William Shatner - Science is Science Fiction

[Bradskii]

No, evidence is not brute facts, it is the combination of the fact and an explanation of what it supposedly proves(aka the theory). Using forensics, the blood on the wall isn't evidence until it's combined with a theory of how it got there. Fossils don't become evidence until combined with geologic theories, dna doesn't become evidence until combined with theories of chemistry or biology. A bone is just a bone until there's a proposed explanation.

You said evidence requires a theory. You have it the wrong way around. A theory requires evidence (which we can the define as a collection of facts).

 

[friend of]

Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill

Bill Nye the science guy

 

[Fervent]

You said evidence requires a theory. You have it the wrong way around. A theory requires evidence (which we can the define as a collection of facts).

They're mutually reliant, theories require evidence but evidence requires background theories. There's nothing all that telling about a bone in some dirt until we have theories about what different levels of dirt mean and so on. The scientific method is simply about constantly tweaking the theories, which makes it supremely useful for technology but "truth" is excepted. We know what an observed universe looks like, but we don't know what the universe is like in itself.

 

[Fervent]

Nope. Evidence consists of brute facts. The theory is the explanation of the evidence.

so you can just show someone a bone in the dirt and they will know what it means?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you can just show someone a bone in the dirt and they will know what it means?

No they won't. And that is the point. The bone in the dirt is the evidence. It has not explanation. Evidence consists of observations. Theories explain the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill Bill

Bill Nye the science guy

He is also a Superhero. Need proof?

 

[Fervent]

No they won't. And that is the point. The bone in the dirt is the evidence. It has not explanation. Evidence consists of observations. Theories explain the evidence.

Without understanding its meaning, it's just a bone in the dirt. Brute facts don't require explanations, their meaning is understood simply from hearing/seeing/reading them. Until it is paired with theories, it's not evidence. Evidence has to show something, and without an explanation all a bone in the dirt shows is a bone in the dirt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Without understanding its meaning, it's just a bone in the dirt. Brute facts don't require explanations, their meaning is understood simply from hearing/seeing/reading them. Until it is paired with theories, it's not evidence. Evidence has to show something, and without an explanation all a bone in the dirt shows is a bone in the dirt.

Correct. Once again, evidence is just the observation. The theory is the explanation. The evidence is not the explanation. Do you need a link?

And I see that you do not understand the nature of a theory or a hypothesis. Theories and hypotheses need to be testable. A piece of evidence that does not math a theory can refute either one. The observed bone in the dirt is the observation, the evidence. The theory is the idea that ties all of it together.

 

[Fervent]

Correct. Once again, evidence is just the observation. The theory is the explanation. The evidence is not the explanation. Do you need a link?

And I see that you do not understand the nature of a theory or a hypothesis. Theories and hypotheses need to be testable. A piece of evidence that does not math a theory can refute either one. The observed bone in the dirt is the observation, the evidence. The theory is the idea that ties all of it together.

The observation isn't evidence, though. If the observation was all that was necessary for it to be evidence, you could just show me the bone in the dirt and I would understand what you are getting at. But you need to provide some explanation(theory in the general sense) of what is indicated by that bone, and how that indication speaks to whatever theory(technical sense) you are trying to establish/debunk. The explanation of what the bone shows is not the theory under question, but the connection to the theory being questioned. And as I am not using theory in the technical sense, but the general sense so your usage of hypothesis is a nonsequitor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The observation isn't evidence, though. If the observation was all that was necessary for it to be evidence, you could just show me the bone in the dirt and I would understand what you are getting at. But you need to provide some explanation(theory in the general sense) of what is indicated by that bone, and how that indication speaks to whatever theory(technical sense) you are trying to establish/debunk. The explanation of what the bone shows is not the theory under question, but the connection to the theory being questioned. And as I am not using theory in the technical sense, but the general sense so your usage of hypothesis is a nonsequitor.

We may need to go over the scientific method because you appear to be very confused here. We are trying to discuss science so the only correct definition in this context is the technical definition. The layman's definition can be mangled in all sorts of ways, as you just have. That is why your definition is incorrect in this context.

 

[Fervent]

We may need to go over the scientific method because you appear to be very confused here. We are trying to discuss science so the only correct definition in this context is the technical definition. The layman's definition can be mangled in all sorts of ways, as you just have. That is why your definition is incorrect in this context.

No, we are discussing epistemology so the scientific definition is not the only applicable one. I'm not confused at all, if evidence and brute facts were the same all it would take to understand it would be having it presented without comment. So it's you who seems to be confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we are discussing epistemology so the scientific definition is not the only applicable one. I'm not confused at all, if evidence and brute facts were the same all it would take to understand it would be having it presented without comment. So it's you who seems to be confused.

