The "What Is Evidence" Semantic Argument Thread

[tsg]

This is an intentional post and run because I have absolutely no interest in debating what the word evidence "should" mean, but apparently some people do so I wanted to give them a place to have it. And I also wanted someplace to point people to when they insist on having it in other threads.

If you are responding to the statement "there is no evidence for X" with the statement "there is evidence, it's just not very good" or "there is insufficient evidence, but it is evidence" or something along those lines, you are engaging in a semantic argument over the definition of a word. Semantic arguments are pointless because what is important is what the person who used the term meant and not what you think the word should mean. This particular argument is especially inane because it's obvious you do know what he meant and are being pedantic about his word choice.

If it isn't clear from the context, ask. I agree that conveying ideas clearly is important, but language is imprecise and there will be some confusion. Find out what was meant. Insisting someone used a word incorrectly doesn't invalidate their argument and doesn't further the discussion.

A tip: dictionaries are collections of common usages, not authorities on how a word should be used. An entry in the dictionary only indicates that enough people use the word in that way that the publishers thought it warranted inclusion. Dictionaries reflect the language, not the other way around.

For the record, I use evidence to mean that which supports a claim. Simply being offered as support for a claim doesn't make it evidence in my eyes. When I say "there is no evidence for X", I mean there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the claim X. A blurry photograph of something possibly furry taken from a hundred yards away is not evidence that bigfoot exists. If you want to argue about whether that photograph supports the claim that bigfoot exists, fine, I'm all ears (but not in this thread). If your argument is that it is evidence despite failing to support the claim, I couldn't be less interested.

Argue away.

 

[gnome]

My definition of reliable evidence:

Let the biggest nitpickers and naysayers around try to tear it up and discredit it. If it still seems pretty compelling afterwards, it's probably reliable information.

Same with a scientific hypothesis

 

[ImOne]

The problem is you're making a judgement on what is evidence. That's fine until someone disagrees. Then you have to defend your judgement and you're back in the same boat dicussing the merits of the evidence and you already know the other party doesn't agree with you.

No one will let YOU decide what evidence is.

 

[athon]

This is at the core of what science is about, and essentially why people disagree.

We all use evidence to support our views, regardless of what people say. When a skeptic says 'you have no evidence', they are meaning 'give me evidence that I would feel is good enough to support your claim'.

In order to adopt a claim as a belief, all people need some form of evidence. At its simplest, this is the word of somebody else. If somebody says to you 'I have a cat at home', that is typically sufficient evidence to incite you to believe them. That is because with that claim, a history of related experiences are insinuated. You have seen countless cats, and they were often owned by people you know, therefore the claim 'I have a cat at home' is sufficient evidence to inspire you to believe.

Good skepticism should not be about adopting a belief as fact, but rather a matter of having a level of confidence in a claim. A decision is then based on a mix of your level of confidence and your judgment on how important the matter is. And it is the nature of the evidence that gives you confidence.

Evidence, therefore, is whatever information you choose it to be that relates to a claim. It makes it difficult to debate, often, as it relies on your personal experiences. 'I have a cat at home' might be insufficient evidence to somebody who comes from a country where cats are rare animals and not kept a pets. They will need something else to gain confidence in your claim, such as perhaps a photograph or even a personal experience with the cat.

Athon

 

[hellaeon]

Evidence for something is defiant of your belief in it.
I dont care what a psychic says, they are wrong.
One day, someone just might prove me wrong. I doubt it with high certainty.
If someone does (a proper scientific discovery) I will have to change my acceptance of its legitimacy. The scientific evidence will force me to that position. REAL scientific evidence. (make of that what you will)

 

[Flange Desire]

Good skepticism should not be about adopting a belief as fact, but rather a matter of having a level of confidence in a claim.

Agreed.

Re OP:
It seems that some people use 'there is evidence (for x)'
but the semanics are ambiguous as this could mean any of ...
- 'there is strongly supporting evidence for x'
- 'there is weaky supporting evidence for x'
- 'there is evidence that disputes x, but I falsly claim it to be supportive'

Of course, it always devolves down to a subjective appraisal (level of confidence in) the evidence.

 

[Euromutt]

I think Athon's post sums the matter up very well, but I'm inclined to add one more consideration, namely that for something to be considered valid evidence of a certain claim, it has to support that claim exclusively. That is, there has to be no room for plausible alternative explanations.

For instance, finding person X's fingerprints on a handgun is evidence that person X handled the weapon; it is not necessarily evidence that X fired the weapon. Similarly, if forensics finds powder residue on person X's hand, that is evidence X recently fired a weapon, though not necessarily the weapon in question. Both items are evidence, but not yet evidence that person X committed a particular homicide. You also have to establish that the weapon in question was--at least in all probability--used to commit the crime, and that person X could have been on the scene of the crime within the timeframe in which the crime was committed (and establishing a motive couldn't hurt either). Once you have all those elements, they collectively form evidence that person X committed the homicide, but each individual element taken seperately does not. (Note: I am not a lawyer, though I was an evidence handler for a couple of years.)

