Evidence and all that
 

I'm trying to clear up some of the recuring issues about evidence.

Propositon E.
Suppose two theories T1 and T2 do not make different predictions about the world. Then deciding whether to believe T1 or T2 is nothing to do with evidence.


Consider
T1: some god created the world for some purpose only knowable after we leave this world (die)
T2: no god created this world

By proposition E, deciding between T1 and T2 is not a matter of evidence.

As T1 is one possible conception of god (assuming any conception of god is possible) then evidence cannot rule out the existence of god.

Therefore anyone who believe there is no god doesn't believe this because of the evidence.

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

I think meta-evidence is involved. There is a lot of evidence that theories that involve supernatural causal mechanisms are unnecessary.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

I know of no religions with God concepts that involve a God who created the universe and then left it alone entirely. For myself, I readily admit such a God is entirely possible and I can't rule it out.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved. There is a lot of evidence that theories that involve supernatural causal mechanisms are unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is meta-evidence?

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved. There is a lot of evidence that theories that involve supernatural causal mechanisms are unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is meta-evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence for a theory about theories. Is what I'm getting at clear?

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved. There is a lot of evidence that theories that involve supernatural causal mechanisms are unnecessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is meta-evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence for a theory about theories. Is what I'm getting at clear?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite. Realising that one or both theories contain something unnecessary is not evidence that the theory is wrong.

Are you getting at Ockhams razor and is this realisation what you mean by meta-evidence?

chez

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you getting at Ockhams razor and is this realisation what you mean by meta-evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either a specialization of Ockham's razor or something related to it... I'm still thinking about that part. Whichever, it is a theory (about theories) for which there is evidence. So I reject the claim that the rejection of god is not "based on evidence." It is simply evidenced-based at a higher level.

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly is... if by meta-evidence, you mean "beyond evidence" or "after evidence."

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly is... if by meta-evidence, you mean "beyond evidence" or "after evidence."

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that the same as not evidence?

chez?

Re: Evidence and all that
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think meta-evidence is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually a decent term for the principle underlying Occam's razor.

There's no direct evidence that any particular unfalsifiable theory is wrong. But there is some evidence that where two theories are equal in their explanatory power, the goofier one has a lesser chance of being correct than the simpler one. Not always, but more often than not.

This latter point is supported by observational experience. It is a sort of meta-evidence.