<p>i got candy</p>
<p>delicious candy</p>
<p>Mmmm, tempting…</p>
<p>I see someone else came to the same impasse. </p>
<p>It’s impossible to get anywhere in this discussion with you, Mr. Muffin, because you’re mistaken about some basic stuff.</p>
<p>1) You insist that ‘evidence’ is only applicable to disproving a claim.<br>
2) You think that faith is the same as ‘blind faith’.<br>
3) You think that belief in something that isn’t a logical consequence is illogical. </p>
<p>If (3) were true, belief in scientific theories would be illogical.
If (2) were true, it would be blind faith on your part to believe that your parents are actually your parents.<br>
If (1) were true, there would be no evidence for the claim that you’re a human being.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you think your ‘equation of a function’ analogy helps us with. It just says what you’ve already said – just in a more colorful way.</p>
<p>(3) there’s a reason they’re not called “fact”
(2) this is over semantics, so i won’t really go into it. but faith in god is blind faith
(1) give me an example of a piece of evidence that does not disprove and explain how it supports a claim. also define support</p>
<p>the analogy illustrates what i’m saying in a detailed way. can you find a flaw?</p>
<p>arguing online is like running in the special olympics: even if you win, youre still ■■■■■■■■</p>
<p>^Haha, well, it certainly is slow!</p>
<p>JESUS IS LORD :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
You seem to think that an anology is an argument. Your analogy could perfectly fit what you’ve been saying – in fact, I already conceded that I knew what you were saying, so why would I need your analogy? – but it doesn’t make your case. You need an argument for that, and an analogy isn’t an argument. </p>
<p>You’d have to argue for why your analogy correctly fits and thus why it correctly characterizes what you’re trying to say about evidence. I’ve already rejected your original claim on its own ad hoc merits, so your analogy isn’t going to get us anywhere.</p>
<p>Try this analogy. You’re like a guy who gets everything wrong. See, now you’re refuted for all time. The power of analogy.</p>
<p>you still haven’t given me an observation that does not fit my analogy. you haven’t given me an observation that directly supports a claim in any way. you have not defined “support” for me so i can clearly know what you mean. i’ve made my argument; it’s your job to disprove it, and the only way is to find an observation that is inconsistent with it.</p>
<p>what are you afraid of?</p>
<p>You’re asking me to critique an argument you’ve made, one which relies on a use of ‘evidence’ that is contrary to its use in everyday language and philosophical arguments, so why would the onus be on me to tackle this argument of yours?</p>
<p>because if you cannot disprove my definition of evidence, that means it’s a correct definition. and since my definition encompasses EVERY possible observation, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find an example that is inconsistent with my definition if one exists.</p>
<p>and of course it contradicts what you learned in philosophy. that’s what i’m challenging.</p>
<p>Of course I cannot “disprove” your definition, but only because you have no idea as to what would count as a refutation. </p>
<p>So, likewise, you cannot “disprove” my definition. The only problem is that I have empirical evidence (you like that phrase?) that proves that my use of ‘evidence’ is used in philosophical, legal, and everyday circles. </p>
<p>What more can I say? The fact that in some other field “evidence” is used differently doesn’t imply that it’s used wrongly in another field. You’re relying on a definition of “evidence” as used in another field (which I think you’re also wrong about, but that’s not our argument) and trying to impose that definition on philosophers. Philosophers don’t need to defend their use because it conflicts with some other use of “evidence”. </p>
<p>It’s your job to explain why the philosopher’s use is wrong. You haven’t done that. All you’ve done is tell us the ‘other definition’ and used an analogy to further explain it. Again, those aren’t arguments.</p>
<p>So, unless you have more than “It’s not how we use it in such-and-such field”, then there’s simply no challenge being presented that needs my responding.</p>
<p>
yes you can. find an observation that supports a claim other than through the indirect route of disproving other claims and my definition will be disproven.</p>
