? Is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn NEW facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact? Do we know, with absolute certainty, that our sun will be there tomorrow? Do we trust it will because that is what history and science tell us?

  In my experience: Evidence is the favorite buzz word of atheists/anti-theists/agnostics. Unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else. Possibly multiple experts. However we all know that only because many people will atest that something is true doesn't always make it so (example: cults). If you test something for yourself then you are limited to the facts and logic that are available to you (I think we can all agree that we do not have the full picture) and you are limited to your senses (I think we can agree that our senses can play tricks on us).

  SO: do you know anything for certain? Or do you TRUST that things are certain? Can we only say that MOST LIKELY things are true and that is how we come to KNOW something? If you are trusting that things are so, without fully and actually knowing, isn't that then a leap of faith?

  Not one person functions without feeling they have some kind of trust... Example: knowing how to get places and expecting them to be there when we show up... However, for all we know a tree could have fallen on a house or a place could be burned down and it is no longer there. We act on the likelihood that it WILL be there. Otherwise we would not go anywhere.

  Atheists/Agnostics/Anti-Theists take a leap of faith every day! Interesting to me that some of you consider taking a leap of faith a fault in theists, claiming that they do not think, when we all do the same and take a leap of faith no matter what you believe or lack belief in.
• 

  Twitch

  Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance?
• 

  zannahdoll

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Types_of_evidence

  Problems in evidence

  The theory of evidence is a field wrought with dispute. Many of these disputes stem from the limits of human knowing, a field known as epistemology. Possibly the most salient question of evidence is how, if, and what, one can know. (Or, in other words, the question is to what extent is it even possible to fulfill the burden of proof.) This is the question of evidence's limits. Some believe all evidence to be circumstantial, denying the possibility of direct evidence.

  To help deal with this problem, many fields have found it useful to talk about levels of evidence and certainty, particularly the field of law.

  ..........................................................

  Types of evidence

  • Intuition
  • Personal experience
  • Testimonial
  • Anecdotal evidence
  • Scientific evidence

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

  Philosophic versus Scientific Views of Scientific Evidence

  The Philosophic community has invested extensive resources to address logical requirements for scientific evidence by examination of the relationship between evidence and hypotheses, in contrast to scientific approaches which focus on the candidate facts and their context [9] . Bechtel, as an example of a scientific approach, provides factors (clarity of the data, replication by others, consistency with results arrived at by alternative methods and consistency with plausible theories) useful for determination if facts rise to the level of scientific evidence [10] .

  A variety of philosophical approaches are available for the evaluation of evidence, many of which focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis, to determine if the facts rise to the level of evidence. Carnap recommends distinguishing such theories of evidence using three concepts: whether the theory is classificatory (does the evidence confirm the hypothesis), comparative (does the evidence support a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis) [11] . Achinstein provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation),Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap [12]

  Based on the philosophical assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis , a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been proven, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam's Razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct. It states formally, "The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized." [13]
• 

  zannahdoll

  Twitch

  Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance?

  No, I haven't. What is the concept, who is the author? I've been interested in the concept of reality since I was a kid. I wrote a paper and did a speech for an academic decathlon when I was in the 8th grade. What are your insights?
• 

  Twitch

  Robert Pirsig is the author. The concept is an inquiry into values, logic, rhetoric, philosophy and a lil bit about a motorcycle trip.

  Your idea of division in another thread and some ideas here remind me of one of his thoughts where he postulates that the scientific method as logical and concise as it is in searching out and sifting fact from fiction in order to provide answers ultimately only provides more questions, in a very small nutshell. Among other thoughts. You might like it. For some reason, Terry reminds me of the author.

  Perhaps I'll be back to share some thoughts of my own about this nebulous concept called reality. Likely not tonight tho.
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  It is now accepted by some that as time, the universe has always existed and will continue to exist for eternity. Therefore the Big Bang or any other theory of cosmology which suggest the universe has a finite existence if a false and mythical concept. Others believe, the universe at one time did not exist and that by some means it came into existence.

  Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge. Blind faith, by contrast, consists in belief not based on evidence, or based on such spurious forms of "evidence" as revelation and authority.

