This is my first post to this wonderful forum - hopefully, it will spark a very interesting debate!
I have recently become interested by the notion of evidence, especially comparisons of evidence in Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics and and History. I am puzzled by the following questions, which I would really like to discuss in this thread:
How could the concept of evidence be defined?
How important is evidence in each of those subject areas?
If someone makes a proposition that is not supported by evidence, is it justified to simply ignore the proposition (without offering opposing evidence)?
How much evidence would mean that a proposition is true?
These are my thoughts on the questions, briefly:
Evidence is some empirical example, or a priori knowledge, or an analytical deduction. But I cannot quite establish a definition that would encompass all the subjects areas I am considering. Is it even possible to establish a solid general definition?
It seems to me that evidence is more important in Mathematics than in Science, due to the analytical nature of Mathematics and the experimental nature of Science. But this seems to me to be too much of a generalisation - is there a stronger argument that would support this claim?
Also, it seems to me that History relies almost entirely on evidence - if there was no evidence, then History would surely be shaped by psychological assessments of patterns of behaviour. The language of the evidence must surely influence the way in which the evidence is interpreted in History, unlike in Mathematics, where there is a strict, ‘emotionless’ language (full of definitions). Would you agree?
In Science, it does not seem practical to pursue suggestions that are not supported by evidence, given time constraints and expenses. In Mathematics, it is usually simple to prove that a statement is false. Again, if unsupported propositions are made in History, they could be useful to establishing ‘conspiracy’ theories, but should surely not be accepted as true (usually, assumptions based on previous behaviour would be used; propaganda seems a prominent example of the use of language to ‘shape’ History)?
The idea of coherence versus correspondence seems interesting here, but I am currently struggling to justify a quantifying of evidence, given the hazy definition of the concept.
What does everyone think? It would be really great if you could justify your arguments with some examples: that is certainly what I am going to do in subsequent replies!
Most people, I think, distinguish between analytic deduction and evidence. Evidence is more on the empirical side, less on the a-priori/analytic side, I think. As such, mathematics involves very little evidence, and things like physics and chemistry involve a lot more evidence (evidence that the laws therein apply to this universe).
Would you agree with me that if someone makes a Science proposition that is not supported by evidence, it is justified to simply ignore the proposition (without offering opposing evidence), for practical reasons? Or would you say that such propositions should be ignored while providing opposing evidence? If so, why?
All types of evidence are based upon logical deduction from the perception of relevant information; “because we witnessed this…, because we already know that,…, because logic dictates that…”. All perceptions/experiences are logic based assessments of stimuli.
“Evidence in mathematics” doesn’t register with me. To what are you referring?
Mathematics is merely a subset of Logic (“quantitative analysis”).
Evidence in Logic is merely the axiom’s coherent relation to a conclusion.
All assessments of opinion are based entirely upon evidence. History is a special case because it cannot be more directly accessed in order to probe. That means that logical deduction from currently perceived evidence is the only means to assess; “if what they tell me is true, then it must have been that X was attacking Y”, “if this contraption really assesses age properly, then these people must have been in this area before those people”.
The sole purpose of Science was to falsify conjecture, not to discern truth. Science can only tell of what must not be true. It cannot discern what actually is true. And today has become a religion for sake of egotistically persuading the masses, rather than falsifying conjectures (almost the exact opposite of its original intent and reputation).
The ONLY means to know of truth is by virtue of a total lack of logical alternatives. That requires very careful definitional logical deduction, cross-verified, and preferably demonstrated.
What would you say about a priori knowledge used as evidence? For example, a priori, if you take away a grain of sand from a pile of sand, you still have a pile of sand left. Is that not a priori?
If I tell you that I have found an example of a number above 1,000,000 that is even (by means of non-systematic searching, and then comparing to the definition of an even number), is that not evidence to suggest that there are even numbers above 1,000,000? If not, what is it?
Also, if you do not agree, could you please prove to me that Mathematics is, essentially, Logic, and that ‘Logic is merely the axiom’s coherent relation to a conclusion’?
Again, what would you say about a priori knowledge, or ‘gut instinct’ in History? Surely there are other ways in which History could function without evidence?
What about the notion of overwhelming probability to suggest that something is true? What about relying on unproven claims for the sake of progress?
In your opinion: should a proposition unsupported by evidence be simply ignored, or accepted as truth, or pursued further, or ignored by providing opposing evidence? Why?
Surely a ‘total lack of logical alternatives’ does not accurately reflect the way in which History or Science works today? What would you say about accepting proposition without evidence from authorities in a subject area?
In other words, if I pray to God for a new car, and next day somebody gives me a new car, that is evidence for the efficacy of prayer. It takes more robust evidence to the contrary to make me believe that the conjunction of prayer and car was a coincidence - i.e. the same prayer never works again, no matter how many times I try.
That is only one type of evidence. What about scientific evidence, which is repeatable? Surely evidence has to be empirical for us to rely upon it for gaining knowledge?
Welcome to ILP, yeah, and thank you for an interesting first post.
I think there’s a danger in thinking that because there is a word for something, there must be a Thing that corresponds to it. Most words are far more context-sensitive than most philosophers allow; saying more than that evidence is a fact that is referenced in an argument is asking for trouble
In answer to 3: science often comes up with propositions based on theoretical models that are only later validated (or disproved) by evidence. I don’t think one should ignore proposals for a lack of evidence, so much as a lack of logical coherency. And from a scientific point of view, the doctrine of falsification would give you the answer that no amount of evidence means that a proposition is true, only that it has yet to be proven false.
