Epistemology

[Tiberius]

Consider the following example; Einstein's theory of special relativity is based on the following two postulates (1) The Principle of Relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and (2) Invariance of the Speed of Light - The speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference. What would you consider evidence of this theory?

I have absolutely no idea but then I've never delved into special relativity. As far as I am aware though, both postulates have ample evidence to count them as proof, so yes they would be evidence of his theory.

Nope. Not at all. I haven't indicated any personal opinion on evidence. I've tried not to. I'm here only to learn what you folks mean when you use the term "evidence". I'm also hear to learn about your views on epistemology. Sources of knowledge in everyday life are not all confinded to science. From what I've seen so far from the responses in this thread it appears that you folks don't use the term "evidence" oustide the field of science.

Well I just used the term "evidence" outside of science when I referred to social evidence. There are many different types of evidence. When we talk about evidence in relation to science we are probably talking about scientific evidence.

Now you're confusing me. I was basically looking for your personal definition of "evidence" and you've indicated that you consider evidence to be that which is fact. But now you're saying that evidence can't be trusted until it is validated? You'll have to state the definition of "evidence" for me to understand what you've said here.

So far you haven't been that clear on what evidence is. Science deals with observations, the results of which are called "scientific data." Not all such data can be reproduced in the manner which you've indicated. For example; There is an instrument in orbit which are designed to observe gamma ray bursts. This instrument can only record observations of such bursts. The nature of gamma ray bursts are of such a nature as to be reproducible. And its doubtful that anyone else has observed the same bursts that the instrument records. The data collected is a series of gamma rays from a certain region of space. While the instrument can keep taking observations and record new data it cannot record the same data twice to validate it as you suggest. Since it can't be validated I take it that you don't believe scientists don't trust this data?

Very simply: Observations count towards evidence. I can see a comet in the night sky, and say "I theorise that this is a rock hurtling through space". That observation alone is not evidence, because it could have clearly been a delusion. However, if more people see the comet, then the observation becomes evidence. To support my theory, more evidence of the nature of the comet must be sought. Say a telescope gets pictures of the comet. This would be evidence towards my theory since telescopes are impartial and what they depict is an observation.

But in this case there's no reason to postulate the existance of a pink rabbit.

Which is exactly how atheists view God. You don't seem to see the similarities between God and the pink rabbit, but you cannot view the universe the way we do I guess.

Most Christians and Jews don't believe that the universe is that young so how does that prove anything?

You asked me to give examples of how the Bible has been proved wrong by science. I did so. Now you complain that most believers don't believe that sort of thing, which doesn't stop the fact that the Bible proclaims it as true. Just because some people don't believe certain parts of the Bible doesn't mean that they cannot be said to have been proven false...in fact that is precisely why you don't believe them...so what are you complaining about?

The question may have been phrased differently but the essence of the question remains the same.

I'm sorry, but "how" is very different to "why". One is a method, the other is a reason. We have seen from observation that nature has no reason for doing anything, other than obeying the laws of the universe.

I'm referring to the neccesary conditions for life, not the sufficient conditions for life. Very reasonable assumptions have been made regarding the existance of life. Since you don't seem to know about this I offered to point you to that research. But I guess you're not intersted in it so I won't ask again. And yes. They're assumptions. But they're very basic ones and very reasonable ones. Two examples of the kind of assumptions that I'm referring to that have been made concerning the existance of life are

(1) atoms and molecules must exist - requires a certain range for the permittivity of free space
(2) the universe must exist long enough for life to form - requires a certain range for the gravitational constant

Yes, we are talking about the same model. Read "Why Darwin Matters" by Michael Shermer, he covers some of the results that this model shows. Changing these results by even large amounts does not neccesarily deny life emerging. As has been already stated, the universe is very empty, so (1) can be increased by a very large amount, as can (2) since life on Earth alone started 75% into the universe's current age. Whether it emerged on other planets even earlier than this has yet to be seen.

I was responding to your comment It is vastly empty, and only a few worlds have formed that could support life out of the billions we have discovered. I assumed that you were claiming that worlds have actually been found which can support life. I take if from your response that this is not what you meant?

We know worlds have been found that could support life. You even mentioned the two others in our current solar system in your last response. Of course, we have discovered billions of others that cannot support life (to our knowledge), but up until a few years ago it was thought that Europa couldn't support life. Now we reckon it can. What other planets have we deeded "unsuitable" that could support life are there? Possibly millions.

I'm no sure that's worth responding to since its a terrible terrible analogy. There are so many obvious flaws that I assumed you were jpoking. After all Adams writes sci-fi comedy. Nobody makes such sloppy arguements as the kinds in the examples you gave. At least not serious scientists.

If there are so many obvious flaws then please highlight them. If you think it is a terrible analogy then surely you should respond to it instead of ignoring it altogether. Adams' might have been a sci-fi writer, but he had a keen interest in science, and his analogy was admired by Richard Dawkins, who as you probably know is an evolutionary biologist. Anyway, it is more of a philosophical argument about science and religion.

So you're saying that you've studied astrobiology and cosmology? What is it that you are encouraging me to do?

It sounds like you think that I'm speaking from the standpoint of a creationist. If so then I'd like to ask you not to confuse me with those idiots. Thanks.

I have briefly studied them yes, in my spare time they are the subjects that most interest me. I much prefer philosophy. I don't think I've spoken to you like you are a creationist in any of this though. You keep bringing up the point again and again and it really is unneccessary. Evidently you think that anything we say that objects to your view deems you a "creationist". This is not the case.