(May 9, 2025 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I strongly urge you to read the entire article. Or, if you’ve already done so, get someone to explain it to you.

I am the only one here in a position to explain it. Unless, of course, you know someone here who's also taken graduate courses on the philosophy of science?

You should talk with Belacqua.  He thinks philosophy trumps science too.

(May 9, 2025 at 10:12 pm)Alan V Wrote: You should talk with Belacqua.  He thinks philosophy trumps science too.

The worst thing you can do as a scientist, aside from fraud, is be unfamiliar with the philosophy that science is built upon. And not just science, but every branch and field within it.

Nope .......

(May 9, 2025 at 10:12 pm)Alan V Wrote: You should talk with Belacqua.  He thinks philosophy trumps science too.

This isn't the first time you have accused me of something that is entirely different from what I actually think.

I would appreciate it if you would ask me before inventing falsehoods about me.

I do not think that philosophy "trumps" science. The two fields ask different questions and use different methods. 

Science works as well as it does because it limits itself to methodological naturalism, and (when it's working well) encourages certain kinds of skepticism and testing.

(May 9, 2025 at 10:06 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 9:52 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: And when we observe that the grass is dry, what does that tell us about the proposition that it rained?

That it's disconfirmed. Modus Tollens: Standard hypothesis testing.

(However, it does fall prey to the problem of auxillary hypothesis. Which is to say that any theory or proposition is composed of many, seen and unseen, auxillary hypothesis. And when observation appears to refute a theory, we don't actually know what is being disconfirmed. For example, in this scenario there is an auxiliary hypothesis that rain always falls uninterrupted. And perhaps a tarp interrupted the rainfall, disconfirming the auxiliary hypothesis, but not the main hypothesis.)

And thus for any definition of god that is distinguishable from nothing we have:

God ---> evidence
Not evidence

(May 9, 2025 at 10:06 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 9:52 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: And when we observe that the grass is dry, what does that tell us about the proposition that it rained?

That it's disconfirmed.

Wrong. It may be that after the rain the sun came out again and dried it up (I live in Texas, sunshowers are a regular event), or it may mean that you saw rain falling but that the Earth's radiant heat evaporated the water quickly.

(May 10, 2025 at 2:17 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 10:06 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: That it's disconfirmed.

Wrong. It may be that after the rain the sun came out again and dried it up (I live in Texas, sunshowers are a regular event), or it may mean that you saw rain falling but that the Earth's radiant heat evaporated the water quickly.

So what appears to be straightforward objective evidence (dry grass = no rain) in fact depends on a great deal of prior knowledge if we are to interpret it correctly.

(May 9, 2025 at 8:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 6:31 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Evidence is simply the available body of facts or information, indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Whether that evidence is sufficient on any given proposition is another matter, but the more that evidence is interpreted subjectively, the less reliable it becomes, the more objective it is, the more reliable it becomes.

I don't think it's true to say that evidence is the available body of facts or information. 

evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Whilst you're entitled to an opinion, I am going to have to go with common usage in the dictionary. 

Quote:They become evidence when a human being interprets them in support of a conclusion. 

No, that's when they become SUFFICIENT evidence, FOR THAT HUMAN BEING. Of course I have already stated that the more subjective the interpretation, the less reliable that evidence is. Whereas John has claimed evidence doesn't exist. only interpretation, which seems to be what you're saying. It's an attempt by him to imply his entirely subjective religious belief, have some sort of parity with objective facts.

(May 9, 2025 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I strongly urge you to read the entire article. Or, if you’ve already done so, get someone to explain it to you.

I am the only one here in a position to explain it. Unless, of course, you know someone here who's also taken graduate courses on the philosophy of science?

No true Scotsman.