The Logical Premise?

[Resha Caner]

"induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."

Yep.

 

[AirPo]

I was looking for something more formal.

Then just google it. -->

 

[Obliquinaut]

The same way one knows that any perception is not imagination. When I read the Bible it's not hard to know that I'm not hallucinating just as I know that when I read your post. Do you think you're hallucinating when you read the Bible?

In cases of religious revelation we have cases where people reveal "truths" about God (or Gods) and heaven and hell. These truths, of course, cannot be verified. They are simply the word of someone who says "I went to heaven and saw this!" (for instance, Christina of Liege who visited both heaven and hell and came back to report it to 12th-13th century Belgium.)

If you wish to say that all perception of reality is indistinguishable from hallucination then indeed we are at an impasse. Of course it renders EVERYTHING meaningless.

However, if I, as a scientist observe and effect and describe it, it will be verified by independent observers.

One last problem with "revelation": if you wish to accept revelation, why do you only accept some revelation? Do you you accept all of the revealed knowledge of the Buddhists? The Hindus? The Zoroastrians?

One doesn't "verify" it in the sense you're thinking of. I either trust or distrust their words.

And why do you trust or distrust someone's words? Is that not predicated on some verification metric you utilize?

I just had a revelation that God wears purple corduroy pants. Do you trust my word?

If someone says they met and had a conversation with Jennifer Lawrence, I might not believe them if they claimed it happened in Gary, Indiana and JLaw was in LA that day

So you do utilize verification metrics.

As such, I'm not expecting you to "verify" or believe my experiences. Either you trust my words or you don't. At this point I'm sure you don't.

If you tell me something that cannot be verified but will make a significant difference in my life if I don't believe it, you will lose my trust immediately.

Experiencing gravity is not a scientific test of gravity.

Yes it is.

Few have tested gravity to any degree beyond what Galileo did. As such (unless you're a physicist who works on such things) I doubt you have any personal confirmation of gravity beyond Galileo's simple W = mg formulation.

Is that not enough? Why do I need to test it on the planetary scale? But every day I walk the earth I see evidence of gravity on the planetary scale. That F=ma formula you just quoted is manifest with every step I take or every time I pick up my keys.

That's an unfounded leap. Clearly everyone who has viewed a Jennifer Lawrence film experienced it in a different way, but that in no way justifies claiming she doesn't exist.

So when one group of people says god lives in a mountain over beyond those trees and another group says God doesn't "live" anywhere in particular, that's not a problem.

When one group says You have to believe that this man who was both God and God's son simultaneously, sacrificed himself for your sins or you will go to burn in hell eternally and another group says "That guy you are worshiping is a prophet but not God and if you worship him you are guilty of polytheism" that's not a problem?

If one group says "You need to do good works to achieve salvation before God" and another group says "Works are insufficient, you need only accept Jesus' sacrifice to achieve salvation", that isn't a problem?

If I said Jennifer Lawrence had large tusks and matted fur all over her body you would assume I'm talking about Jennifer Lawrence and not a walrus, right?

And no, I don't discount the spiritual experiences of others the way you do. I have no doubt many non-Christians have had spiritual experiences. What I dispute is their conclusions.

So how do you verify which conclusions are correct?

 

[Obliquinaut]

What does honesty have to do with myopia?

You call it "myopia" when scientists say they cannot know everything perfectly. Yet you will not criticize when your pastor tells you he or she knows perfectly what God's will is.

It is either blind, myopic, or omniscient ... which is it?

So you are talking about faith now? OK. Faith is blind.

Science doesn't claim to give you perfect truth. Science is a method by which we come as close to truth as we can in our limited fashion.

Religion is the only thing that promises perfect truth. And of course no one really knows if any of it is true because no one comes back from that particular journey to "the other side".

 

[AV1611VET]

You call it "myopia" when scientists say they cannot know everything perfectly.

