The Nature Of Evidence

[OrdinaryClay]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

[Ouroboros]

What is your source for the list? Or in other words, what is your evidence that this list is the correct one? Where is your support, and what warrants do you base your argument on? And I'd like to see some stipulations of the definitions, so we can establish a common ground.

[Legion]

To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

I tend to agree that empirical evidence is not "the only game in town" but it's the most reliable.

[OrdinaryClay]

What is your source for the list? Or in other words, what is your evidence that this list is the correct one? Where is your support, and what warrants do you base your argument on? And I'd like to see some stipulations of the definitions, so we can establish a common ground.

Empirical

Probabilistic and here

Logical

Testimonial.

[OrdinaryClay]

To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

I tend to agree that empirical evidence is not "the only game in town" but it's the most reliable.

What scientific evidence do we have that Julius Caesar existed? We have testimony in the form of writings by historians.

[Ouroboros]

What is your source for the list? Or in other words, what is your evidence that this list is the correct one? Where is your support, and what warrants do you base your argument on? And I'd like to see some stipulations of the definitions, so we can establish a common ground.

Empirical

Probabilistic and here

Logical

Testimonial.

Again, I see we have a breakdown in communication. I asked you for the source of the list, which means that you would provide a source which points to that these four are the top types of evidences. I have other lists, which look a bit different, so I just wanted to know if this was a list you came up with on your own, or if it was a list you got from someone or somewhere.

 

Secondly, to create a stipulation of the definitions, you have to argue the restrictions to the words you use. To point to Wikipedia's definitions won't do. You have to explain to what degree you're using certain words and their definitions. You failed in that too.

 

The only thing you managed to do was to give some support, the links to common definitions, but you failed to explain your warrants and assumptions in the argument.

 

So please, if we're going to discuss, we have to start on some common ground. Because I've noticed that this is the point we're it all collapses each time we talk. You throw out a word and you mean something with it, and I understand the word in a different context and meaning, and we're both take different directions in our thoughts. Hence my request.

[oddbird1963]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

 

I would like to see your response to Ouroboros' request before commenting, but even conceding, for a movement, to your presentation, there is a hint of the "Bandwagon" argument there. "We as a species?" That's a bit of an exaggeration. Surely you know that not all people, probably not even most, have a disciplined and well reasoned position on the nature and reliability of evidence. So, the line about "we as a species" sounds more like a rhetorical tool to pressure people into considering your point of view.

 

As far as "entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence," you must realize that eye witness testimony is considered the LEAST reliable of legal evidence by law enforcement and officers of the court. It is used to sway a jury emotionally if the eyewitness can be made to sound appealing enough, but the basis of eye witness persuasiveness is very often far from objective. Legal doctrines are notoriously slow to change. So, the doctrines stand even after the usefulness and reliability of eyewitnesses has long been called into question.

 

In any good recounting of history, the role of hearsay and eye witness accounts in coming to a conclusion will be made very clear. And I believe even historians know that when they base a conclusion about a historical issue on strictly witness accounts, then the reliability and certainty of that position is precarious at best.

 

I do believe you need to deal with Ouroboros' fair questions before the discussion proceeds, but even from the onset the case you seem poised to build is far from iron clad. My observation may turn out to be premature, but rather than trying to rhetorically strong arm everybody, please try to realize that we have been down this road with Christian apologists pulling from the McDowell / Habermas /Craig play book many times before.

[Shyone]

To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

I tend to agree that empirical evidence is not "the only game in town" but it's the most reliable.

What scientific evidence do we have that Julius Caesar existed? We have testimony in the form of writings by historians.

That Julius Caesar existed has never been in dispute. There are histories from friends and enemies alike, and contemporary physical and documentary evidence from the time.

 

Caesar Augustus also existed, and his existence has the same type of documentary evidence. On the other hand, the entire Roman Senate testified that Caesar Augustus rose bodily into the heavens.

 

So they testified, but I don't believe it. It defies natural law and is inconsistent with the behavior of bodies today. Do you believe that Caesar Augustus rose bodily into the heavens?

[florduh]

What scientific evidence do we have that Julius Caesar existed? We have testimony in the form of writings by historians.

