Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-15-2005, 09:52 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:16 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:17 PM
benjdm benjdm is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 21
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:18 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:32 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:40 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:51 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:58 PM
peritonlogon peritonlogon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 120
Default 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."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-15-2005, 10:59 PM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-16-2005, 12:16 AM
maurile maurile is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 95
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.