I don't need a scientist to say anything: it'll probably be wrong anyway.

All I need is to go outside and look down the street.

Can I read the newspaper a block away?

No?

Then it appears my empirical senses are myopic.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes it is.

I'm sorry, but it's not. That would mean every perception is a scientific experiment, and that simply is not the case. If science is everything, it becomes a vapid, useless concept that can't distinguish religious claims from mathematical claims.

Your reply is so full of special pleading, conflation, and insistence that I'm doing things I said I wasn't doing that I'm not going to attempt to untangle it all. Rather, if you want to discuss something with me, you'll need to:
1) Be more concise
2) Explain how this relates to my OP
3) Provide citations for your claims - for example a peer-reviewed article detailing how just walking around and feeling gravity constitutes a scientific experiment.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm sorry, but it's not. That would mean every perception is a scientific experiment, and that simply is not the case

Really? It kinda feels like that to me. But then I've been doing science most of my adult life in my career.

Your reply is so full of special pleading, conflation, and insistence that I'm doing things I said I wasn't doing that I'm not going to attempt to untangle it all.

Well, my apologies for putting any thought into my response to YOU!

Rather, if you want to discuss something with me, you'll need to:
1) Be more concise

I was rather concise and precise in my wording.

2) Explain how this relates to my OP

If you recall I was responding to your post. My apologies if you wish to avoid going along the lines you started on.

3) Provide citations for your claims - for example a peer-reviewed article detailing how just walking around and feeling gravity constitutes a scientific experiment.

I apologize if you were confused about how a scientist views science. I've made my living these past nearly 30 years immersed as a research scientist and student in the sciences. It kinda IS that for me. If you think that science only takes place when you sit in a laboratory with a specific set of glassware around you then I'm afraid you aren't one to tell us what the limits of science are.

So, do tell me, "how science is done." (And if you don't mind, I'll tell you how scientists do science.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

I don't need a scientist to say anything: it'll probably be wrong anyway.

Will YOU be more correct in your assessments?

All I need is to go outside and look down the street.

And praytell, what will you see there? Because I can tell you of countless people who saw things that they misperceived for millennia. And yet they spoke their TRUTH.

Then it appears my empirical senses are myopic.

Yes, yes they are. And unless you can show me any other type of "senses" you have, I guess you're stuck in the same boat as the rest of us. But perhaps you aren't willing to concede that fact.

That's why I say science is at least being honest with you when it accepts the LIMITS.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why I say science is at least being honest with you when it accepts the LIMITS.

At least.

 

[Resha Caner]

Really? It kinda feels like that to me.

What are you claiming here? That because you hold a scientific degree, everything you feel is science? Or that everything everyone feels is science? Are the things that other species feel science? I just want to be clear regarding your claim. Because all this bluster seems to merely hide the fact that even though you claim to be a scientist who bases everything on evidence, you can't point to any evidence of this particular claim, but must rely on what you feel. Rather hypocritical it seems to me.

So, do tell me, "how science is done." (And if you don't mind, I'll tell you how scientists do science.)

That's quite the claim that you can speak for all scientists. How about you tell me what your degree is, and then I'll listen to what you have to say about your particular field.

I happen to have a degree and 28 years of experience as well. My specialty is mechanics - specifically nonlinear dynamics. I can't talk about the experiments I'm preparing at the moment because that's proprietary to the company I work for, but I can speak to what I have published in the past as that's in the public domain.

One of my first hypotheses regarded jump phenomena in pendulum absorbers - specifically the load and speed conditions necessary to cause jumps (which is something we want to avoid). Are you asking me to describe that in more detail? Because, you see, I've read all the international standards documentation, and not once do they define a scientific method. Rather, they specify means of documentation for the variety of methods (plural) that scientists use. I was curious why that is, and investigated it years ago. Is that what you want to discuss? I need some clarification here, because any one of these topics could easily produce a wall of text.

