Evidence and all that - Page 3

chezlaw · #1 12-16-2005, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed this was a lead-in to some justification of Christianity. Guess I was wrong.

The simplest theory that makes the same prediction has a greater utility because it is easier to apply. It's basically the "condensed version." Any additional variables in T1 are functionally irrelevant. Those variables may as well not exist, and for practical purposes are not worth considering. All the relevant information is contained within T2 and considering anything beyond that is useless.

There's greater utility in T2 because there is no chance of God "getting in the way."

[/ QUOTE ]
How could the theories have greater utility or be easier to apply than each other if they don't say anything different about the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Those variables may as well not exist, and for practical purposes are not worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more.

chez

Piers · #2 12-16-2005, 06:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider
T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe.
T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

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

Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence.

Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

chezlaw · #3 12-16-2005, 07:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider
T1: It has never been possible to get to Narnia thorough my bedroom wardrobe.
T2: It was possible to get to Nrania through my wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

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

Therefore anyone who believes that there has never been a link between my bedroom wardrobe and Narnia doesn't believe this because of the evidence.

Note I am fairly sure no one inspected my bedroom wardrobe between 2200-2300 GMT on 15 December 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]
Precisely. (assuming no possibility of evidence of the past in this case).

chez

Piers · #4 12-16-2005, 11:30 AM

I think people tend to use some sort of indution/deduction combination to handle these sorts of situations.

chezlaw · #5 12-16-2005, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think people tend to use some sort of indution/deduction combination to handle these sorts of situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
and I'm showing that either they don't, or its not on the basis of evidence.

chez

Piers · #6 12-16-2005, 07:09 PM

You really like multiple neagtives don't you.

I think I remeber a post of yours with a hextruple negative in it [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

#7 12-16-2005, 01:02 PM

You have artificially constructed a theorem that explicitly refuses to give "evidence" any weight and then reach the unsurprising conclusion that if anyone holds a belief one way or another they cannot do so based on the evidence.

I.e., the conclusion is tautological from your premise that the answer can only be known after we die.

I believe in science. I believe in evidence. I reject your premise.

BluffTHIS! · #8 12-16-2005, 01:16 PM

Nice work. But these "trick questions" are all the rage in this forum.

chezlaw · #9 12-16-2005, 03:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice work. But these "trick questions" are all the rage in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not a trick question, why would you think it is? I'm sorry if people mistakenly think its about religon but it isn't. Its about theories that cannot be differentiated between on the basis of evidence.

chez

chezlaw · #10 12-16-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You have artificially constructed a theorem that explicitly refuses to give "evidence" any weight and then reach the unsurprising conclusion that if anyone holds a belief one way or another they cannot do so based on the evidence.

I.e., the conclusion is tautological from your premise that the answer can only be known after we die.

I believe in science. I believe in evidence. I reject your premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument is in no way an attack on science, nor is there a trick. I would argue that the proposition E is a foundation stone for science.

What do you mean by you reject the premise. All I'm saying is that two theorems that predict the same evidence cannot be decided between on the basis of the evidence. this is true isn't it? so how could you reject it.

chez