I often hear people ask for proof when they are discussing various things but every body seems to have a different idea of where our knowledge comes from. The theory of knowledge is called epistemology. Its that branch of philosophy which covers how we know what we know.

Since the difference between the beliefs of atheists and the beliefs of theists is what they accept as evidence then I'd like to ask people about what they consider valid sources of knowledge. I guess the kinds of questions I'd like to ask are as follows; In your opinion what does evidence consist of? Do you think that evidence is that which proves something to be true? What sources of knowledge do you accept as valid? Do you believe that task of science is to prove things? What do you consider to be proof? Perhaps you can give examples to illustrate your opinions.

Thank you very much.

Pete

(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: In your opinion what does evidence consist of?

Evidence is anything material that can be observed or tested under scientific conditions.

(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: Do you think that evidence is that which proves something to be true?

No. Evidence is that which gives us the ability to derive theories. Further evidence can be said to "support" the theory. Theories come after the evidence, that is important to remember. The evidence itself is proof that the scientific fact happens. For example, we observe Evolution in many different ways. This observation is the evidence and the proof that Evolution is true. The theory of Evolution is the explanation of the evidence (how Evolution works etc).

(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: What sources of knowledge do you accept as valid?

Any knowledge gained by scientific research using appropriate methods, supported by evidence.

(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: Do you believe that task of science is to prove things?

Science is the study of what is true and how it works. Science doesn't prove things, the natural world does the proving. Science simply researches what is true to find out how it works.

(September 2, 2008 at 7:53 am)Pete Wrote: What do you consider to be proof?

Anything you can observe is proof. What exactly it is proof of is a totally different matter. For instance, if I observed 10 pink elephants dancing around my room, it might not be proof that 10 pink elephants were dancing around my room, but that I was either drunk or crazy. Further observation and experimentation would determine this.

Something that can be tested and observed. Something with overwhelming evidence in favor of a particular subject.

Of course, Science doesn't deal with absolutes. People may say "this is 100% proven" but that's wrong. Nothing in Science is 100%. It doesn't matter if it's physics, cell biology, chemestry, astromony etc.

However, if there are countless possibilities for anything (regardless of what it is) I go for the one that is falsifyable because that means research can be done in order to dismiss or confirm it.

I'll have to re-read Pirsig's Zen &the Art to remind myself of what he said about a priori motorcycles.

(September 2, 2008 at 6:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Evidence is anything material that can be observed or tested under scientific conditions.

What would be considered archaeological evidence and what would such evidence serve to teach us? For example; how do we know about life in ancient Egypt. What kind of evidence has helped us come to that understanding? Could a document or ancient writing tell us anything other than how long ago it was written?

Quote:Any knowledge gained by scientific research using appropriate methods, supported by evidence.

Does that rule out ancient scrolls? If so then how can we learn about the past?

Quote:Science is the study of what is true and how it works. Science doesn't prove things, the natural world does the proving.

Excellant response. But I'm curious as to why so many atheist keep saying There is no proof that God exists. Any ideas?

There are things that science will never be able to explain. One of the mysteries of science that exists today is why the universe seems to be just right for the existance of life. There is a model which attempts to explain this called the multiuniverse model. Have you ever heard of it? There are articles about it at
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/publications/papers.htm

See Multiverse cosmological models,' Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19, 727 (2004).

The autor is pretty sharp. He does some very interesting research. I recommend reading his stuff. Being an atheist you might like to read about things like he writes about. The multiuniverse model is one of them since it addresses the reason why life is possible in this universe.

Note: The author is a theist though.

Instead of considering only the hard sciences lets consider other sciences. Archaeological should be of prime importance to anyone involved in discussions about God. Wouldn't you agree?

Pete

---

(September 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm)Brick-top Wrote: However, if there are countless possibilities for anything (regardless of what it is) I go for the one that is falsifyable because that means research can be done in order to dismiss or confirm it.

Virtual particles are theoretical particles which have been hypothesized to exist in order to explain certain things in quantum field theory. However, by their very nature, virtual particles can never be observed. In that respect their existance is not falsifiable. But the idea of them has proved very useful.

Pete

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: What would be considered archaeological evidence and what would such evidence serve to teach us? For example; how do we know about life in ancient Egypt. What kind of evidence has helped us come to that understanding? Could a document or ancient writing tell us anything other than how long ago it was written?