[edit] And, FYI, I never mentioned God in my OP. It was you who brought that up, so I still fail to see what prompted you to mention it. It's funny how I can post on topics ranging from soup to nuts and because my profile happens to mention that I'm a Christian, atheists come out of the woodwork to turn into an argument about God. I guess I should be flattered that they want so desperately to argue such things with me.

 

[AirPo]

I don't need a scientist to say anything: it'll probably be wrong anyway.

All I need is to go outside and look down the street.

Can I read the newspaper a block away?

No?

Then it appears my empirical senses are myopic.

No, they're just old.

 

[Obliquinaut]

What are you claiming here? That because you hold a scientific degree, everything you feel is science?

No. I'm saying that as a scientist I understand that I learn by observation. And if I'm doing correctly I'm always observing.

I am seeking to understand the world around me. When I pick up the keys I observe they have weight. What is that weight? I know it is gravity. When I go outside I see rocks on the ground. How did they get there? What are they? I live in an area where ancient glaciers dumped giant rocks from the breaking of a giant ice dam north of us scouring the entire area around me. When I drive into work I see the Coast Range and I see they are made up of what appears to be basalt (along with some other rocks.) Why are they there? It appears they are part of a piece of land that was rafted onto the side of the continent.

LIFE is observation. That's all I can do.

Because all this bluster seems to merely hide the fact that even though you claim to be a scientist

Why do you now doubt MY claims but you are happy to accept the claims of those who have revelations of God?

That's quite the claim that you can speak for all scientists. How about you tell me what your degree is, and then I'll listen to what you have to say about your particular field.

BS, MS and PhD in geology. 25 years as an R&D coatings, carbon, silica and minerals processing chemist.

I happen to have a degree and 28 years of experience as well. My specialty is mechanics - specifically nonlinear dynamics. I can't talk about the experiments I'm preparing at the moment because that's proprietary to the company I work for, but I can speak to what I have published in the past as that's in the public domain.

And when you see a system behave non-linearly but it isn't in your lab you simply ignore it?

Interesting. I couldn't do that.

[edit] And, FYI, I never mentioned God in my OP. It was you who brought that up, so I still fail to see what prompted you to mention it.

Let us rewind the tape:

True in the sense that nothing can be known absolutely unless it is revealed by an omniscient source. However, I'm quite sure our non-believing friends have accommodated themselves to the idea that nothing will ever be known absolutely.

I have highlighted the important bit. I hope you see why I started discussing God. Because you raised the concept of revelation and omniscient sources.

It's funny how I can post on topics ranging from soup to nuts and because my profile happens to mention that I'm a Christian, atheists come out of the woodwork to turn into an argument about God. I guess I should be flattered that they want so desperately to argue such things with me.

Nope, it's because you start talking about OMNISCIENT SOURCES and non-believers.

 

[Obliquinaut]

At least.

And is faith thus hindered?

Or will people of faith tell you INERRANT TRUTH about God?

And are these people God? Or are they just people?

If you hear anyone tell you INERRANT TRUTH, do you believe them? If so, why are you not a Buddhist? A Hindu? A Muslim?

 

[Resha Caner]

LIFE is observation.

Yet not all observation is science. I can observe a sunset and think it beautiful. That is not a scientific observation. When my kids were little we would jump together in those inflatable bouncy houses. The reaction was, "Wee!" not "Wow kids, did you notice that your rate of acceleration is the same as mine! That's gravity!" In fact, if you've ever seen the movie Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead they make fun of observations like that as well as the difficult complications in trying to point out those observations to others.

BS, MS and PhD in geology. 25 years as an R&D coatings, carbon, silica and minerals processing chemist.

Were you required to take classes in logic that covered induction, deduction, and abduction for those degrees? How much did they discuss "scientific method" as an abstract concept vs. specific procedures related to geology? How much were you required to learn about unrelated sciences for that degree?

