Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Final Word on “Evidence”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In several posts last month Dr. Torley and I led a spirited discussion on the nature of “evidence.” See here, here, here and here. Those discussions revealed there is a lot of confusion about this topic. This is especially the case when it comes to the purpose of evidence. Many of our materialist friends seem to believe that unless evidence compels belief it does not count as evidence at all. Worse, they seem to believe that merely by advancing an alternative explanation for some proposition, they have caused all of the evidence for the explanation advanced by their opponents to magically turn into non-evidence.  This is simply not the case.

Let’s go back to the dictionary. Evidence is “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

The critical word there is “indicating.” To be evidence a fact need merely indicate that a proposition is true. It need not compel belief in the proposition. As I stated in one of my posts, a jury trial is a good example of this. In every jury trial both sides submit evidence to the jury. But in every jury trial only one side wins. Does that mean the losing side’s evidence was not evidence because the jury did not believe it? Of course not. Again, evidence “indicates.” It does not compel.

Consider Dr. Torley’s example of the evidence for the alleged levitations of St. Joseph of Cupertino in the 1600s. Dr. Torley states:

The records show at least 150 sworn depositions of witnesses of high credentials: cardinals, bishops, surgeons, craftsmen, princes and princesses who personally lived by his word, popes, inquisitors, and countless variety of ordinary citizens and pilgrims. There are letters, diaries and biographies written by his superiors while living with him. Arcangelo di Rosmi recorded 70 incidents of levitation

I had never heard of St. Joseph of Cupertino prior to reading about him in Dr. Torley’s post. I did a little investigation and found out he was a real person and in fact to this day he is the patron saint of air travelers, aviators, astronauts, test takers and poor students.

Frankly, however, I remain incredulous about the reports of levitation. Does that mean I believe Dr. Torley failed to adduce any evidence at all that St. Joseph could levitate? Of course not. All of those reports to which Dr. Torley alluded indicate that belief in the proposition that St. Joseph could fly is valid.  Again, the key word is “indicate.”  To indicate means to point to a possibility.  Sure, there may be other possibilities (for example, the reports might be false).  An indication does not compel belief. It merely supports it. And that is what evidence does; its supports belief.  And that is the case even if that belief turns out to be false.  When a jury is presented with conflicting evidence they weigh all of the evidence and do their best to come to a reasonable conclusion.  If they reject evidence, that does not mean it was not evidence.  It means they found the evidence unpersuasive.

Thus, when I say I am disinclined to believe that St. Joseph could fly, I am not saying there is no evidence he could fly. Of course there is. I am merely saying I am not inclined to believe the evidence.  There is a huge epistemic difference between “there is no evidence” and “I personally find the evidence unpersuasive.”

Some of our atheist friends, on the other hand, seem to think that the word “evidence” means “that which I personally find persuasive.” As astounding at it may seem, they actually believe that if they personally find evidence to be non-persuasive they are justified in claiming it is not evidence in the first place. And of course that is just plain stupid. They are entitled to their own evaluation of the evidence. They are not entitled to change the meaning of words to suit their argument.

A word of advice to our atheist interlocutors. You are entitled logically to say to a theist, “In my judgment your evidence is unpersuasive.” But you cannot logically say “I have defined your evidence as non-evidence merely because I found it unpersuasive.”

Claiming evidence does not exist because you don’t find it persuasive is at best intellectually lazy; at worst it is dishonest.

Why am I belaboring this point? Because I hope our arguments with atheists on this site will be challenging and interesting. And responding to stupid arguments like “there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God” is tedious and boring.

