Post AXdF8FX4vgX8QthknI by sixtra@masto.nu
 (DIR) More posts by sixtra@masto.nu
 (DIR) Post #AXdEomEDepGm2sb9KC by minogully@mstdn.ca
       2023-07-12T16:33:38Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Learned recently that “evidence” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.For some it’s anything that increases confidence in a belief.For others there’s a notion of repeatability or even whether it supports the leading theory at the time.Which is it?  Or is it something else?
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdEon0mkG7MTVJw1Y by sixtra@masto.nu
       2023-07-12T22:21:51Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @minogully  I think that one has to separate philosophical evidence from scientific evidence. In philosophy one can use “inductive arguments” to provide evidence for a propositional hypothesis for ex.While scientific evidence is using repeatability to ground and test the hypothesis more empirical, I would assume.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8BTO1TCfqHwkU4 by dmitryro@mastodon.social
       2023-07-12T17:33:08Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @minogully Evidence means replicability, testability, experimental outcomes that consistently approve the hypothesis made. Like throwing a stone that lands on the floor no matter what. Facts - information that proves itself by being testable.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8C3Xr27veQrcqO by minogully@mstdn.ca
       2023-07-12T17:42:11Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dmitryro what would you call the kinds of evidence that doesn’t meet that standard?  (For ex testimonials)
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8Cl9Ev0NpfGRo8 by dmitryro@mastodon.social
       2023-07-12T18:11:10Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @minogully No, witness and testimony can't be considered as serious evidence. It has to be criminalist and neurologist who would actually extract some credibility from testimony as well as lie detector, but generally it's too soft to amount to evidence and too easy to fabricate. Verbal witness is not enough for being evidence, and the fact that legal system uses it says how many errors they make when they sentence somebody to do time.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8DQyjOSvvOpr0a by minogully@mstdn.ca
       2023-07-12T18:22:53Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dmitryro hard not to get by, even in science, without trusting the testimony of scientists who have proven this or that fact.While these testimonies could, in principle, be supported with a repetition of their methodology, the reality is we don’t have the time/ability so we trust the testimony.Not saying it’s as high quality as the other evidence, but surely there is *some* measure of validity to it.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8ECTsmSmIj3n3A by dmitryro@mastodon.social
       2023-07-12T18:38:39Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @minogully Fact is what you observe, not what you hear.You observe when it is testable with experiment and produces observable results. Oral testimony can't be sufficient in every case, be it scientist or not.Many claim they are scientists while they are con artists, and some indeed are while not behaving in a convincing way or not using tools and methodologies that would help them to build strong case. 300 years ago priests were considered scientists. Today the term "scientist" is still loaded.
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8EvVBOTYYM7kDw by minogully@mstdn.ca
       2023-07-12T19:05:40Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dmitryro still, I’m left wanting for a word that describes this kind of poor evidence.Evithin?  (Less dense evidence 🤣😂)
       
 (DIR) Post #AXdF8FX4vgX8QthknI by sixtra@masto.nu
       2023-07-12T22:25:21Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @minogully @dmitryro That’s why I lean towards that “evidence” leads towards certainty aka “proof”, which is a validation of the evidence or as an hypothesis that turns into a theory.I may of course be incorrect, but that’s how I generally interpret it. With a more philosophical approach so to speak. 😁