And when you see a system behave non-linearly but it isn't in your lab you simply ignore it?

Yeah, I usually do. My life is more than my job. I have a family, friends, clubs, hobbies ... and none of my hobbies are science-related. It just doesn't seem to fit in the middle of a baseball game to jump up and shout, "Wow! Did you see the turbulent boundary layer on that baseball!"

And to that point, many nonlinear phenomena - the ones that aren't trivial - are hard to observe in any detail with the naked eye.

Interesting. I couldn't do that.

Too bad. You're missing out on a lot. Maybe try shutting off your mind and just smelling a rose once.

I have highlighted the important bit. I hope you see why I started discussing God. Because you raised the concept of revelation and omniscient sources.

I did. But again, I didn't initiate the reference to theology. I replied to someone. It was a subtle attempt to deflect the direction of Chesteron's comment. He and I have some (good) history, and it seems he got the hint. I then made a second subtle attempt to deflect your response. While I felt it necessary to rephrase some of your statements, I was conceding that you had a point. Apparently all of that went over your head, but as a clue note that I used a clinical term ("omniscient source") in order to make a general statement rather than a specific statement about God. The use of that clinical term refers to all possibilities in a general sense. An omniscient source need not be the God I know.

With that said, I'm open to discussing God with you. But I would prefer we do that in a different thread to avoid derailing this one ... though maybe it's too late. Further, I'm not interested in being lectured by you about how ridiculous you think my beliefs are, nor do I feel compelled to seek a win from you in a debate. If you're curious about my beliefs and are seeking understanding, ask away.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yet not all observation is science. I can observe a sunset and think it beautiful.

Why? Is it the color? Why is it red?

That is not a scientific observation.

I agree. But all science is predicated on observation.

Were you required to take classes in logic that covered induction, deduction, and abduction for those degrees?

Yes.

How much did they discuss "scientific method" as an abstract concept vs. specific procedures related to geology? How much were you required to learn about unrelated sciences for that degree?

Quite a bit actually and indeed afterwards I have continued my appreciation of the philosophy of science. Also one of my closest friends from undergrad is a philosophy professor and I spent a great deal of time talking through much of this stuff with him as well over the years.

It just doesn't seem to fit in the middle of a baseball game to jump up and shout, "Wow! Did you see the turbulent boundary layer on that baseball!"

That's sad. In my life I find that when I see something interesting if I keep track of it I can often leverage it to my work. I love to read and since a lot of my friends are either authors or english professors/teachers I started tracking on the style of writing from various authors. That got me interested in text analytics. At the same time I was doing a lot of statistics for my chemistry work and it all came together. Recently I have switched jobs over to patent analytics in the R&D groups I work with. This was a prefect combination of topics. Text analytics, statistics, intellectual property. And all because I was fascinated by different authors' styles.

Too bad. You're missing out on a lot. Maybe try shutting off your mind and just smelling a rose once.

I honestly can't think of a worse way to live life. Sorry.

I did. But again, I didn't initiate the reference to theology. I replied to someone.

And interestingly you later stated this:

I would state it differently. As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation. So it's not a discussion of the possible, but of what has been revealed. As such, the problem is not so much that the knowledge can't be tested, but rather than it can't be transferred. So, you were basically right in saying believers don't "have" the knowledge. They don't own the knowledge, but rather trust the source that told it to them.

In that sense, I don't see much difference between theological knowledge and much of the rest of knowledge people adhere to. The difference is a matter of degree rather than kind.

Which of course raised the point to the level of the OP and the nature of knowledge.

I then made a second subtle attempt to deflect your response.

By commenting on the value of theological revelation as a form of knowledge?

While I felt it necessary to rephrase some of your statements, I was conceding that you had a point. Apparently all of that went over your head, but as a clue note that I used a clinical term ("omniscient source") in order to make a general statement rather than a specific statement about God.