Comments
Zachriel is an imbecile as blind and undirected processes cannot produce definitions.Joe
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Box
Once I showed a good friend the door when he persistently made the argument that language was created by blind forces. Which may very well be indicative of my low tolerance towards nonsense.
If a person contributes something worthwhile, even if mistaken - or at least there is some sincerity/good faith evident in the questions and responses - I'd be glad to continue a discussion. When it's just manipulative nonsense then it's a waste of time for anybody reading and responding. It also lowers the standards - we're not that desperate for conversation.Silver Asiatic
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: In the fantasy world of materialism, language originated from a blind, unintelligent source. Blind and undirected, not unintelligent. mike1962: Still essentially non-responsive to #314 Try rephrasing your question.Zachriel
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Still essentially non-responsive to #314mike1962
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Once I showed a good friend the door when he persistently made the argument that language was created by blind forces. Which may very well be indicative of my low tolerance towards nonsense.Box
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Joe
Human language is the result of intelligent design. The PROOF is in the definitions of the words used.
Good point. A blind, unintelligent force cannot create and maintain definitions of words.
Please stop feeding the insipid trolls
Agreed. When someone claims they cannot see any evidence of intelligent design in human language there's no sense in continuing.Silver Asiatic
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
mike1962
As a musician and engineer, the evolution of biological entities on this planet appears to be, as far as I can tell so far, strangely along the lines of an entity or entities doing just that.
Interesing insight. Some people miss the artistic aspect of design where global effects are the result of micro (parochial) changes. In the fantasy world of materialism, language originated from a blind, unintelligent source. Ask them to create a new language, however simple, from the very same source and they walk away. Music is a form of language, in a sense. Symbolic sounds create meaning and feeling in the listener. Supposedly, music also came from a blind, unintelligent, unguided origin. But again, let's see an attempt to create music without intelligent input ... Even John Cage's 4.33 is conditioned on intelligent design.Silver Asiatic
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
mike1962: Evidently you think Punic war of 218 was “modern.” Modern in terms of the history of human language. If language is 40,000 years old, then the Punic War took place in the last 5% of that history. mike1962: At any rate, you are essentially non-responsive to my post #314 The use of language as a social identifier or for clarity is parochial.Zachriel
March 31, 2015
March
03
Mar
31
31
2015
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Zachriel: How old do you think language is? Language is tens-of-thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands of years old.
You said, "government control [of language] is modern" Evidently you think Punic war of 218 was "modern." Okay At any rate, you are essentially non-responsive to my post #314mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Human language is the result of intelligent design. The PROOF is in the definitions of the words used. Zachriel and Piotr are too simple to grasp that reality. Please stop feeding the insipid trollsJoe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
mike1962: Are you saying when the Romans invaded Spain during the Punish war in 218 AD and imposed their language on them that this was a “modern” event? Perhaps you are referring to the 2nd Punic War in 218 BCE; or to the 3rd Punic War in 148 BCE, which led to the destruction of Carthage; presumably the latter. How old do you think language is? Language is tens-of-thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands of years old. The Punic language lasted for several centuries after the Punic Wars, and continued to evolve, though it finally did die out. Latin evolved into the Romance languages, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, among others. No one decided to break Latin apart. When Rome fell, the provinces lost contact, and through the normal meandering process of evolution, the languages diverged. The English language is a composite of Germanic and Latin languages. Again, this is not something anyone intended.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel: However, government control [of language] is modern
Are you saying when the Romans invaded Spain during the Punish war in 218 AD and imposed their language on them that this was a "modern" event?mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Exactly, through intelligent design-decision the shape of the language changes. It’s not a blind, undirected process. The use of the midwest standard is actually reducing regional dialects.
Indeed. I think one of the take-aways here is that humans can (if we choose) indeed control language at the global level, and at the micro "parochial" level, as Zachriel puts it, and various degrees in between. As a musician and engineer, the evolution of biological entities on this planet appears to be, as far as I can tell so far, strangely along the lines of an entity or entities doing just that. But that's just my opinion.mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Our opponents are so dull. All words have a meaning, they are defined. Defining words is what gives them their design, not the pronunciation or spelling.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Other examples would be government control of language. Those would, indeed, be examples of at least an attempt to impose design on language! However, government control is modern, and usually only touches the surface of languages, which continue to evolve despite the best efforts of the purists, proving the point.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
mike1962