<p>
i cannot disprove your definition because you haven’t given me anything to work with. you claim that observations can be used to support claims, but you can’t even give me one example. until you can do that, your definition of evidence does not work.</p>
<p>
and just because the definition you use is widely used even in formal practices doesn’t make it any more right. i’ve already explained that it’s out of ignorance/convenience that people use the word “support” rather than a long explanation of disproving and occam’s razor. also, philosophers must defend their claim because either my definition is right or your definition is wrong for EVERY context. there cannot be a middle.</p>
<p>
philosophers’ use is wrong until you can provide observations that can be used to directly support a claim. i cannot show you your claim is wrong until you show me why you think it’s right. and if you want to take another route, if you (or anyone else) cannot disprove my claim, it disproves yours. it is an argument.</p>
<p>
I can only say it a million times: You have NO ARGUMENT. </p>
<p>Your whole position amounts to this: I define “blah-blah” as “bippity bop”, and nothing you say can disprove that “blah-blah” means “bippity bop”; therefore, you’re wrong.</p>
<p>Why would you think that philosopher’s must defend their use of ‘evidence’ against its use in some other field? Why wouldn’t your use need defending in light of the fact – and it is a fact – that philosophers use it a different way?</p>
<p>i’ll reword what i’m saying and maybe it’ll be more clear to you: evidence CANNOT be used to directly support ANYTHING. and until you give me an example of evidence that does directly support an argument, the definition that philosophers use is invalid.</p>
<p>
mine doesn’t need defending until it is challenged, but yours needs defending too and so far you are unarmed.</p>
<p>Here’s my response: evidence CAN be used to directly support a claim. </p>
<p>So now we have contradictory claims, neither of which, it seems, should be given any more weight than the other. Translation: you have no reason to think that I need to defend my claim but that you don’t. In my defense, I point to the common uses of my definition. Such as… </p>
<p>We might hear in a court of law: “Your fingerprints at the scene of the crime is evidence for the claim that that you killed her.”</p>
<p>AND</p>
<p>We might hear in a philosophical discussion: “The Universe’s existence is evidence for God’s existence.”</p>
<p>What can you do? At most, it seems, is give examples in which ‘evidence’ is only used in disproving something. But of course that wouldn’t imply that it’s not also used in proving something. So, you’d have to also argue that my use, the philosopher’s use, is wrong. And how you would do that is beyond me, and, frankly, beyond you. </p>
<p>So, as I keep saying, you have made no argument. And it’s you who owes the argument, not me. So, without simply saying that ‘evidence’ is used ‘this way’ in ‘this field’, show that it cannot also be used for positive claims in another field.</p>
<p>
what was the fingerprint on? was it distorted in any way? was the fingerprint even made by the suspect or was he framed? you have not given enough context for it and even then, the initial statement may not even be true.</p>
<p>but when things like this come up in court, it’s not about “what is the absolute truth?”, it’s about “what’s good enough?” a fingerprint on a gun that killed the victim does not logically lead to the claim that the person killed her, but because there is a high correlation of the occurance, the evidence is enough for us to think the man killed her. even then, there is no supporting, but reasonably disproving of rival theories. we’re not going to suggest an alien cloned the suspect and killed the woman, even though there is nothing to disprove the claim. the reason we say it supports the claim is because we ignore the absurd hypothesis, limiting the number of possibilities to a finite amount. through the process of cancellation (from disproving hypothesis), we come closer to the “truth.” that is a process of indirect support, which i already said i do not count as support.</p>
<p>
the existence of gold coins is evidence for leprechauns’ existence</p>
<p>come on, you can do better than this.</p>
<p>
surely you realize that this is impossible. i would have to come up with EVERY possible situation and EVERY possible observation and demonstrate how each observation is not support for each claim. there are an infinite number of combinations.</p>