Sure, yeah, you are ever so smart and I am a mere idiot unable to keep up with your brilliance.

Because there are just so many possible "omniscient sources" out there that aren't God.

With that said, I'm open to discussing God with you. But I would prefer we do that in a different thread to avoid derailing this one

Then perhaps you shouldn't have derailed your own thread by introducing revelations and theology and "non-believers" in your posts.

... though maybe it's too late. Further, I'm not interested in being lectured by you about how ridiculous you think my beliefs are

I don't think I actually said your beliefs are "ridiculous". That would be very much out of character for me since I think people who have religious beliefs are free to believe as they wish if it brings them happiness. I was just hoping you could discuss the difference between observational science and "revelation" dispassionately. Apparently you cannot.

, nor do I feel compelled to seek a win from you in a debate. If you're curious about my beliefs and are seeking understanding, ask away.

I don't care about your "beliefs". They are yours. That's fine. I was rather hoping to discuss this avenue of epistemology you opened up in your thread.

My apologies if you are unable to do so without getting bent.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why? Is it the color? Why is it red?

Are you familiar with the idea of emergence? Nonlinear dynamics is very dependent on the structure of the system, and so reductionist techniques are often ineffective. No doubt that has affected how I think, but I didn't think I was unique in appreciating beauty without dissecting it.

Quite a bit actually and indeed afterwards I have continued my appreciation of the philosophy of science. Also one of my closest friends from undergrad is a philosophy professor and I spent a great deal of time talking through much of this stuff with him as well over the years.

For what level were you required to study those things? BS, MS, PhD, or all of them? And do you know if that's typical of geology or was it specific to your program? I ask because I didn't get that kind of training. It was very specific. In fact, several professors were actually hostile to the philosophy of science. I'm wondering how much variety there is in that regard.

So, I too, have studied much philosophy of science, but on my own. It was actually prompted by my work, not by anything related to religion. I got quite a bit of attention from my work. I was the first to predict and then confirm a jump phenomena in such a complex machine. But then I predicted a jump in a different kind of mechanism and ended up falsifying the prediction. Those types of things led me to ask why, and studying the philosophy of science led to a complete shift in my views from realism to instrumentalism.

That's sad. In my life I find that when I see something interesting if I keep track of it I can often leverage it to my work.

Good for you. But why is it sad that not everyone lives life the way you do?

I was just hoping you could discuss the difference between observational science and "revelation" dispassionately. Apparently you cannot.

I can. I just wasn't interested. Regardless of what you may believe, my reply was only meant as a quick comment and I wanted to move on. Redefining what I had said about revelation and referring to absurdities involving walruses and purple pants doesn't lead me to believe you're seeking a serious conversation.

The first thing you have to get past - and it often seems to be a stumbling block for atheists - is that we can talk about revelation apart from deity. It doesn't require a divine nature. So you need to be clear about what you're really interested in. Are you interested in revelation or deity?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Are you familiar with the idea of emergence? Nonlinear dynamics is very dependent on the structure of the system, and so reductionist techniques are often ineffective. No doubt that has affected how I think, but I didn't think I was unique in appreciating beauty without dissecting it.

I enjoy the world more when I get to kind of explore the whys. (And don't think for a second that I don't frequent art museums. They are usually the first or second place I go when I'm traveling, especially in Europe). It is not like I can't enjoy art or beauty, but I love to better understand the why when observing things.

For what level were you required to study those things? BS, MS, PhD, or all of them?

I wasn't really required to study them (with the exception of one class they made us take in undergrad because they feared that science majors weren't getting involved enough in philosophy, but by that time I'd had a couple philosophy electives already under my belt). So most of my investigation and learning in the philosophy of science has been over the many many years of my life. Both in classes and in reading. But more importantly I work with inferential statistics in much of my work. As such I've grown over time to attempt to better appreciate my epistemology and how I "know" what I know (or fail to).