Regarding historical figures we usually also have artistic depictions (paintings, coins, statues) and multiple sources, not just one. The usually well documented existence of historical figures is accepted because it isn't an extraordinary claim. People obviously exist, and there is no reason for historians and keepers of public records to invent a person just to fool us.

 

A claim of any supernatural entity existing is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim is called for, and that would not include anecdotal evidence, interpretive feelings or philosophical argument.

 

But I believe you already know all this and are just being difficult for your own amusement. You wouldn't be the first.

[Ouroboros]

Some evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar:

 

Contemporary coins with his face: http://www.garstang.us/emperors/jcaes.htm

 

Busts: http://www.romanemperors.com/julius-caesar.htm

 

Writings by his own hand: http://www.religioustolerance.org/big_juli.htm

 

Basically, even more evidence than Paul's existence.

[OrdinaryClay]

What is your source for the list? Or in other words, what is your evidence that this list is the correct one? Where is your support, and what warrants do you base your argument on? And I'd like to see some stipulations of the definitions, so we can establish a common ground.

Empirical

Probabilistic and here

Logical

Testimonial.

Again, I see we have a breakdown in communication. I asked you for the source of the list, which means that you would provide a source which points to that these four are the top types of evidences. I have other lists, which look a bit different, so I just wanted to know if this was a list you came up with on your own, or if it was a list you got from someone or somewhere.

The sequential listing of those four words came from my mind. I gave clear citations that all four are forms of evidence. So any list you have must be a superset. By all means add to the list. I was being conservative, but if you want to be liberal in accepting evidence then I can accept that.

 

Secondly, to create a stipulation of the definitions, you have to argue the restrictions to the words you use. To point to Wikipedia's definitions won't do. You have to explain to what degree you're using certain words and their definitions. You failed in that too.

 

The only thing you managed to do was to give some support, the links to common definitions, but you failed to explain your warrants and assumptions in the argument.

 

So please, if we're going to discuss, we have to start on some common ground. Because I've noticed that this is the point we're it all collapses each time we talk. You throw out a word and you mean something with it, and I understand the word in a different context and meaning, and we're both take different directions in our thoughts. Hence my request.

I don't understand. Perhaps you can give me an example given one of your forms of evidence. It seems painfully obvious the links I gave indicate these as forms of evidence. They are common definitions which I would think are more satisfying to all those in involved.

[OrdinaryClay]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

 

I would like to see your response to Ouroboros' request before commenting, but even conceding, for a movement, to your presentation, there is a hint of the "Bandwagon" argument there. "We as a species?" That's a bit of an exaggeration. Surely you know that not all people, probably not even most, have a disciplined and well reasoned position on the nature and reliability of evidence. So, the line about "we as a species" sounds more like a rhetorical tool to pressure people into considering your point of view.

We as a species do indeed agree. Exceptions do not break the rule. There are sociopaths in our species as well, but we don't pretend to believe that what they do is morally okay.

 

As far as "entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence," you must realize that eye witness testimony is considered the LEAST reliable of legal evidence by law enforcement and officers of the court. It is used to sway a jury emotionally if the eyewitness can be made to sound appealing enough, but the basis of eye witness persuasiveness is very often far from objective. Legal doctrines are notoriously slow to change. So, the doctrines stand even after the usefulness and reliability of eyewitnesses has long been called into question.

 

In any good recounting of history, the role of hearsay and eye witness accounts in coming to a conclusion will be made very clear. And I believe even historians know that when they base a conclusion about a historical issue on strictly witness accounts, then the reliability and certainty of that position is precarious at best.

Sorry, pointing out that not all testimony is the same is a strawman. It does not matter. People are convicted and we build sound history on testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence can be very, very strong if reliably corroborated by multiple attestations.

 

I do believe you need to deal with Ouroboros' fair questions before the discussion proceeds, but even from the onset the case you seem poised to build is far from iron clad. My observation may turn out to be premature, but rather than trying to rhetorically strong arm everybody, please try to realize that we have been down this road with Christian apologists pulling from the McDowell / Habermas /Craig play book many times before.

Yes, I've seen many an atheist argument myself. I was told when I introduced myself that I would be challenged with hard questions I may not have heard before. This has not happened so far, but who knows.