Well things like manuscripts and building remains are observable and testable by dating methods. With manuscripts you would have to have multiple sources, or a previously known reliable source before you could accept it. Most of the time, there is physical evidence to back up the claims made in the manuscripts.

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: Does that rule out ancient scrolls? If so then how can we learn about the past?

Ancient scrolls can be tested for accuracy both by dating and by verifying them with other sources. One account of an event doesn't prove anything unless there is other evidence to back it up. For instance, if we found an account of a city being burnt to the ground and completely disappearing from the Earth (no remains found today) then we should not count it as proper evidence unless we find other accounts that describe the same thing.

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: Excellant response. But I'm curious as to why so many atheist keep saying There is no proof that God exists. Any ideas?

Well they say it because it is true. We also admit that there is no proof that God does not exist. All we say is that given the evidence (or lack thereof), there is no reason to believe that there is a God, and certainly not a God that is described in the Bible, since the Bible has been refuted by science on multiple occasions.

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: One of the mysteries of science that exists today is why the universe seems to be just right for the existance of life.

Well if you actually think about it, it isn't really a mystery. If the universe wasn't just right for life, then we wouldn't be discussing why it was, for the simple reason that we wouldn't be here. Coincidently, the whole thing about the universe being right for life has been tested in computer simulations, which all conclusively showed that even if certain universal variables were changed (such as the amount of matter, the strength of atomic bonds, etc) then life could still arise.

In his book "Why Darwin Matters", Michael Shermer briefly touches on this subject, and explains how the universe is really not perfect for life at all. It is vastly empty, and only a few worlds have formed that could support life out of the billions we have discovered. In fact, the universe wasn't finely tuned for us, we were finely tuned for the universe.

Douglas Adams is popular for his witty insights into science, where he manages to get an extremely complex subject across in an easy to understand metaphor. He dealt with the "perfect universe" theory this way:

Quote:Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Of course the puddle is just like us. It fits in it's hole perfectly and because it doesn't know better, it assumes that the hole was made for it to be in it. In fact, we know that gravity is the only reason the puddle takes the shape of the hole. Gravity is a natural process, so nothing special is at work. What most of us forget to do is to apply the same logic to our own understanding of the universe.

Was the universe designed for us, or do we simply fit into the universe because we are a part of its nature, and must follow the natural laws?

(September 3, 2008 at 8:02 pm)Pete Wrote: Pete

---

(September 2, 2008 at 7:26 pm)Brick-top Wrote: However, if there are countless possibilities for anything (regardless of what it is) I go for the one that is falsifyable because that means research can be done in order to dismiss or confirm it.

Virtual particles are theoretical particles which have been hypothesized to exist in order to explain certain things in quantum field theory. However, by their very nature, virtual particles can never be observed. In that respect their existance is not falsifiable. But the idea of them has proved very useful.

Pete

Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles.

I don't like physics.

I was also asking about sources of knowledge in more general terms too. For example; if you were on a jury then you might have to make decisions based on eye witness accounts. You might have to rely on expert witnesses for things like explanations of a persons health or wha the surgical risks are in an operation. If you were diagnosed with cancer then you'd literally have to place your lives in the hands of onclologists who might have to fill your bodies with poison (i.e. chemo) to kill the cancer etc. Sometimes we must base decisions on what certain authorities say. Thus some of our knowledge will come from experts. Brick-Top just described what a virtual particle is. I assume that he learned that somewhere. Typically we learn from authoritative sources like text books, science teachers etc. You know that the sun is 93 million miles from the Sun because scientists have worked hard to figure this out. We trust that they did their job right and we trust that the system works, i.e. one scientist might lie or make a mistake but we can't imagine that they all do.

If you're married then consider whether you would have got married if you believed that your wife would cheat on you. Its impossible to know that before you say I do so, based on our knowledge and experience with this person, we trust them. That means that we assume they won't do something when we can't really know for sure that they won't. That's an example of faith too. If a man gets up to go to work then he has to assume that won't die before he gets there. That's usually true, but not always. Sometimes we have to make assumptions in life because it would be too difficult to live otherwise.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: I was also asking about sources of knowledge in more general terms too. For example; if you were on a jury then you might have to make decisions based on eye witness accounts. You might have to rely on expert witnesses for things like explanations of a persons health or wha the surgical risks are in an operation. If you were diagnosed with cancer then you'd literally have to place your lives in the hands of onclologists who might have to fill your bodies with poison (i.e. chemo) to kill the cancer etc. Sometimes we must base decisions on what certain authorities say. Thus some of our knowledge will come from experts. Brick-Top just described what a virtual particle is. I assume that he learned that somewhere. Typically we learn from authoritative sources like text books, science teachers etc. You know that the sun is 93 million miles from the Sun because scientists have worked hard to figure this out. We trust that they did their job right and we trust that the system works, i.e. one scientist might lie or make a mistake but we can't imagine that they all do.

