Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

So therefore one can perceive truth by hearing from an authority, which stands distinct from popular notions of truth/falsity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even our own bets of our life can be false

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're assuming one thing perplexity: That the majority is in no way bias towards _anything_, this is where your definition of truth is faulty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

See: religion. The majority of people are religious, but I don't think religion encapsulates very many truths.

 

Of course.

Truth by definition is unbiased, bias being a relative concept indicative of a version at odds with the truth.

In short, the majority win; you lose.

It is not my definition, not my invention.
I refer to the fact of the use of the word.

--- Ron.

 

The definition of the word truth doesn't state that it is the majority's opinion, it doesn't even imply it.

 

As I pointed out [POST=1121096] before [/POST] it is not a matter of what is implied; it is a matter of what is required.

--- Ron.

 

The truth can be held by a minority or a majority, it is not necessarily either.

 

Really?

Where then is your evidence for that?

Because of what would that be true?

--- Ron.

 

Most educated people don't do this.

That's not one of the non-coolest sentences I haven't not seen in a while.

Ok, look. "Evidence" is just a pile of things or observations you can point to to support your hypothesis. Evidence can be weak or strong, convincing or not. Evidence is what leads one to conclusions. In science, an overwhelming amount of strong and convincing evidence can lead one to conclude that a theory of some kind is true.

With enough good evidence, you can be fairly certain of things. The significance of the evidence may not be of the kind easily grasped by non-professionals in the given field. It can range from the absurdly obvious, like the evidence that "gravity makes things fall", to the incredibly non-obvious like, "All matter is ultimately composed of nothing more than regions of probability density".

Now, while stating that "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is certainly true in its most naive form, there is a more sophisticated approach to the "lack of evidence".

One could propose a theory that predicts certain things, like, say, a higgs boson, and that it should be observable under thus-and-such circumstances, and should have so-and-so properties. If one sets up the circumstances according to the theory, and numerous people repeat the same experiment, and no higgs is found, the absence of evidence is a strong indicator that the higgs does not exist (we're still working on that one). Or that the luminiferous ether does not exist.

So when people look for a long time for something with specific characteristics, that, according to theory should manifest under given circumstances, and find no evidence of it, that in itself is good evidence of absence.

A little known idea comes to mind here. It's called the "god" idea. This is an age-old hypothesis that has been given a multitude of theoretical characteristics under a multitude of circumstances. This idea has constituted perhaps the longest running theoretical, experimental, and philosophical investigation in human history. In this case, given the intense nature of the investigation, and the almost deafening absence of evidence, we may be forgiven for concluding that, in this case (as with the luminiferous ether) an absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

 

Excuse me, but what exactly were you looking for?

What would the evidence of God be like?

If you don't know what the evidence would look like, maybe that is why you never found it.

--- Ron.

 

Well then, I suppose I forgot to explain the part about the theory one is proposing having clear testable boundaries. My mistake. This isn't about god anyway. As I've been told many times, god is beyond evidence, or reason, or nature, or analysis, or space, or time, or blah, blah.

The point is that if you dilligently investigate a proposed thing with a postulated set of characteristics and behaviors, and fail to find this thing, then you have strong evidence that this thing, as postulated, does not exist.

 

Then I guess you should be clear about what postulated characteristics you are looking for and also the process you propose to determine whether they are perceivable or not.

 

Your mistake indeed, if it is beyond evidence to begin with the investigation is a waste of time, and the supposed conclusion is disingenuous.

--- Ron.

 

I would say there is a shit load of evidence for existance of a God we just keep ignoring it.

We find an ox, we investigate all the 'parts' of the ox right down to it's genes, but we do not at any point realise as a whole the thing we are studying is an ox. We only see it in it's 'parts' never in it's sum total.

 

Such as?

False analogy.
How do we know it IS an ox - or where to find it - or how to study it - if we don't see it as an ox in the first instance.

The problem with GOD is that noone can say what it is - or even how to look for it - or where to find it - that is not, in some way, merely an interpretation of an otherwise natural event.
If I am wrong - please do let me know.

 

exactly

Except that 80% of worlds population experience the ox's prescence those that do not experience the presence deny it to all those that do, they are the minority.

 

It is not about seeing the ox.

It is about the knowing of what they mean when they speak of the ox.

If you would but look for your own ox and allow your neighbour to mind his own, you might eventually get the hang of it.

--- Ron.

 

(slight grammar changes are mine - for clarity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

The "experience" is evidence - of that there is no doubt - but not necessarily of the ox.
The 80% of the world you state merely interpret it as being the ox's presence - the other 20% probably as indigestion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.
Seriously though, consensus of interpretation is not valid evidence. The "experience" is the evidence - but evidence of what? That is the key question the 80% should be asking, rather than interpret it as the presence of something they have otherwise never seen.

It IS about SEEING the ox.
Knowing what someone means when they speak of the ox is all well and good - so that you will be identify it if and when you see one.

But without actually seeing the ox there is no reason to believe it even exists, other than the heresay of others.

After all, you surely know what people mean when they speak of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is that really sufficient for you to believe that it exists?

 

The 80% 'ask' all the time, the 20% deny it altogether, this is the difference.

ATOMS

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY118.HTM

Can we see them? Has anyone ever seen one?

"The answer is Yes. And No. The reason
for No is that it is actually impossible for anybody to "see" an individual
atom, since all atoms are thousands of times smaller than the smallest light
waves we can see using our eyes. The reason for Yes is that, even though they
cannot be seen directly with our eyes there is so much evidence for atoms, and
we know so much about them, that it is impossible to say they do not exist"