Again, the fact that the philology of the various dialects of the USA have “evolved” toward the “midwest broadcast standard” is an example of a “global” design decision, if you will, by the news media and entertainment industry over the last several decades.
Exactly, through intelligent design-decision the shape of the language changes. It's not a blind, undirected process. The use of the midwest standard is actually reducing regional dialects. Other examples would be government control of language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription Linguistic prescriptivism may aim to establish a standard language, teach what a particular society perceives as a correct form, or advise on effective communication. The entire structure of the language is therefore intelligently designed through the use or forbidding of varieties of the language. Government control of language - or linguistic purity laws, have been used in Germany, France, Italy, China and elsewhere. To claim that there is no evidence of intelligent design in human language, as Zachriel does is ... I can't think of the right word for it. :-)Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: In the difference between the sound of raindrops hitting the ground and the English language … Zachriel cannot see any evidence of intelligent design in English. As pointed out, intelligence is involved to solve local problems of communication, but without regard to the global structure of the language. That's why linguists often talk about the evolution of language.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Joe
Zachriel thinks that blind and undirected processes produced human languages. Clearly it is beyond reason.
In the difference between the sound of raindrops hitting the ground and the English language ... Zachriel cannot see any evidence of intelligent design in English. At some point, it's not possible to continue the discussion.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
mike1962: A parochial reason is still an intelligent reason affecting outcome. Of course, but blind and undirected towards that outcome. mike1962: The individual actions of termites are “parochial” in that sense, but always leading to results with recognizable characteristic. That's correct. While termite activity always results in mounds, the structure of a particular mound is not due to an intelligent agent making decisions. So human decisions about how they use words will always result in a language, the particular structure of that language is the result of evolutionary forces, not design.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
mike1962: The question is whether there is a pre-existing “global structure.” It doesn't have to preexist to represent a design. It just requires an agent or agents who can see and influence the result, in this case, the global structure. mike1962: Music, particularly jazz and other improvisational forms, not necessarily so. A jazz piece may not have a clear narrative arc, but might be unified based on thematic characteristics, such as an emotional state or unique voice of the artist. This is expressed in terms of motifs, such as rhythm or tonal quality.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Sure, but for parochial purposes.
A parochial reason is still an intelligent reason affecting outcome. The individual actions of termites are "parochial" in that sense, but always leading to results with recognizable characteristic.
And the best stream of consciousness in literature advances the global structure of the work, whether thematic or dramatic. Or do you really think Faulkner’s or Joyce’s or Woolf’s use of stream of consciousness is just a bunch of words strung together with no relationship to the rest of the work?
Of course, there's always a relationship. Nobody said otherwise. The question is whether there is a pre-existing "global structure." Not being a writer, I have no personal experience with writing in a stream of consciousness mode. Having thought about it a little more, I suspect writers have a "story to tell" that forms the guiding criteron for whatever may come in the "stream." Music, particularly jazz and other improvisational forms, not necessarily so. So I will happily withdraw any reference to literary composition. The human invention and "evolution" of language might be analogous on a larger scale to a free-form jazz jam improvisation session. Some elements are "random", some are deliberate, locally and globally, all within certain recognizable constraints. Again, the fact that the philology of the various dialects of the USA have "evolved" toward the "midwest broadcast standard" is an example of a "global" design decision, if you will, by the news media and entertainment industry over the last several decades.mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Zachriel thinks that blind and undirected processes produced human languages. Clearly it is beyond reason.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Blind, unintelligent, undirected processes produced languages Blind and undirected. Intelligent is generally directed to parochial concerns. We know that intelligence can and does produce languages Silver Asiatic: (software, Morse code, Esperanto. That's right. Humans have invented languages. English was not invented, however, but evolved from predecessor languages, primarily Germanic and Latin derivatives. mike1962: There may have been some conscious influence on the phenomenon. Sure, but for parochial purposes. Silver Asiatic: No, they don’t attempt to create a global structure. We attempted to work with your example, even pointing to certain objective characteristics, such as that nearly all jazz tunes have a final cadence, with musicians cuing by, for example, by moving towards a dominant relationship in the key to signal a cadence. However, as the example is fraught with subjectivity, you should probably abandon it. mike1962: I believe writers call this “stream of consciousness” composition. And the best stream of consciousness in literature advances the global structure of the work, whether thematic or dramatic. Or do you really think Faulkner's or Joyce's or Woolf's use of stream of consciousness is just a bunch of words strung together with no relationship to the rest of the work?Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: It’s the same with language. The goal is not to create a structure, but through intelligent choices, a structure results.
