Consider the following scriptures:
Deuteronomy 19:5
Matthew 18:6
John 5:30-47
These passages are about witnesses of crimes, and witnesses that Jesus is who he says he is. There seems to be a clear indication in scripture that we find repeatedly, that two or three (presumably credible) witnesses are enough to believe a testimony. Scripture is considered a witness about Jesus. The works that the Father does through Jesus are considered a witness from the Father. John the Baptist is also considered a witness who testifies about Jesus.
I think this may give us some insight into this: how do we determine if an event reported by a scientist actually happened, or how accurate is his/her testimony? Too often we just hear the word "scientist" and assume that whatever comes next is a fact. What if the scientist is not a credible witness? What if the institution of sciences is not a credible institution? How do we tell the difference between true science and false witnesses who might be motivated by power or money or some other conflict of interest? How do we tell the difference between massive conspiracies and legitimate institutions? (If you don't believe in massive conspiracies, you are a holocaust denier.)
I am developing a framework for assessing the credibility of scientific information. The places where I find this most often necessary are with regards to issues surrounding creation. This is important because my son is learning to read, and I want to be able to give him a clear way to separate fact from fiction from opinion from lies from educated guesses, etc. What I am trying to figure out is a systematic way of discerning whether any given statement is credible. I find myself classifying statements that I read into 3 categories:
Observation: through my senses, I directly witnessed something. I am an eyewitness. (Note an eyewitness does not necessarily have to use the eyes; any direct senses will do.)
Mediation: I have received a report of someone else witnessing something. There is someone who at least claims to be an eyewitness, even if that person is not me. This person may be more or less credible. There can be a chain of mediators, people who pass on the report of an eyewitness. These people are effectively witnesses of a witness, and each one has his/her own credibility that affects the credibility of the report that I receive.
Speculation: I have received a report which does not even claim to have an eyewitness. This is an educated guess. Speculations can also be mediated, but they are not being mediated from an eyewitness, they are being mediated from a guesser. The extent to which this guess is educated affects its credibility, but it cannot be verified through direct observation by anyone.
Here are some examples:
Say you are walking around in your garden and you discover a piece of greenbrier. You have heard that greenbrier leaves are edible. You bend down and pluck one off the prickly stem, taking caution not to poke yourself. You munch on it. It tastes good. You eat the rest. You find that later, you are feeling good, and you are neither dead nor sick to the stomach. You conclude that greenbrier is in fact edible, at least for you. This is an observation. You are an eyewitness to the fact that greenbrier is edible. Though you heard about it through a mediator, you were able to repeat the experiment and observe it for yourself. You could then find another observer or two, and partner with them to spread your testimonies to other people, and they could benefit from that testimony.
Say you are reading a book about dinosaurs with your child. You come across the following statement: "The Triceratops had three horns". I would classify this as a Mediation, and a credible one. I know that I have been to a museum and see the bones of a Triceratops. It is possible that the museum manufactured these bones, but I find that unlikely because I know that there are multiple museums which display these, and I have heard and seen independent reports about this from a variety of sources. I believe that two or three witnesses have actually observed this fact, and the report has reached me from a variety of independent mediators, so I believe it is indeed a fact.
Say you are reading the same book, and you come across the statement, "The Stegosaurus was an herbivore, meaning it only ate plants." I would classify this as a Speculation, and a credible one, but still not nearly as credible as the fact that the Triceratops has three horns. This is because no one has ever reported having observed a Stegosaurus eating anything, so there is no eyewitness of the event. It is possible that Adam witnessed such a thing, but we have no report of it, so we cannot count him as an eyewitness. The statement is a result of deductive reasoning: if an animal has square teeth, and not pointy teeth, then it is likely that the animal would only eat plants. A Stegosaurus has square teeth. Therefore, we can hypothesize that the Stegosaurus only ate plants. And there the scientific method comes to a grinding halt. No one can verify this hypothesis through experimentation. No one can verify it through application of the principles to see if it is useful for everyday life. It is at best a novelty - something we can marvel at, and appreciate, but not something that we can base our decisions on. Whether it's a fact or not is completely unverifiable, and I would hesitate to even call it science.