 

Ecc 1:9-10

(9) That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

(10) Is there a thing of which it may be said, See, this is new? It has already been in days of old, which were before us.

[OrdinaryClay]

To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

I tend to agree that empirical evidence is not "the only game in town" but it's the most reliable.

What scientific evidence do we have that Julius Caesar existed? We have testimony in the form of writings by historians.

That Julius Caesar existed has never been in dispute. There are histories from friends and enemies alike, and contemporary physical and documentary evidence from the time.

Of course Julius Caesar existed. We know this based on testimonial evidence.

[OrdinaryClay]

What scientific evidence do we have that Julius Caesar existed? We have testimony in the form of writings by historians.

Regarding historical figures we usually also have artistic depictions (paintings, coins, statues) and multiple sources, not just one.

We would not know who they were unless the depiction had inscriptions, which is a form of documentation.

 

In any event, there are examples of solid History built without artistic depictions. The Commentarii de Bello Gallico was not inscribed on any coin.

[Shyone]

That Julius Caesar existed has never been in dispute. There are histories from friends and enemies alike, and contemporary physical and documentary evidence from the time.

Of course Julius Caesar existed. We know this based on testimonial evidence.

There you go again, removing the very part of the post that challenges your use of testimonial evidence.

 

But what the heck, you have already disgraced yourself so badly, I won't bother adding to your troubles.

[OrdinaryClay]

Some evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar:

 

Contemporary coins with his face: http://www.garstang.us/emperors/jcaes.htm

 

Busts: http://www.romanemperors.com/julius-caesar.htm

 

Writings by his own hand: http://www.religioustolerance.org/big_juli.htm

 

Basically, even more evidence than Paul's existence.

So you seem to be accepting of testimonial evidence? Your concern is with the volume and type of testimonial evidence? If so then this is good we can agree that testimonial evidence does vary in quality. This is obvious.

[OrdinaryClay]

That Julius Caesar existed has never been in dispute. There are histories from friends and enemies alike, and contemporary physical and documentary evidence from the time.

Of course Julius Caesar existed. We know this based on testimonial evidence.

There you go again, removing the very part of the post that challenges your use of testimonial evidence.

 

But what the heck, you have already disgraced yourself so badly, I won't bother adding to your troubles.

Sorry, it seems obvious to me that not all testimonial evidence is equally valid. Stating this, which was in effect what you did, does not challenge my position that testimony is a form of evidence.

[Deva]

Some evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar:

 

Contemporary coins with his face: http://www.garstang....erors/jcaes.htm

 

Busts: http://www.romanempe...lius-caesar.htm

 

Writings by his own hand: http://www.religious...rg/big_juli.htm

 

Basically, even more evidence than Paul's existence.

So you seem to be accepting of testimonial evidence? Your concern is with the volume and type of testimonial evidence? If so then this is good we can agree that testimonial evidence does vary in quality. This is obvious.

 

 

It is very obvious. The testimonial evidence varies in type and in volume. Where is this going? Please Get To Your Point.

[Shyone]

Some evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar:

 

Contemporary coins with his face: http://www.garstang.us/emperors/jcaes.htm

 

Busts: http://www.romanemperors.com/julius-caesar.htm

 

Writings by his own hand: http://www.religioustolerance.org/big_juli.htm

 

Basically, even more evidence than Paul's existence.

So you seem to be accepting of testimonial evidence? Your concern is with the volume and type of testimonial evidence? If so then this is good we can agree that testimonial evidence does vary in quality. This is obvious.

The problem isn't just the "quality of the testimonial evidence." It is also the subject about which the testimony is being given.

 

One man says his friend spoke to him. Another says that God spoke to him. Which one is believable?

 

Clearly, and you must admit, the one that claims to have spoken with God is either lying, delusional, or mistaken.

 

Of course, the first man could also be lying. At least it is possible that he spoke with his friend however, and his friend could corroborate that. God seems to be in absentia.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I agree with Devalight. Thus far this all seems to be an argument over semantics. You know you have a point please get to it.

[Ouroboros]

Some evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar:

 

Contemporary coins with his face: http://www.garstang.us/emperors/jcaes.htm

 

Busts: http://www.romanemperors.com/julius-caesar.htm

 

Writings by his own hand: http://www.religioustolerance.org/big_juli.htm

 

Basically, even more evidence than Paul's existence.