Right. I believe writers call this "stream of consciousness" composition. We've got it in jazz too, baby. Yeaaaaahhhh. There's a helluva lot of intelligence at the font of the stream.mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
mike1962
To generalize even more, musicians will come together and have a “jam session”, where someone will begin with some riff or rhythm and the whole thing takes off as an improvised experiment without any predetermined destination whatsoever in mind.
To review - this refutes Zachriel's claim that all jazz structures are designed with a destination in mind. He is proven false here.
Great music is often created from such improvised “jams”, all under the control of intelligent agents choosing within certain constraints of their talent, training, taste and mood. I know. I’ve been there. Many times.
It's the same with language. The goal is not to create a structure, but through intelligent choices, a structure results. The alternative view is that languages show no evidence of intelligent design.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Z
But even though the jazz musicians may have no preplanned design, the musicians are aware of and purposefully attempt to create a global structure as it unfolds.
No, they don't attempt to create a global structure. In fact, there may be moments that do not contribute to a unified structure. Instead of creating a structure, they're communicating something through music, the structure is the effect of multiple intelligent choices on notes and chords. It's the same with language. Creating the structure is not the purpose of it -- it is used to communicate meaning. The structure of the language is the effect of many intelligent choices on words and sounds and sentences.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Zachriel: With language, no one decided to change the global structure of English during the Great Vowel Shift.
Among experts this is controversial. There may have been some conscious influence on the phenomenon. Nobody knows for sure. Adapted from Wikipedia:
Experts in linguistics and cultural history continue to debate possible reasons for the vowel shift.[8] 1. Some theories emphasise the mass migration after the Black Death in the mid-14th century to southeast England, where differences in accents led to some groups modifying their speech [consciously perhaps?] to allow for a standard pronunciation of vowel sounds. 2. Another theory posits a sudden social mobility after the Black Death, with people from lower levels in society moving to higher levels (the pandemic also having hit the aristocracy) [with the lower levels consciously attempting to mimic the higher classes? Listen to Madonna these days. She moved to England a while back now tries to sound English]. 3. Another explanation attributes great influence to the language of the ruling class: the medieval aristocracy spoke French, but by the early 15th century they had come to use English. This may have caused a change to the "prestige accent" of English, either by making pronunciation more French in style [by conscious choice] or by changing it in some other way, perhaps by hyper-correction [conscious choice] to something thought of as "more English" (England being at war with France for much of this period). But there is just as much evidence for the hyper-correction to have been "more English" as there is for it to have been "more French"[citation needed] (with French still the slightly favored [by conscious choice] language of the upper class). 4. Another possible influence, the great political and social upheaval of the 15th century, was largely contemporaneous with the vowel shift. 5. The fact that vowel shifts occurred in other Germanic languages as well may indicate that there was some inherent instability in the English vowels used before the Great Vowel Shift. The change could have occurred spontaneously in one dialect and then spread outwards as others who heard it thought that the diphthongs were less ambiguous [and thus made a conscious shift] than the long vowels they supplanted.
No doubt some people switched their vowels unconsciously during the Great Shift. It it plausible that a lot of people had cause to do it consciously. The fact that the USA has largely shifted toward the "midwest broadcast standard" is no accident either.mike1962
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Joe
Blind and undirected processes did not produce our languages.
I think Zachriel is saying: 1. Languages show no evidence of intelligent design 2. Blind, unintelligent, undirected processes produced languages We know that intelligence can and does produce languages (software, Morse code, Esperanto.Silver Asiatic
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
As already pointed out, most jazz songs include a basic chord progression, as well as defined cadences.
Al;l by design.
With language, no one decided to change the global structure of English during the Great Vowel Shift.
You don't know that so please shut it. All human languages are intelligently designed as humans are designing agencies and we created the languages. Blind and undirected processes did not produce our languages.Joe
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
mike1962: Probably more often than not, but not always. Sometimes the destination is a surprise. As with everything else, endings can be improvised as well. Sure they can, but generally not. As already pointed out, most jazz songs include a basic chord progression, as well as defined cadences. mike1962: To generalize even more, musicians will come together and have a “jam session”, where someone will begin with some riff or rhythm and the whole thing takes off as an improvised experiment without any predetermined destination whatsoever in mind. Sure. But even though the jazz musicians may have no preplanned design, the musicians are aware of and purposefully attempt to create a global structure as it unfolds. With language, no one decided to change the global structure of English during the Great Vowel Shift.Zachriel
March 30, 2015
March
03
Mar
30
30
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 11

Leave a Reply