Epistemology

[Pete]

Evidence is a fact. Proof is a theory that is deemed to have enough evidence to make it factual. The only reason the theory of Evolution is not yet a proof is because of the complexity of the theory. We have mountains of evidence, we just don't yet have all the explanations

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?

You seem to be confusing scientific evidence and social evidence.

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.

I trust my sister because I've known her all my life and she generally tells the truth. This is based on experience.

Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Scientists cannot trust the evidence unless it can be validated, ..

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?

which is why they use dating methods and proper procedures, all of which are "trusted" because they have proved to be beneficial for many years.

I could do the same: "There exists outside of everything, a giant pink rabbit named George". Go on, prove me wrong.

Theists don't in general claim that we can prove anything. But in this case there's no reason to postulate the existance of a pink rabbit. That cannot be said of God. Although atheists would have us believe that. Even when we explain why we postulate the existance of God the atheists deny that we have done so because what we consider to be a reason the atheist actully defines themselves as those people who do not accept these things as actuall being valid reasons. But you already know that, right?

The fact that the universe is not 6,000 years old, the fact that evolution happens, the fact that there wasn't a global flood 4,000 years ago, etc.

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

You've changed the question here from a "why" to a "how".

The question may have been phrased differently but the essence of the question remains the same.
[qupte]
Well firstly this is blatantly untrue since nobody knows how the universe supports life (as you already outlined above) so how would you know it couldn't support it?
[/quote]
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

Possibly because we haven't sent probes to hardly any other planets???

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?

Deadly seriously. It isn't my idea, it is Douglas Adams', and it is a brilliant metaphor for how we view the world according to religion and not science.

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.

I do all the time, and I encourage you to do the same.

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.

---

Yes, but you're wrong becase......oh wait whoops!

lol

Why the snide remark? All I meant was that if I responded to all comments/objections to things I posted then I'd have little time for the important things that require my attention and concentration.