For me the OP is important because there is no "proof" in science. There is only a preponderance of evidence. (So there's one potential flaw in your original OP...I don't seek "proof", I seek to model the system as effectively as I possibly can). And of course, as others have pointed out with regards to Popper, it only takes one instance of falsification to overturn thousands of "positive results".

I can even personally attest to this. In one of my chemistry postdocs I was brought in to verify the results of a previous researcher. It turned out that it was far more likely that the previous researcher had simply gotten some bad data because of undetected leaks in the system. Even I got what looked like some "positive" data in support of the hypothesis. But I got a lot more negative data and, indeed, there was little to support the hypothesis even theoretically.

And do you know if that's typical of geology or was it specific to your program? I ask because I didn't get that kind of training.

My training and focus on philosophy in regards to science is pretty much wholly sui generis to me.

It was very specific. In fact, several professors were actually hostile to the philosophy of science. I'm wondering how much variety there is in that regard.

A lot of scientists don't take enough time to think through the philosophical implications of what it is they do. In some respects they take a kind of common-sense approach. Over time most people grow in their science and start to better appreciate the implications. And some are naturals to it without really thinking too much about it.

Good for you. But why is it sad that not everyone lives life the way you do?

I enjoy learning things and observing the world around me. I feel sad for those who simply experience washing over them without gaining some knowledge from it. Don't get me wrong, I do that with some art, but even then I've done enough graphics work as side projects and hobbies in my life, I also like to appreciate the technical aspects of artworks.

Redefining what I had said about revelation and referring to absurdities involving walruses and purple pants doesn't lead me to believe you're seeking a serious conversation.

And yet those two points were directly germane to your posts. The one about the walrus was, indeed, a very clear discussion of how one experiences the ineffible in theology. Schools of theology exist which are dramatically different and contradictory, yet they are all the product of "revelation" of some form or another.

When you point out the "experience" of Jennifer Lawrence, I merely came up with an analogy which showed the absurdity of that point when it is in relation to "revelatory information".

The first thing you have to get past - and it often seems to be a stumbling block for atheists - is that we can talk about revelation apart from deity. It doesn't require a divine nature. So you need to be clear about what you're really interested in. Are you interested in revelation or deity?

And yet "revelation" has no value to me if it cannot be verified. If it can be verified it isn't revelation.

The only thing I know of that is "revelatory" that cannot be later verified by independent observers is religion or new age thoughts.

 

[Resha Caner]

My training and focus on philosophy in regards to science is pretty much wholly sui generis to me.

I see. Then your experience is similar to mine.

I enjoy learning things and observing the world around me. I feel sad for those who simply experience washing over them without gaining some knowledge from it.

OK, but that still doesn't tell me why. I'm sometimes jealous of people whose intuition is so productive. I was recently working with some actors who impressed me with all kinds of intuitive behavior that was not typical of daily behavior but enhanced their performance and made it seem more "real" on film. If you've ever worked with artists, asking them to explain their technique rarely yields anything concrete. You just have to sit back, observe, and absorb.

I probably overstated my approach. I, too, love discovery. However, at one time I was awash in a million different hobbies: math, art, charity, and so on. The problem is that trying to understand everything results in nothing. I have found focus to be much more productive. When I'm at work I focus on work and when I'm working with an artist I focus on art, and the most effective techniques are very different for those two activities.

And yet "revelation" has no value to me if it cannot be verified.

I don't believe that, yet I am aware that if you dig in on that position, there is nothing I can do to dissuade you. Further, I don't see that you answered my question. Is it specifically revelation that you want to discuss or deity?

 

[Obliquinaut]

OK, but that still doesn't tell me why. I'm sometimes jealous of people whose intuition is so productive. I was recently working with some actors who impressed me with all kinds of intuitive behavior that was not typical of daily behavior but enhanced their performance and made it seem more "real" on film. If you've ever worked with artists, asking them to explain their technique rarely yields anything concrete. You just have to sit back, observe, and absorb.

