What do you think?
There are 2 categories of evidence:
That which proves some thing,
& That which proves no thing! ?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
18 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I have trouble with the 'prove' part, but yeah.
evidentialist
Level 8
May 18, 2018
0
Evidence is not proof but it can point the way to proving or disproving something. For example the big bang theory has enough evidence to show that it's valid. But some reject that evidence (notably fundamental christians) and embrace creationism, without any evidence whatsoever!
Tommy19
Level 7
May 18, 2018
0
If it proves no thing is it still evidence? Isn't the qualification for something being evidence that it proves something? Even if there, 'isn't enough of it', it is still an indicator.
girlwithsmiles
Level 8
May 18, 2018
0
Ah, I think after reading that several times I finally understood. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Yes a lack of something could indeed be a type of evidence e.g. a lack of bullets embedded in a surface said to be shot at. Cool.
Those categories are rather meaningless unless you first establish a standard of proof.
Heraclitus
Level 8
May 18, 2018
0
@atheist Then it is a good statement. That which cannot be proven scientifically must be taken with a certain element of faith regardless of the evidence presented.
This brings to mind something that I'd like to share: I used to work as an advocate for DV and SA victims. I'll never forget the time an attorney said to me, "we are not looking for truth, we are looking only for evidence".
AmelieMatisse
Level 8
May 18, 2018
2
Why does this not surprise me?
@nvrnuff yes, a sad truth. Makes me think of the OJ trial
@CoastRiderBill I totally get what you are saying but there are times when evidence does not produce the truth. It happens a lot in child sexual assault cases and also in DV cases. I did that work for 8 years and it was often overwhelming odds
That's how the system works, it's only about what can be proved with evidence, traceable facts. I understand the emotional part of it, however the system has to prevent scenarios based on "he/she said" and that leads to the reality where the truth at times may get overrun by available evidence (or the lack of)
How can evidence prove nothing? If there is evidence, even if it's only circumstantial, it at least leads one to some sort of conclusion.
AstralSmoke
Level 8
May 18, 2018
1
It doesn't say nothing, it says no thing. A play on words.
@nvrnuff What’s the difference?
I think he means that a thing is the hypothesis? So no thing is a failed hypothesis or one that needs tweaking.
@girlwithsmiles Guess I need to learn to read between the lines better. Thanks.
Additionally it is impossible to disprove pretty much anything. Think of Bertrand Russel's "Celestial Tea Pot" [en.wikipedia.org]. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster who's church I belong to and am a proud member.
It is very hard to disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist despite it being obvious. "Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?" [venganza.org]
marmot84
Level 7
May 18, 2018
4
Lols to the spaghetti monster! Do you get to eat him for communion?
Ah, just checked out your website and found the answer is yes. Yummy, that's my kind of church 
@atheist It is a philosophical truth that they may exist. Clearly the probability that they are true is extremely small. As Dawkins said of the probability of the existence of God, less than the chance that a Boeing Dream-liner 777 would assemble itself out of a pile of junk when a tornado passed over the junk yard.
Perhaps we are living in a "simulation." The probability that we are is far more than any of the others I've mentioned above.
It is really philosophically hard to actually prove anything. My students will often write in their lab reports that the experiment that they did "proved" the hypothesis they were testing. I grade this off because the evidence either supports or questions the hypothesis.
Decartes was apt in "cogito ergo sum" (English: "I think therefore I am" .) This is provable but not much else unfortunately.
marmot84
Level 7
May 18, 2018
3
@atheist We can't really keep philosophy out of it. We need to keep it in mind because ignoring it means possibly making critical mistakes in our reasoning. It is a driving position n the practice of science. Scientists know that you don't prove anything. You can provide supporting evidence but that is all.
I am trying to think. Yes I am thinking. !!
VAL3941
Level 8
May 18, 2018
5
Perhaps there is a third category which neither proves nor disproves but just muddies the water.
AmelieMatisse
Level 8
May 18, 2018
6
I think the first category is dependent upon time and the second category is timeless.
kenbur12
Level 5
May 18, 2018
3
@atheist Evidence that proves a point depends on memory which is encapsulated thought time. Evidence that does not offer proof to another thought is timeless. Example: “I am what is known now” is a statement of evidence that can only be proven now in the ever changing present moment which remains forever timeless. You can dissect this statement and add analysis and try to make it a thing or bring it into time but that which is no thing remains forever timeless.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.