So you seem to be accepting of testimonial evidence? Your concern is with the volume and type of testimonial evidence? If so then this is good we can agree that testimonial evidence does vary in quality. This is obvious.

Did you even read what categories they were? Are busts, coins, and personal writings testimonials?

 

We have letters and writings by Julius Caesar, personally writings. How is that a testimonial?

 

It's more like the evidence for Paul. Someone wrote under the name Paul, so it's a stronger evidence for that Paul wrote what Paul wrote since whoever Paul was wrote something Paul said that he wrote. Jesus didn't write shit.

 

Big difference.

 

And Caesar wrote things that were signed as Julius Caesar. And coins with his picture and name. Busts that are dated to have been made during the lifetime of Julius.

 

That's a lot more than evidence for Jesus. A huge fucking truckload more.

 

If your question is if testimonials can qualify as evidence? Yes, it can. But a collaborated testimony with hard, cold facts, would be stronger. There are levels of certainty. Don't you agree? So if only secondhand testimonials would be compared to actual items and artifacts, which one has a stronger evidence base?

[bdp]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

 

I'm finding you to be more and more condescending.

[bdp]

multiple attestations.

 

oh, god, another one of these...

[oddbird1963]

We as a species do indeed agree. Exceptions do not break the rule. There are sociopaths in our species as well, but we don't pretend to believe that what they do is morally okay.

 

You just restated your argument ad populum. OC, I don't know what issues you have had in the past, but you in no way get to speak for an entire species. You overstate your case, almost to the point of absurdity. But that is really a minor point. It is enough that many Western scientists, philosophers and historians look to these types of evidence.

 

 

Sorry, pointing out that not all testimony is the same is a strawman. It does not matter. People are convicted and we build sound history on testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence can be very, very strong if reliably corroborated by multiple attestations.

 

Let's look back at your post:

 

We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence.

 

What exactly am I building a straw man of? I didn't contradict what you were saying. You stated the obvious. Our legal system and historiography is based on the notion that testimonial evidence is valid. My words serve as a caution and a qualifier: the practitioners of both disciplines view eye witness testimony as the least reliable type of evidence. A case built solely on eyewitness testimony is a weak case. Historical conclusions based on hearsay and written testimony are typically the most fragile.

 

It does not matter? Hmmm. Of course I will have to wait until you get to what you are really posting about, but since you are probably building a case for the resurrection of Jesus based on testimonial evidence, I think it matters a whole lot. The method upon which you seem to want to base your case is the least reliable. Ask the people wrongfully convicted by eye witness testimony. The percentage of wrongful convictions in cases that depend on eyewitness testimony is something like 70%. So yes, I think it matters that you want to base your argument for the truth of Christianity on the weakest type of evidence.

 

You probably believe that where one places their faith is the MOST important decision they can make. Yet you want to ask someone to base their faith on the weakest type of historical evidence out there?

 

 

But, I will have to wait until you get to your point, like Devalight and Midnight-Mind-Wanderings have urged you to do.

 

Yes, I've seen many an atheist argument myself. I was told when I introduced myself that I would be challenged with hard questions I may not have heard before. This has not happened so far, but who knows.

 

Ecc 1:9-10

(9) That which has been is that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.

(10) Is there a thing of which it may be said, See, this is new? It has already been in days of old, which were before us.

 

So you don't deny that you will be using the McDowell playbook, then? Or maybe Craig? Perhaps you will use Habermas' approach?

 

Perhaps you will do a better job of presenting these arguments than other Christian apologists who have posted here. But one thing that is not new is the dodging of questions and ignoring of the points people make. I hope you will be new - - and stand out from your previous Christian peers in that regard.

 

That's a pretty quote from Ecclesiastes. I have heard it thousands of times. When you post these quotes are you trying to use the magical powers of scripture to change our hearts and minds? I hope not. Perhaps you can use the word space better by presenting actual arguments than peppering us with irrelevant scripture quotes.

 

I do look forward to you making your points.

[bdp]

I do look forward to you making your points.

 

I'm glad someone does; I'm finding each of these fundies more tiresome than the last.