Eyewitnesses are highly unreliable. They only paint a blurry picture of an occurence. This is where my concept of observation and testing comes into play. You can observe a crime scene and work out what happened by reenacting the events and forensics. Like for example a corsp. For the exception of the decomposition stages you can determine how long they have been dead from the insects eating a dead body. However this is not enough, they want to make sure so they use a pig in very similar conditions and see how long it takes for insects to find the body and reporduce.

If all the attempts to find the time of death point to one time then that's the most likely time.

I trust medical science wholeheartedly. However I dont trust it's method of supply.

I study, however I'm the biggest scientific illiterate on this site.

We know the distance of the sun through triangulation. I noticed it's very similar to our natural ability of this method with our eyes.

Of course people in the scientific community lie and make mistakes. However Peer review and the scientific method should remove deception.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: If you're married then consider whether you would have got married if you believed that your wife would cheat on you. Its impossible to know that before you say I do so, based on our knowledge and experience with this person, we trust them. That means that we assume they won't do something when we can't really know for sure that they won't. That's an example of faith too. If a man gets up to go to work then he has to assume that won't die before he gets there. That's usually true, but not always. Sometimes we have to make assumptions in life because it would be too difficult to live otherwise.

This is interesting. Uncertainty and a lack of knowledge on an occurence. However I'm under the assumption that everything will eventually be acuratly measured.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: I was also asking about sources of knowledge in more general terms too. For example; if you were on a jury then you might have to make decisions based on eye witness accounts.

Here in the UK (I assume it is the same in the US) a jury is not allowed to return a verdict of guilty if there is any doubt in their minds they may be wrong. The prosecution HAS to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. This acts as a protection against unreliable evidence.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: You might have to rely on expert witnesses for things like explanations of a persons health or wha the surgical risks are in an operation. If you were diagnosed with cancer then you'd literally have to place your lives in the hands of onclologists who might have to fill your bodies with poison (i.e. chemo) to kill the cancer etc. Sometimes we must base decisions on what certain authorities say. Thus some of our knowledge will come from experts. Brick-Top just described what a virtual particle is. I assume that he learned that somewhere. Typically we learn from authoritative sources like text books, science teachers etc. You know that the sun is 93 million miles from the Sun because scientists have worked hard to figure this out. We trust that they did their job right and we trust that the system works, i.e. one scientist might lie or make a mistake but we can't imagine that they all do.

Scientific research takes place within a framework of 'rules' usually referred to as the scientific method.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/No...node5.html

"A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied."

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

"Research is cumulative and progressive. Scientists build on the work of previous researchers, and one important part of any good research is to first do a literature review to find out what previous research has already been done in the field. Science is a process — new things are being discovered and old, long-held theories are modified or replaced with better ones as more data/knowledge is accumulated. For example, the idea that the sun is at the center of our solar system replaced the idea that the earth was at the center of the universe, and the idea that ulcers are caused by stress has been replaced by the idea that ulcers are caused by bacterial infection. Scientists are human, too, and so these major changes are often controversial and accompanied by violent debate!"

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: If you're married then consider whether you would have got married if you believed that your wife would cheat on you. Its impossible to know that before you say I do so, based on our knowledge and experience with this person, we trust them. That means that we assume they won't do something when we can't really know for sure that they won't. That's an example of faith too.

How many people carry out an analysis on the probable future behaviour of their intended partner? People get together because they are attracted to each other at that moment in time or because they have to.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: If a man gets up to go to work then he has to assume that won't die before he gets there. That's usually true, but not always.

Is there any evidence we KNOWINGLY make an assumption about this on a daily basis? I certainly do not wonder if I am going die before I get to work.

(September 3, 2008 at 10:41 pm)Pete Wrote: Sometimes we have to make assumptions in life because it would be too difficult to live otherwise.

IMHO opinion it is is always better to make informed decisions (within your own limitations) whenever possible.