<p>the logical method is to demonstrate how each of your examples are invalid. all previous discussion aside, you agree that if you cannot come up with a valid example that fits your use of evidence, then your use of it is invalid, right? and if you agree with my points above, you would so far have 0 valid examples.</p>
<p>Are you joking, now? </p>
<p>I give you common uses of “evidence” and you dismiss them by calling them invalid. That’s it. You’ve done nothing more than give your stipulations for the so-called proper use of the term and then you dismiss everything that doesn’t meet those stipulations. </p>
<p>The problem is that you don’t get to decide this. You haven’t shown anything. Period. I don’t understand why you think you have. </p>
<p>You’re right about one thing, IF I agree with your points, then I haven’t given a so-called valid use yet. Your problem is that I don’t agree with your points, society doesn’t agree with your points, your points are epistemically false, and so you have nothing but your opinion which stands in the face of common uses, philosophical uses, and legal uses – all perfectly ‘valid’ uses, which you’ve done nothing to disspell as invalid uses.</p>
<p>So, unless you’ve got something besides, “Uhm, I refuse to recognize these common uses,” then there’s nothing left to argue.</p>
<p>you think that because something is widely used or believed in that it’s correct? because that’s the only thing you’ve used to “support” you claim. if we go by your logic god must exist, evolution is a made up fairytale, and there’s no such thing as time. don’t critique a claim by the number of people that agree with it.</p>
<p>i’ve asked you this before and you haven’t replied to it, but it seems to come down to how you define “support”. if you can’t answer that question, then this discussion is pointless.</p>
<p>
We’re talking about language here, specifically the use of the word ‘evidence’, which gains its correct usage by how people use it. It’s a matter of empirical record as to how philosophers and lawyers use the word – they use it to support positive claims and negative claims. You can’t challenge these facts. Well, you can, but it’s pointless. </p>
<p>I’ve pointed to how the word is used in certain fields of knowledge. That’s all I needed to do. </p>
<p>What you’ve done, and it’s all you’ve done, is say that the word is used only in a narrow sense (namely to make negative claims) in such-and-such field. Okay, you may be right about this with respect to science or math. It doesn’t matter which field you’re talking about. I will happily concede the point (though I doubt you’re even right about this), because it doesn’t pose a problem for my argument, which basically is just my pointing to certain facts. </p>
<p>So we have a quite common use of ‘evidence’ in philosophy and in law. You’re arguing that we have a technical use in science (or math – I can’t recall). Again, this poses no problem for me…as both claims can be true. </p>
<p>If you want to actually challenge my argument, which would be an awesome tactic, you’d have to argue that only the technical use is correct. That’s going to be one helluva task. You’ve yet to make that argument, and I don’t think you can do it. In fact, I think nothing you can say would lead us to believe that philosophers and lawyers can’t use the word ‘evidence’ just as they’ve been using it. After all, what would prevent them from doing so? </p>
<p>So, the onus of this argument is entirely on you. </p>
<p>You seem to think that ‘support’ works like a ‘support beam’, where if it doesn’t actually support a structure, then it’s not really a support beam. Then, again, you think ‘support’ and ‘evidence’ can only be used for negative claims, so the analogy would be to say that it’s only a support beam if it supports a non-existent structure…? Ha. </p>
<p>Here are some really common ways we use the word ‘evidence.’ </p>
<p>(1) Counselor says to a patient: “If you close your eyes and fall backwards, it’s evidence that you trust me to catch you.” </p>
<p>(2) Doorman says to young-looking-guy: “Show me evidence that you’re really 21.” (Guy pulls out his driver’s license).</p>
<p>(3) Laywer says is court: “Let the evidence show that OJ Simpson killed his wife.”</p>
<p>(4) Woman says to her girl-friend: “This lipstick on your husband’s collar supports my claim that he’s cheating on you.”</p>
<p>What are you going to do, now, challenge me that we don’t use ‘evidence’ and ‘support’ these ways? </p>
<p>Good luck.</p>