(August 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What is 'valid' EV? You didn't answer. Or weren't you answering my post you quoted
Might as well use it somewhere!
The Nature of Evidence
But what is evidence? Quite obviously not every piece of evidence is associable with a given claim for that would be to say that the life of a butterfly explains sunspot cycles and perhaps the big bang itself.
When a scientific hypothesis or theory is proposed a number of assertions will be made, an assertion is something that can be said about our universe and such assertions will be based upon evidence. Evidence (valid evidence) can be considered to be anything that can affect the likelihood of an assertion being correct, in essence a form of probability, and (as mentioned above) evidence must be verifiable. A relevant observation (to a given claim) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed to be correctly and accurately associated with a given assertion. Evidence can be directly observable or not ... for example if a country is claimed to have a population of 100 million it is quite clear that is not direct as no one can possibly see all 100 million citizens simultaneously, the evidence for this claim is therefore indirect (it is a generalisation).
When making a claim about our universe it is important to ensure that observations are true (verifiable) and that they are compatible with the claim and incompatible with competing assertions.
Today, the accepted method of investigation is scientific i.e. to propose a clearly stated hypothesis; to support that hypothesis with evidence; to propose an associated model; to gain from that model predictions; to confirm (hopefully) those predications and finally to elevate that hypothesis to the level of theory. That is how science works and it is the only effective method by which humans have discovered things about our surroundings since we were able to reason. It is also understood that if a hypothesis does not "fit" in any way with other knowledge already accepted about our universe, if it cannot be supported by evidence and it cannot provide information about our universe previously unknown then it is assumed to have no value and is dismissed.
In other words any claim that does not "fit" and is not supported by evidence is dismissed and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidential demands made of it.
(August 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If God is a twat, you aren't talking about my God. Simples.
Even though he doesn't believe I think it was a hypothetical god (not sure).
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