  Objectivism rests on a premise that supernatural dimensions do not exist when the facts stipulate otherwise. Matter is simply one form of energy. This relationship between matter and energy was expressed by Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). This equation reveals that a little mass, or matter, harbors enormous energy and that energy can also be turned into matter. Neither constant can emerge from empty space.

  String theory alone may one day find some evidence for the "infinite universe," but the pre-Big Bang models based on string theory are fundamentally un-empirical. Furthermore, as it currently stands, those models appear to be fundamentally incompatible with current cosmological observations as well as the enormous number of non-empirically based ideas that go along with them.

  The Ekpyrotic/Cyclic models that they are working on end up positing extraordinarily complicated mathematical "entities" or "bulks" (fancy word for bigger universes) that require a tremendous number of non-trivial assumptions that are based on nothing other than "to make it work out." So sure, you can hold out for one of these theories. But you don't get to pretend that you're sticking with empirical or scientific ideas. You're at least as religious as any hyper fundamentalist in any religion. If one insists on holding out for a scientific answer, then you will never find the answer. Any proposed explanation for the origin of the universe will be metaphysical and outside the reach of empirical science, whether it is theism or a string derived model.

  The forming of the material universe may thus have involved the transformation of matter and energy from an infinite source. The Bible shows God to be the source of the energy locked up in the material universe. (Isaiah 40:26) The idea of exalting the spirit over the material existence of the body has long been tightly connected to religious thought in Christendom's churches to the idea that there exists some reality beyond the material world we know through our senses, a world our spirits long for as an escape from the needs of the body and the constraints of physical reality. Evidence for God in its most genuine sense is God's active force.
• 

  DaCheech

  nobel prize goes to..........................
• 

  cyberjesus

  we learn things in school. we can never test all the things we learn. so even what we learn in school we must question. The advantage of science is that once something is falsified then the findings are recorded and accepted in the community. we learned them and based on a system of trust we accept what its being taught. That is why we always must question our beliefs and the authority given to the source. We trust is not the same we have faith. Trust is based on things that have been proven and verified while faith is solely based on blind hope without the need of verification.

  At the end you can not personally test all the facts but you can trust the most reliable.

  We know the earth will turn not because science tell us but because we experince it. we have all our life. science just explains why this happens. could the earth stopp suddenly? sure but what are the possibilities for this to happen? so we are confident that this wont happen in our lifes. and since we have observation we can formulate pretty accurate predictions based on natural laws. observation is key.
• 

  notverylikely

  Evidence is the favorite buzz word of atheists/anti-theists/agnostics.

  Evidence isn't a buzzword.

  Unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

  So? The fact that you can test it or watch someone else test is important.

  However we all know that only because many people will atest that something is true doesn't always make it so (example: cults).

  Test cults? I am not sure how that relates actual science.

  If you test something for yourself then you are limited to the facts and logic that are available to you (I think we can all agree that we do not have the full picture) and you are limited to your senses (I think we can agree that our senses can play tricks on us).

  Or we can share information and collaborate and increase the shared knowledge pool. If someone were to be falisifying results then that would become apparent to the group. You are limited to your senses as to what we can percieve, yes, but we also are NOT limited to just our senses. We can make tools to test for things that our senses cannot.

  If you are trusting that things are so, without fully and actually knowing, isn't that then a leap of faith?

  No.

  Atheists/Agnostics/Anti-Theists take a leap of faith every day!

  You wrote all that just to say that? Sure. Everyone takes tiny leaps of faith every day. Why are you surprised at this?

  Interesting to me that some of you consider taking a leap of faith a fault in theists, claiming that they do not think, when we all do the same and take a leap of faith no matter what you believe or lack belief in.

  Ah, got it. You see, based on the things you attempted to dismiss earlier, shared evidence, results from tests, experience, we all presume certain things ARE. For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because in the entire history of man (shared experience) and the history of my life (personal experience), it has never failed to do so. Similarly, I can walk up a flight of stairs without looking at each step because i have faith based on my personal experience the step next step will be there.

  See, the difference is that despite leaps of faith, there is demonstrable and repeatable evidence that can be demonstrated to others. In the case of god, no such evidence exists, no universal agreement on the nature of god, whether his holy books are right or what the mean, how many gods there are, etc.
• 

  notverylikely

  Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance?

  Yes, great book.