From: 6500null@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Null Cypher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 4 Oct 92 09:20:28 GMT


>>acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>>: 
>>: Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
>>: what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.
>> 

[everything but original post deleted...]

Lemme take a crack at this...

evidence:  information that supports a claim.

There's your definition, next we need to tackle the question of what
constitutes evidence.  The three most important words in our definition
are "information", "supports" and "claim".  Let's take them in reverse
order...


CLAIM:  First you need some sort of claim.  This might be something like
"Vanilla is better than chocolate", "sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1", "The Bible
is written by the creator of the universe", "My head hurts", etc...


SUPPORT:  Next, you may wonder how convincing your claim is.  This brings
up the question of who exactly you are trying to convince. 

Here are some categories in which the requirements of support of a claim
will differ among claims and claim-evaluators:

[1] Mundanity:  If you tell me that your head hurts, then I (personally)
would be inclined to take your claim at face value, since I don't see any
reason why you would tell me that your head hurts when it actually doesn't.

[2] Logic:  Each person will have a logical system which dictates how you
can manipulate claims to establish new claims.  Many people (such as myself)
frown on practices such as assuming the truth of your claim in the claim's
argument ("Begging the question").

[3] Assumptions:  Logical rules alone accomplish about as much as a
computer without an operating system.  You need basic information which
you can interpret through your logical system to get new information.
In mathematics these basic units of information are called "Axioms".
When trying to convince someone that your claim is true, it is best to
utilize fundamental assumptions that that person agrees with already.

Now, when you mix a set of axioms with a set of logical rules, you get
a "system" or perhaps a "worldview".  This is where all the head-butting
occurs between theists and atheists.


enough of that, let's move on to:


INFORMATION:  If a piece of information is going to support a claim, then
it is going to have to somehow fit into the claim's argument, according to
the rules of logic used by the argument.  There is also the question of
whether the information is going to be accepted.  This opens up a big can
of worms about reliability of sources, etc.  It is generally a good idea
not to use one of your axioms as supporting information (at least in my
rules of logic, and most likely in those of the other alt.atheists).


Since this is alt.atheism, a natural question is how an atheist would
interpret "evidence" for the existence of some particular deity (which
is usually the christian deity in this newsgroup).

I can't speak for other atheists, but I can tell you that anyone trying to
convince me of the existence of the christian deity is going to be
seriously hampered by the following:

[1] I demand very strict logic.
[2] I try to keep my set of axioms to a minimum.
    (i.e. there is very little to build on)
[3] I don't trust 2000-year-old information very much.


Oh, one other thing:  There's also a problem with the exclusivity of a claim.
People have given me reasonable-sounding information that tends to support
the existence of the christian deity, but I have found that the information
also supports, for example, the claim that "Jehovah" is actually a group
of interstellar travellers with very advanced technology who have been
interfering with humanity.


Newsgroups: alt.atheism