The Need to Evolve

[Belacqua]

Yes, that's the heart of it. We interpret all evidence within frameworks of things that we already feel confident about. If you feel far more confident about the kind of objective quantifiable empirical repeatable framework of facts that science deals with, then claims which fit easily within that framework will seem more likely to be true. To you.  

No, not at all, what has subjective perception of an objective fact, or a belief that is demonstrably wrong, to do with the objective truth? People are confident the earth is flat, others are confident that it is round, do you really imagine it's confidence that remotely determines truth? That's just asinine sorry. And none of that remotely addresses my point at all, even more bizarre? You seem to be quoting my post now, but posting non-sequiturs to express what you believe?

Well, there's obviously a whole lot going on here. I think I'll just address the above and then let the rest drop. We're clearly coming at this from very different perspectives.

I said that we interpret evidence based on frameworks or theories about what we already hold to be true. If you are confident in your interpretive framework then the conclusions it helps you draw will seem reliable to you. But no one comes to a claim just raw, with no background or prior belief. 

So what a person takes to be objective evidence is always already embedded in a web of priors. We need yardsticks which we have confidence in if we're going to say that one bit of evidence is objective and one bit isn't. 

It's true that some are confident the earth is flat, and others are confident that it isn't. How did they get their confidence? They listened to what people told them and then evaluated it based on some criteria, for example, which authorities seem reliable to them, which structures and institutions they find trustworthy. I suppose some people have tested it for themselves, and recreated the experiments which show the earth is round. Not many people do that, but it's possible. And of course this shows that they have confidence in that type of experiment. 

My larger point is that what we consider objective evidence doesn't just drop from the sky marked "objective." We judge it to be objective, based on criteria which we find trustworthy. It may or may not be trustworthy in the long run, but we do the best we can. 

We are inevitably embedded in a place and time. And that means our beliefs, our frameworks for understanding, and our interpretations of evidence are the ones that are possible in our own place and time. History shows that these things change. 

Apparently I'm not doing a good job of explaining myself, and I think this is partly because we are trying to talk about different things. Just for the record, I am not arguing in favor of belief in the supernatural, or for the credibility of any particular religion. 

I'm sorry I can't do better, but I thank you for replying to me, because it does help me clarify my own beliefs to myself.