Oh, I wholly agree with that. In many cases I don't want to hear the artists' reasons for why they do something. (In the graphic arts I will at times really want to know how they got an effect, and in music I love to know how the song was recorded...I can literally watch HOURS of "behind the scenes in the studio" type shows. When I play around with my synthesizer I am fascinated by the ability to generate different types of sounds or effects.)

I don't believe that, yet I am aware that if you dig in on that position, there is nothing I can do to dissuade you.

Hmm, interesting take on my beliefs. If I "dig in on that position" you will be unable to show me truth? And that is because I'm simply lying about the value I place on verifiable observations?

I actually strive to avoid relying on "revelation". I go out of my way to not rely on people's revelation. I understand it is one of the accepted sources of truth in some religions like the Catholic church. But indeed it then has no value to me. Why? Because there are countless revelations which gainsay other revelations, it doesn't get me any closer to truth.

This is not to say that one couldn't arrive at truth through revelation, but it would be indistinguishable from someone's imagination to me unless it could be verified.

So when you ask in your OP about the nature of "proof" vs falsification, I say that providing evidence of a position is what is required. Revelation, as such, does not require evidence and as such has no value. Once it can be verified and enter the empirical universe I'm more than happy to look at it.

Further, I don't see that you answered my question. Is it specifically revelation that you want to discuss or deity?

Revelation, of course. As it most applies to the points you raised in your thread. However, revelation sans any sort of ability to verify it is of no value and is the sole purview of religious thought.

Again, YOU raised theology and us "non-believers" and YOU raised the "omniscient source" points. All that taken together would indicate you conflate the ideas of God and revelation. And I'm A-OK with you doing so.

But as for routes to knowledge, I find revelation to be exactly useless if it is not further verified.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm, interesting take on my beliefs. If I "dig in on that position" you will be unable to show me truth? And that is because I'm simply lying about the value I place on verifiable observations?

That's not what I said. I am capable of understanding that you think the weight of evidence supports your position while still disagreeing with you. That is in no way an accusation of lying. No was it meant as a pejorative. Were you to say that I was digging in on my position, I might very well agree with you. It means I feel you do not yet understand my position and/or are not addressing what I see as the root issue.

In your case, you continue to insist on "evidence" when I say that is irrelevant.

Revelation, as such, does not require evidence and as such has no value.

Three things here:
1) IMO your use of the word "evidence" is too broad. It waters down the meaning and renders it a useless term because it can't distinguish the two cases under discussion - direct perception and revelation. I prefer to use precise language. As such, I restrict use of the word "evidence" to specific methodologies. There is scientific evidence, legal evidence, historical evidence, etc. And though they overlap, they are not the same. (FYI, I have degrees in history as well). When the adjectives are dropped, and someone speaks simply of "evidence" without clarifying what they mean, and further when that person is a scientist having a discussion in a science forum, I assume they mean scientific evidence.
2) I could define some type of "relevatory evidence" but that would be redundant to my use of the word "revelation". I would prefer to call it "trust" as I think that is a more precise term. When I say "trust", I don't mean the "blind faith" strawman so often thrown out. Trust is based on history. I have a history with this person, and my past experience indicates that when they reveal something to me they believe it to be the truth; it proves to be truth most all the time; when they are in error they admit it and accept correction. It's something like that.
3) As I use the term "revelation", not only is it independent of deity, it is independent of religion (and those two are pretty closely tied). When someone tells me the Royals won last night, that is revelation. I'm not asking them for certification from the MLB of that result. Further, if I trust the person, I don't immediately go check ESPN to confirm their statement. I take it on trust that they have knowledge I don't, and accept their revelation on trust without evidence of the truth of that specific statement.

If you don't operate in that manner in at least some parts of your life ... if you do demand MLB certification or run to ESPN to check every statement your friend makes about sports ... wow.