That is scientific evidence. Unless you hold that it is impossible to scientifically investigate the efficacy of prayer, but presumably that would be for theological reasons.
If you test 100 prayers and 5 give the desired results, those five prayers are the scientific evidence in favour of the thesis, the 95 evidence against.
“Priori evidence” means evidence that has previously been confirmed and is then used as a premise, not “evidence”. In the case you offered, the priori was a declared definition of a “pile”.
As to your example, if someone tells you that there are 1000 grains of sand in the pile, but after removing one, you count them and find that there are still 1000, then your counting is the experience to be called “evidence” used to disclaim the premise statement offered.
Finding an example that has been confirmed to be X, provided evidence that X exists. The “evidence” is the finding and (logically) confirming.
Logic is the declaration that “what something is cannot be what it isn’t”. All of math is founded on that declaration. Logical argumentation is merely mapping the coherent path of associations concerning what each step is or isn’t in terms of a prior association or declaration/definition.
Reverse engineered logical conclusion can reveal history without experiential evidence. One can deduce that something had to have been going on back then due to the impossibility of the present being what it is unless the historical event had taken place. The observation of the current state is the data or evidence to be used through the logic process. The logic argument can be considered evidence, but logic itself is not evidence, but declared epistemological fact (“1 = 1 because we declare it to be.”)
That would be an issue of rationality and presumption of need. When time pressured and information starved, rationality dictates that decisions get made and at least temporarily enforced even though unproven to be correct or “the best”. In a since, all of life is no more than that situation; “not knowing enough but having to continue anyway”. Quite often it was the presumption of actual need that was flawed, not the chosen decision; “rushing to judgment”. How much progress did you really need to make at that moment? Could you have spent a little more time thinking before acting?
No proposition should ever be simply ignored except by the restraint of time or volume, “information overload”. Every system has a maximum information handling capacity and thus must limit input. At such a time, minimal assessment evidence is used to assess probability of useful data (the “first impression” assessment of the proposal). Obviously that limit is to be avoided so as to not ignore critical data by accident of first impressions.
Unsupported evidence counts as at least one opinion out of the total number of opinions and thus if there were only 3 unsupported opinions, each would count equally. Further evidence is always sought concerning unsupported opinions; “why did anyone think that?”, “was that guy educated in the field?”, “is that guy always making arbitrary claims?”, “is that guy a part of prejudiced group?” Any of those counts as minimal additional evidence concerning an unsupported claim.
Any supported claim counts for more than unsupported opinion, whether for or against the proposal. Any logically locked support for a proposal, such as Definitional Logic can provide, is indisputable (once confirmed for coherency) and completely overrides all else.
That would depend upon the situation. How dependent am I on having to get along with this authority? How important is actual truth to the situation and consequential future?
With each age of “this is good enough”, a hysteresis forms which disallows correction (one of the more outstanding complaints against the Christians). So if the future is a concern, allowing mere authority delegation of truth can be a problem. Again, this is where Definitional Logic helps out because that authority can be indisputably right and provably so, thus the need to worry about going astray with authority persuasion can be reduced and even eliminated.
If someone puts forth a proposition without evidence, calling it a scientific proposition is an error.
If we modify your statement by removing mislabeled science, it would read: Would you agree with me that if someone makes a proposition that is not supported by evidence, it is justified to simply ignore the proposition without offering opposing evidence?
In answering this, I’ll point you to the following quote by Christopher Hitchens - “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
This is, I think, evidence that political journalists make very poor cites for philosophy of science
If someone puts forward a proposition that doesn’t allow for the gathering of evidence, it’s not a scientific proposition.
If someone comes up with a proposition as a result of a pure thought experiment, something weird and unconventional like the speed of light being a universal constant or gravity being an entropic effect, and can propose some testable way of ascertaining that, then their lack of evidence at the point of proposal doesn’t disqualify them from consideration.
I’m absolutely guilty of misreading the original question (if someone makes a Science proposition that is not supported by evidence, it is justified to simply ignore the proposition (without offering opposing evidence), for practical reasons?)
I interpreted it at someone making a claim while not providing evidence/reasoning for their claim. (Like, I think X because. As opposed to I think X because of Y. And while I don’t have evidence of Y, here is how we can go about testing it)
I agree. I would say it is justified to ignore baseless assertions. One may choose to bring evidence to disabuse the individual of their silly thoughts, if they’d like. It seems to be one or the other. Ignore or engage with evidence.
Evidence: that which makes evident. Something possessed of the power to convince.
On the contrary, I think evidence is least important in mathematics because of how easy it is to come by (or how clear it is when presented). Evidence for the sciences is more important because you need all the evidence you can get and it’s incredibly difficult to come by (especially in the social sciences like history).
I’m inclined to agree, but then again, if no one took unsubstantiated claims seriously, no one would ever try to find evidence. It’s important if people really want to know.
If you’re looking for evidence in science, correspondence is your friend. In mathematics, coherence is the order of the day. Quantifying evidence is surely a way to go, but the quality counts as well. If you go with my definition–that evidence is something possessed of the power to convince–then it takes as much evidence, or a certain quality of evidence, as required to convince one that the proposition is true.
