What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof?

[Loudmouth]

What we have here is a claim that the past is a good guide to the future. How do we know that this is true?

"Science is not a good way of modeling how reality works."--Zosimus

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/scientific-empiricism.7902171/

You have a whole thread on why you reject scientific empiricism.

Let's assume that we have a person who assures us that real estate values will go up this year. Why?

Let's assume that we have a person who assures us that we don't have to worry about oxygen dissipating from around our bodies because of a sudden change in the physical laws of gas diffusion. Why?

According to your complete denial of science, why would you think the physical laws of gas diffusion would continue on the same for the indefinite future? Could we suddenly have oxygen just leave the Earth while leaving all of the nitrogen behind?

 

[Zosimus]

According to your complete denial of science, why would you think the physical laws of gas diffusion would continue on the same for the indefinite future? Could we suddenly have oxygen just leave the Earth while leaving all of the nitrogen behind?

Exactly. Why should I think that the physical laws of gas diffusion will continue on the same for the indefinite future? That's exactly the question I've asked. You can feel free to answer it at any time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. Why should I think that the physical laws of gas diffusion will continue on the same for the indefinite future? That's exactly the question I've asked. You can feel free to answer it at any time.

Do you really think you could suddenly suffocate tomorrow while going down the street?

 

[paulm50]

What is the difference between evidence, fact, and proof? Can we quantify evidence; is something more evident than something else? What does it take to convince a scientist, a scientific community, and the general public of the correctness of a scientific result in the era of very complicated experiments, big data, and weak signals?

Constant testing, then building on the evidence. They dream of being in the elite of their craft, up their with Newton, Darwin, Einstein. Or better still to debunk one their own with new proof.

They don't rely on one explanation, one book, or one idea. And then say there's no need to question it.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you really think you could suddenly suffocate tomorrow while going down the street?

Do you have a logical reason that this possibility should be discarded?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a logical reason that this possibility should be discarded?

What is the logic you use? You claim that you won't see doctors because their treatments have been ineffective in the past. You think the past indicates what will happen in the future. Why?

 

[Zosimus]

What is the logic you use? You claim that you won't see doctors because their treatments have been ineffective in the past. You think the past indicates what will happen in the future. Why?

No, I don't see doctors who charge money because there is no reason to believe that the advice they provide is worth the amount of money tendered. This falls under what we call decision theory. Decision theory, also called rational decision theory, is a method of making decisions when the outcomes are unknown.

For example, if we imagine that a person is considering whether to take out fire insurance on a house worth $100,000. The insurance costs $100. The person should buy the insurance unless he is certain that the chance of the house catching fire is less than one chance in 1,000. That's what we call normative decision theory.

Even if the chance of the house catching fire is less than one chance in 1,000 a person might still buy insurance based on the idea that such a catastrophic loss, though unlikely, would be completely devastating whereas simply paying $100 is relatively manageable.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't see doctors who charge money because there is no reason to believe that the advice they provide is worth the amount of money tendered.

You base this on the effectiveness of treatments in the past. Why?

For example, if we imagine that a person is considering whether to take out fire insurance on a house worth $100,000. The insurance costs $100. The person should buy the insurance unless he is certain that the chance of the house catching fire is less than one chance in 1,000. That's what we call normative decision theory.

Why would you think that materials would be flammable in the future just because they were flammable in the past?

Are you using the past to indicate what will happen in the future?

 

[Zosimus]

You base this on the effectiveness of treatments in the past. Why?

No, I don't, although I have pointed out to you that the track record is dismal. That should make you rethink your position; however, you don't because your faith is unshakeable.

Why would you think that materials would be flammable in the future just because they were flammable in the past?

It's not that I think the materials are flammable. I merely think that there is a more than 1 in 1000 chance that they are.

Are you using the past to indicate what will happen in the future?

No, if I did that I would say "My mother lived in her house for 31 years. That's more than 11,322 days. There was only one fire in all that time, and it involved the refrigerator. My father simply unplugged the refrigerator and called the fire department. Accordingly, the chance of a fire in the house is less than 1 chance in 11,322 days. Therefore, I should not buy fire insurance."

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't, although I have pointed out to you that the track record is dismal. That should make you rethink your position; however, you don't because your faith is unshakeable.

You say you don't, and then you do. You contradict yourself in the span of a single sentence.

It's not that I think the materials are flammable. I merely think that there is a more than 1 in 1000 chance that they are.

Why? Because they were flammable in the past?

No, if I did that I would say "My mother lived in her house for 31 years. That's more than 11,322 days. There was only one fire in all that time, and it involved the refrigerator. My father simply unplugged the refrigerator and called the fire department. Accordingly, the chance of a fire in the house is less than 1 chance in 11,322 days. Therefore, I should not buy fire insurance."