Uh huh. That is what someone would say when they realized that they were wrong all along.

Sorry, but when one is having a legal discussion one uses a law dictionary. When one is having a historical discussion one uses historical standards. And when one is discussing science one uses scientific definitions. The layman's definition can be all over the place, as yours was. It is simply wrong.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

A few years ago there was an episode of Horizon on BBC that went something like....The universe is expanding but we didnt know why, its like there is a creative force causing it to continue to expand and grow, there must be something causing it, we'll invent "dark matter" and make it fit the expansion of the universe that we witness and claim it can't be seen, measured, touched or in any other way evidenced but will claim it is proven to exist because we made it fit the way the universe acts that we can see.

All Christians who saw it - The creative force is God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A few years ago there was an episode of Horizon on BBC that went something like....The universe is expanding but we didnt know why, its like there is a creative force causing it to continue to expand and grow, there must be something causing it, we'll invent "dark matter" and make it fit the expansion of the universe that we witness and claim it can't be seen, measured, touched or in any other way evidenced but will claim it is proven to exist because we made it fit the way the universe acts that we can see.

All Christians who saw it - The creative force is God.

Belief is not knowledge.. You are also conflating dark matter and dark energy. Two very different ideas. By the way, the "dark" in both of them simply means unknowwn.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The issue is that "evidence" is a slippery word. It is often used as if it is brute facts, but evidence requires theory not simply facts.

That is backwards. Evidence does not require theory. Theory requires evidence to become supported and trusted theory.

And theory requires assumption.

Theory does not "require" assumption. It is an assumption, pending supporting evidence.

So ultimately, if we trace everything back to the initial point of justification we will find one of three things. An assertion, circular reasoning, or an appeal to infinite regress.

There is no circular reasoning unless the theory is used to justify itself. That's not how science works.

 

[Astrid]

Without understanding its meaning, it's just a bone in the dirt. Brute facts don't require explanations, their meaning is understood simply from hearing/seeing/reading them. Until it is paired with theories, it's not evidence. Evidence has to show something, and without an explanation all a bone in the dirt shows is a bone in the dirt.

You know ( someone with the background would)
a great deal just by seeing it.
A cowbone in a plowed field needs a mere glance.
See how it has meat scraps. Dried or fresh.
Or if the bone is cracked and disintegrating.

More study may tell you male or female, breed, age,
why it died...

But you will never know everything there is
to know about that bone, or ftm, anything else.

You are drawing arbitrary lines that dont correspond
to anything real.

 

[Fervent]

You know ( someone with the background would)
a great deal just by seeing it.
A cowbone in a plowed field needs a mere glance.
See how it has meat scraps. Dried or fresh.
Or if the bone is cracked and disintegrating.

More study may tell you male or female, breed, age,
why it died...

But you will never know everything there is
to know about that bone, or ftm, anything else.

You are drawing arbitrary lines that dont correspond
to anything real.

That "background" is exactly the kind of theory I'm talking about. It's not simply the fact, but the combination of the fact itself and some argument for what the fact implies that makes something evidence. The issue is most of the time there's this mythological view of science that doesn't actually fit how it actually works that's appealed to, combined with terminology that has lagged behind conceptual understandings by about a century and a half. There's nothing arbitrary I am drawing, facts and evidence are not the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That "background" is exactly the kind of theory I'm talking about. It's not simply the fact, but the combination of the fact itself and some argument for what the fact implies that makes something evidence. The issue is most of the time there's this mythological view of science that doesn't actually fit how it actually works that's appealed to, combined with terminology that has lagged behind conceptual understandings by about a century and a half. There's nothing arbitrary I am drawing, facts and evidence are not the same thing.

Correct, facts and evidence are not the same thing. No one made that claim. Scientific evidence must either support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Without the theory it is just a fact. So perhaps you needed some clarification. A theory explains the group of facts that support it. There are gong to be all sorts of facts that do not apply to a particular theory. When people bring those up they are properly called red herrings. A fact that can be dismissed with a "So what?"

 

[Fervent]

Correct, facts and evidence are not the same thing. No one made that claim. Scientific evidence must either support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Without the theory it is just a fact. So perhaps you needed some clarification. A theory explains the group of facts that support it. There are gong to be all sorts of facts that do not apply to a particular theory. When people bring those up they are properly called red herrings. A fact that can be dismissed with a "So what?"

You did, but I see you've edited that post. I need no clarification, evidence requires a theory and is not simply facts. Which is exactly what I said from the beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did, but I see you've edited that post. I need no clarification, evidence requires a theory and is not simply facts. Which is exactly what I said from the beginning.

I edited no post that I know of. If I did edit it you could see a note saying that I did so. Which post are you referring to?