Say you are reading the stock report for a company, and you look at the stock prices over the past year. The stocks predictably rose in a linear pattern over that year. You then wonder what the stock price was the year before... but the website is broken and it won't let you see the 2-year data. So you figure it out mathematically. You open up Excel and plot a linear regression, using an enormous mountain of evidence consisting of 300 data points per day for 365 days, which is over 100,000 data points, and forecasting the stock prices backward one extra year, using only the present year's data. Miraculously, you even notice that the increase in prices was perfectly linear. The price increased by exactly the same amount from every data point to the next. You then go and tell people that you checked the stock prices 2 years ago. You have made a Speculation, and a wildly inaccurate one at that. Where are you getting the baseless assumption that the rates of things continue being consistent in the unmeasured past, just because they seem consistent within the range over which you measured them? Did you think that, because you had a mountain of evidence suggesting the rates always stay constant, that you could then extrapolate outside the measured range? What is a mountain of evidence? How much is enough? Whatever seems like enough must be enough? Nope. Just because it seems like a lot of evidence does not mean it is enough evidence. You have zero observations, and zero reports from eyewitnesses or mediators, for the stock prices 2 years ago, so you have zero information. 100,000 times 0 is still 0. This is an incredible Speculation.
Say you are reading the weather report, and it says "The high temperature in 10 days will be 41 degrees Fahrenheit." This is a Speculation, and its credibility depends on the weatherman's track record of accurate reports, and whether there are other weathermen predicting the same thing. However, no matter how many weathermen are predicting it, and no matter how good their track records are, it is not observable... yet. When 10 days pass, and I measure the weather and I find it to be 45 degrees, I will then conclude that the Speculation was incorrect. If I measure it to be 41 degrees at the high, then I conclude that the Speculation was correct. This is an educated guess, and its accuracy varies greatly. It is not unverifiable forever, but in the present it is unverifiable.
Please provide feedback as to whether you think this is a correct and useful framework for discerning facts.
Deuteronomy 19:5
Matthew 18:6
John 5:30-47
These passages are about witnesses of crimes, and witnesses that Jesus is who he says he is. There seems to be a clear indication in scripture that we find repeatedly, that two or three (presumably credible) witnesses are enough to believe a testimony. Scripture is considered a witness about Jesus. The works that the Father does through Jesus are considered a witness from the Father. John the Baptist is also considered a witness who testifies about Jesus.
I think this may give us some insight into this: how do we determine if an event reported by a scientist actually happened, or how accurate is his/her testimony? Too often we just hear the word "scientist" and assume that whatever comes next is a fact. What if the scientist is not a credible witness? What if the institution of sciences is not a credible institution? How do we tell the difference between true science and false witnesses who might be motivated by power or money or some other conflict of interest? How do we tell the difference between massive conspiracies and legitimate institutions? (If you don't believe in massive conspiracies, you are a holocaust denier.)
I am developing a framework for assessing the credibility of scientific information. The places where I find this most often necessary are with regards to issues surrounding creation. This is important because my son is learning to read, and I want to be able to give him a clear way to separate fact from fiction from opinion from lies from educated guesses, etc. What I am trying to figure out is a systematic way of discerning whether any given statement is credible. I find myself classifying statements that I read into 3 categories:
Observation: through my senses, I directly witnessed something. I am an eyewitness. (Note an eyewitness does not necessarily have to use the eyes; any direct senses will do.)
Mediation: I have received a report of someone else witnessing something. There is someone who at least claims to be an eyewitness, even if that person is not me. This person may be more or less credible. There can be a chain of mediators, people who pass on the report of an eyewitness. These people are effectively witnesses of a witness, and each one has his/her own credibility that affects the credibility of the report that I receive.
Speculation: I have received a report which does not even claim to have an eyewitness. This is an educated guess. Speculations can also be mediated, but they are not being mediated from an eyewitness, they are being mediated from a guesser. The extent to which this guess is educated affects its credibility, but it cannot be verified through direct observation by anyone.