Were the materials that made up your mother's house flammable? Have the laws of physics changed over the last 31 years?

 

[Zosimus]

You say you don't, and then you do. You contradict yourself in the span of a single sentence.

Just as quoting the Bible to Christians does not require one to believe in the Bible, so too using empirical evidence to dissuade logical positivists does not require me to believe in empiricism.

Why? Because they were flammable in the past?

No, because of the principle of maximum entropy.

Were the materials that made up your mother's house flammable? Have the laws of physics changed over the last 31 years?

I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, I don't see doctors who charge money because there is no reason to believe that the advice they provide is worth the amount of money tendered.

Doctors sell their time. People waste their time in the waiting room because the doctors time is considered to be so valuable. Perhaps that is why they call them patients, because you have to be patient to wait on the doctor. Usually what they do is the doctor will operate, then they send you to some sort of a rehab for 36 sessions where they will teach you what you need to do to deal with the problem. They use the illustration of an overflowing faucet. You can mop up the mess but first you have to turn off the faucet or perhaps clean out the drain so the sink does not overflow. IE deal with the problem not the symptoms. First find the cause then you can apply the right cure.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Were the materials that made up your mother's house flammable? Have the laws of physics changed over the last 31 years?

I think the debate today has to do with how toxic are the chemicals they use to fireproof our home and clothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think the debate today has to do with how toxic are the chemicals they use to fireproof our home and clothing.

Are you saying that if these chemicals were toxic in the past that they will continue to be toxic in the future?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as quoting the Bible to Christians does not require one to believe in the Bible, so too using empirical evidence to dissuade logical positivists does not require me to believe in empiricism.

You don't go to doctors because YOU claim that their treatments were ineffective in the past. YOU think that this is an indication that they will be ineffective in the future.

You contradict your own claims.

No, because of the principle of maximum entropy.

Are you saying that the laws of entropy we have observed in the past will be the same in the future? Why?

 

[Zosimus]

You don't go to doctors because YOU claim that their treatments were ineffective in the past. YOU think that this is an indication that they will be ineffective in the future.

Untrue.

You contradict your own claims.

You only think so because you don't understand them.

Are you saying that the laws of entropy we have observed in the past will be the same in the future? Why?

The principle of maximum entropy has nothing to do with the scientific laws of entropy. You know, there is this amazing thing called Google that will let you look up just about anything. In fact, it may link you to Wikipedia, which is a site on which people put whatever information they have into a collective whole. Here's a quote:

"Consider a discrete probability distribution among m mutually exclusive propositions. The most informative distribution would occur when one of the propositions was known to be true. In that case, the information entropy would be equal to zero. The least informative distribution would occur when there is no reason to favor any one of the propositions over the others. In that case, the only reasonable probability distribution would be uniform, and then the information entropy would be equal to its maximum possible value, log m. The information entropy can, therefore, be seen as a numerical measure which describes how uninformative a particular probability distribution is, ranging from zero (completely informative) to log m (completely uninformative).

"By choosing to use the distribution with the maximum entropy allowed by our information, the argument goes, we are choosing the most uninformative distribution possible. To choose a distribution with lower entropy would be to assume information we do not possess. Thus, the maximum entropy distribution is the only reasonable distribution."

(emphasis added)

 

[Loudmouth]

Untrue.

Completely true.

You only think so because you don't understand them.

I do understand them.

The principle of maximum entropy has nothing to do with the scientific laws of entropy.

Why do you think that priniciple applies to the future? Because it has applied in the past?

 

[bhsmte]

Doctors sell their time. People waste their time in the waiting room because the doctors time is considered to be so valuable. Perhaps that is why they call them patients, because you have to be patient to wait on the doctor. Usually what they do is the doctor will operate, then they send you to some sort of a rehab for 36 sessions where they will teach you what you need to do to deal with the problem. They use the illustration of an overflowing faucet. You can mop up the mess but first you have to turn off the faucet or perhaps clean out the drain so the sink does not overflow. IE deal with the problem not the symptoms. First find the cause then you can apply the right cure.

I hate to break it to you, but most physicians don't perform surgery.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I hate to break it to you, but most physicians don't perform surgery.

I suppose that is that way now a days. It did not use to be that way. Esp in the horse and buggy day. There may only be one doctor and he had to do it all. The point was that the doctor can only spend so much time with a patient. So they have nurses and other people trained to teach the patients what they need to know about diet and behavior modification.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose that is that way now a days. It did not use to be that way. Esp in the horse and buggy day. There may only be one doctor and he had to do it all. The point was that the doctor can only spend so much time with a patient. So they have nurses and other people trained to teach the patients what they need to know about diet and behavior modification.

I will just chalk this up to another claim you made, that you can not support with evidence.