Applying the aforegoing to the matter of Bigfeet, the existence of indistinct photographs, film and video footage, and plaster casts of footprints are certainly evidence of something, but the existence of Bigfeet is only one possibility. It is at least as plausible, if not more so, that they are evidence of the existence of one or more persons who fabricated these artifacts for whatever reason. Case in point: the "Sonoma video"; whereas a few months ago it might have been touted as evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, it was at least as plausible at that time that it was a fabrication, which indeed turned out to be the case.

When I say "there is no evidence for X", I mean there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the claim X.

I'm not sure I agree with that exact wording, though I certainly agree with the sentiment. Rather, I would say that the statement "there is no evidence for X" should be read as shorthand for:
"There is no material--be it witness statements, photographic material, plaster casts, EMF detector readings, etc.--the existence of which, even when considered in concert, is not at least as readily explicable for reasons other than the veracity of claim X."
That's more than a bit of a mouthful, obviously.

 

[drkitten]

If you are responding to the statement "there is no evidence for X" with the statement "there is evidence, it's just not very good" or "there is insufficient evidence, but it is evidence" or something along those lines, you are engaging in a semantic argument over the definition of a word.

No, you're not. Or rather, you're also implicitly criticizing a bad argument.

If there is "no evidence," then there is, literally, nothing to argue about.

It there is "bad evidence," then you do at least have to refute the evidence that is presented and demonstrate how/why it should not be given any credence.

The difference is roughly the same as if I claim that the best team in American football were the Manchester Hurricanes, vs. if I claim that the best team were the Carolina Panthers. In the second
case, I have to actually evaluate the argument you make in favor of the Panthers, and listen to your spurious arguments about why the "best team" didn't even make it to the championship. But in the first case, I merely have to point out that there is no team named the Manchester Hurricanes.

 

[tsg]

No, you're not. Or rather, you're also implicitly criticizing a bad argument.

I should point out I'm also not interested in arguing about whether this is a semantic argument. All of your points hinge on what you consider the word "evidence" to mean.

 

[drkitten]

I should point out I'm also not interested in arguing about whether this is a semantic argument. All of your points hinge on what you consider the word "evidence" to mean.

Evidently you're not interested in much of anything except blind obedience to your unsupported assertions.

I decline to obey, sir.

 

[tsg]

Evidently you're not interested in much of anything except blind obedience to your unsupported assertions.

I made my position clear in the OP.

I decline to obey, sir.

No one asked you to.

 

[ImOne]

Argue away.

 

[bjb]

This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the Simpsons, where the lawyer Lionel Hutz is presenting his case in court:

Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

I have to agree the word evidence is not as meaningful as it should be when used on its own. Conjecture, fallacies, forgeries, etc. are presented as evidence all the time and most people don't think twice about it. At the very least, skeptics should to be careful and use qualifying words like 'valid', 'direct', 'credible', 'convincing', etc. when discussing evidence. It becomes more difficult to play semantic games against more definite language like that.

 

[Luke T.]

Every day, I dance in a circle and wave incense around. This keeps aliens from another planet away from my house.

It works.

 

[Walter Wayne]

If you are responding to the statement "there is no evidence for X" with the statement "there is evidence, it's just not very good" or "there is insufficient evidence, but it is evidence" or something along those lines, you are engaging in a semantic argument over the definition of a word. Semantic arguments are pointless because what is important is what the person who used the term meant and not what you think the word should mean. This particular argument is especially inane because it's obvious you do know what he meant and are being pedantic about his word choice.

The problem with that scenario, is that the statement "there is no evidence for X" is an overstatement of your case. Leaving it unchallenged allows for the person to use the statement again, possibly using it to imply idiocy on the part holding the position X. Given the number of times we skeptics suspect alterior motives on the part of believers posts, should we be surprised if they suspect that of ours. I won't concede such an inaccurate "statement of fact" in a forum where contentious issues abound, and people like to trap others with ridiculous arguments at times.

It would be different if the conversation was a private one. But here, even if only two are posting to a thread, we have audience. As such one must consider that even if both of us understand the intention, there is no guarantees others will not.

If it isn't clear from the context, ask. I agree that conveying ideas clearly is important, but language is imprecise and there will be some confusion. Find out what was meant. Insisting someone used a word incorrectly doesn't invalidate their argument and doesn't further the discussion.

I would love to have a cromulent word available which is somewhere between "proof" and "evidence". Since I don't, I will have to suffer writing an extra sentence on occasionally. Its not like one has to replace it with a paragraph or peer-reviewed paper. To me using it inaccurately is just lazy.

For the record, I use evidence to mean that which supports a claim. Simply being offered as support for a claim doesn't make it evidence in my eyes. When I say "there is no evidence for X", I mean there is no credible, reliable evidence to support the claim X. A blurry photograph of something possibly furry taken from a hundred yards away is not evidence that bigfoot exists. If you want to argue about whether that photograph supports the claim that bigfoot exists, fine, I'm all ears (but not in this thread). If your argument is that it is evidence despite failing to support the claim, I couldn't be less interested.

From your definition I am not sure exactly where your line between evidence and fluff lies, and if I did there is no guarantee that I or others viewing a thread would remember it. Shall I keep a cheat sheet somewhere that lists for each poster the stipulative definitions of words that they use when posting?

It is far simpler to be precise with language, than to deal with constant misintepretations.

Walt