Here are some examples:
Say you are walking around in your garden and you discover a piece of greenbrier. You have heard that greenbrier leaves are edible. You bend down and pluck one off the prickly stem, taking caution not to poke yourself. You munch on it. It tastes good. You eat the rest. You find that later, you are feeling good, and you are neither dead nor sick to the stomach. You conclude that greenbrier is in fact edible, at least for you. This is an observation. You are an eyewitness to the fact that greenbrier is edible. Though you heard about it through a mediator, you were able to repeat the experiment and observe it for yourself. You could then find another observer or two, and partner with them to spread your testimonies to other people, and they could benefit from that testimony.
Say you are reading a book about dinosaurs with your child. You come across the following statement: "The Triceratops had three horns". I would classify this as a Mediation, and a credible one. I know that I have been to a museum and see the bones of a Triceratops. It is possible that the museum manufactured these bones, but I find that unlikely because I know that there are multiple museums which display these, and I have heard and seen independent reports about this from a variety of sources. I believe that two or three witnesses have actually observed this fact, and the report has reached me from a variety of independent mediators, so I believe it is indeed a fact.
Say you are reading the same book, and you come across the statement, "The Stegosaurus was an herbivore, meaning it only ate plants." I would classify this as a Speculation, and a credible one, but still not nearly as credible as the fact that the Triceratops has three horns. This is because no one has ever reported having observed a Stegosaurus eating anything, so there is no eyewitness of the event. It is possible that Adam witnessed such a thing, but we have no report of it, so we cannot count him as an eyewitness. The statement is a result of deductive reasoning: if an animal has square teeth, and not pointy teeth, then it is likely that the animal would only eat plants. A Stegosaurus has square teeth. Therefore, we can hypothesize that the Stegosaurus only ate plants. And there the scientific method comes to a grinding halt. No one can verify this hypothesis through experimentation. No one can verify it through application of the principles to see if it is useful for everyday life. It is at best a novelty - something we can marvel at, and appreciate, but not something that we can base our decisions on. Whether it's a fact or not is completely unverifiable, and I would hesitate to even call it science.
Say you are reading the stock report for a company, and you look at the stock prices over the past year. The stocks predictably rose in a linear pattern over that year. You then wonder what the stock price was the year before... but the website is broken and it won't let you see the 2-year data. So you figure it out mathematically. You open up Excel and plot a linear regression, using an enormous mountain of evidence consisting of 300 data points per day for 365 days, which is over 100,000 data points, and forecasting the stock prices backward one extra year, using only the present year's data. Miraculously, you even notice that the increase in prices was perfectly linear. The price increased by exactly the same amount from every data point to the next. You then go and tell people that you checked the stock prices 2 years ago. You have made a Speculation, and a wildly inaccurate one at that. Where are you getting the baseless assumption that the rates of things continue being consistent in the unmeasured past, just because they seem consistent within the range over which you measured them? Did you think that, because you had a mountain of evidence suggesting the rates always stay constant, that you could then extrapolate outside the measured range? What is a mountain of evidence? How much is enough? Whatever seems like enough must be enough? Nope. Just because it seems like a lot of evidence does not mean it is enough evidence. You have zero observations, and zero reports from eyewitnesses or mediators, for the stock prices 2 years ago, so you have zero information. 100,000 times 0 is still 0. This is an incredible Speculation.
Say you are reading the weather report, and it says "The high temperature in 10 days will be 41 degrees Fahrenheit." This is a Speculation, and its credibility depends on the weatherman's track record of accurate reports, and whether there are other weathermen predicting the same thing. However, no matter how many weathermen are predicting it, and no matter how good their track records are, it is not observable... yet. When 10 days pass, and I measure the weather and I find it to be 45 degrees, I will then conclude that the Speculation was incorrect. If I measure it to be 41 degrees at the high, then I conclude that the Speculation was correct. This is an educated guess, and its accuracy varies greatly. It is not unverifiable forever, but in the present it is unverifiable.
Please provide feedback as to whether you think this is a correct and useful framework for discerning facts.