I once went to the Exploratorium in San Francisco where they had demonstrations of holography.

Sitting on a pedestal there appeared to be a wine glass. When I reached out to touch it, I could not. My hand passed right through it.

In other words, my sense of touch could not detect the wine glass. But my sense of sight could detect it.

Now consider this from the perspective of a blind man...

As far as he’s concerned, there is no evidence of the existence of the wine glass. He simply cannot detect it by any means.

So where does that put the notion of “objective evidence”?

In this hypothetical situation, the “objective evidence” is entirely dependent on the abilities of the observer.

In other words, unless the blind man agrees with some explanation put forth by the sighted person, there is no basis or reason for accepting the existence of the wineglass. (Note that accepting the sighted man’s explanations, must be done on pure faith alone.)

So in this situation, what would constitute “objectivity” on the part of the blind man?

Would denial of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (There is, after all, no evidence.)

Would acceptance of the existence of the wineglass be considered an “objective” position? (This would have to be done on pure faith alone, since there is no evidence.)

Would assuming that the existence of the wineglass was unknowable be considered an “objective” position? (This would mean that “knowability” would have to be entirely subjective – i.e. based on the capabilities of the observer.)

Or is it even possible for the blind man to be objective about the wineglass at all?


Of course we could just fall back on the reliability of the perception of the sighted person and say that the wineglass exists regardless of whether or not the blind man can perceive it. But note that that position really has no more intrinsic merit than falling back on the reliability of the blind man and saying that the wineglass doesn’t exist, regardless of whether or not the sighted man can perceive it.

Neither label can be applied until after it is so revealed or found. Until evidence is found, it is only a possibility. The possibility of existing is not existing.

How does this relate to anything here? What you think about other people is an ad hominem argument and is fallacious. Fallacious arguments are illogical. Illogical means no logic.

It has been shown as such. Do you have a valid counter?

The blind man could determine that other people had senses he did not with a few simple tests. if he was to take some flat cards of paper and punch various numbers of holes into them (being careful to keep them from overlapping so that they could still be counted,) and then tie the other person to a chair in a locked room and hang the cards up on the wall he would be set to begin.

As he wouldn't have thought to turn the lights on he could also check for that by making sure that the switch was in the correct position and physically touching the bulb to check that it was getting hot.

Then if the still tied up man could indicate the order of the cards left to right or in whatever direction there should be considerable reason to think that he had some kind of non-touch based sense that allowed him to recognize the cards.

Other possible tests could include rigging a system to place a solid object in between a person and the location of the (supposed) hologram and then gauging their reactions when their line of sight was cleared. The image would have to be something you would expect most people to react to, such as pornography. There are a variety of cues you could expect from either gender, depending on how willing he was to violate their privacy.

And of course to be very sure he would have to check several times with setups that could rule out other methods of determining what was there, such as duct taping oven mitts to the person's hands and installing ear plugs in their ears (you could reasonably rule out their removing the earplugs due to the mits and their removing the mitts silently due to the duct tape. If you were particularly thorough you could place bells all over them to be sure they did not move at all.)

And proper tests would include control groups so that you could be sure that, say, the ear plugs, did not somehow convey the order of cards to them.

Really it would be quite elementary.

The wine glass projected as a hologram doesn't exist to begin with - only a projected image. The blind man thus is not fooled by his sense of sight (as a sighted person might be fooled by their sense of sight) into believing in the existence of a non-existent wine glass. If he has naive blind faith in the senses and reason of others, he could be fooled into believing in the existence of a non-existent wine glass based on the testimony of those who have sight (but lack reason)...and perhaps even by the blind, who claim to have seen. This example provides an excellent metaphor.

In this example, a blind person with knowledge of holography is actually in a much better position than a sighted person who is ignorant of holography, when it comes to avoiding false beliefs about reality.

Abra:

Evidence for what?

Abra wrote:

There are plenty of historical examples where evidence has been 'found' when it was unknown prior to that time. Just look at the history of scientific discoveries (many of which were discovered by pure blundering accident)

So since history is full of examples of "evidence" that had been discovered when it was previously unkown then it's a pretty sure bet that there is plenty more evidence that will be found that is currently unrevealed.

That's a given, unless you think that we've already discovered all there is to know about the universe and there is no 'evidence' left to be discovered.

That question had already been answered many times in this thread.

Question: What is evidence?

Answer: That depends on what question your asking. The question you ask will determine what constitutes 'evidence' to support the conlusion that you associated with your question.

Question: How is it evaluated for it's accuracy, sufficiency, and relevance?

Answer: Again, that depends on what question you're asking and what conclusions you're suggesting that the evidence supports. And what methodology you apply when seeking for 'evidence'.

So it's very much a subjective thing. Let there be no doubt about that.

The questions we ask, and the 'evidence' we look for, will determine what evidence we find and the answers we get.

Sky had already explained all this but it seems to have gone over eveyone's head.

PeterPan:

Is it hipocritical or contradictory (or both), that you started a thread and asked for evidence for a designer before it was revealed to you??? Right there, you labeled the unknown as "evidence".

It was neither. The subject was brought up in another thread, and it was claimed by another that there was evidence of a designer of the universe. I simply asked for it. If it existed then it had been found and/or revealed. So for you to attempt to apply either one of those labels to me personally based upon only that...

Well, that is quite questionable grounds.

If one presupposes negative things about people without having the logical grounds to do such a thing, I suppose one could then think and later claim this. However, as it stands this is an attempt for you to make a personal judgment about me.

Ad hominem. Fail.

I suggest you look into the idea of what argumentative fallacies are and how they can be spotted and addressed accordingly. It benefits everyone involved in philosophical discussions, including the new seeker(s) of knowledge.

Address the posts, not the posters.

PeterPan wrote:

I am addressing the posts, and your claims that "evidence" can't be called "evidence" until it's discovered. Just because it was written by you, does not make it "Ad Hominem".

You did it again with the smooge reference.
"If I look for evidence of a pink and black elephantic smooge how with that determine the evidence I will find and what answers I will get?"

You are looking for "EVIDENCE" which has NOT been found. That is hipocritical, you can call the "unfound" or "unknown" evidence but noone else can???

It seems to me that anyone who offers a logical rebutal to your claims is reponded with "Ad hominem. Fail." I personally agree with most of the rebutals against your posts.

Quote me next time. I know what an ad hominem is, and talking about me personally constitutes one.

JB,

You way overthinking here. It cannot be considered as evidence until it is found. Just because there may be evidence does not necessarily mean that there is. In your example, you presupposed and even articulated that evidence did exist even though it had not been found. You would not know that, if it had not been found. It does not necessarily follow that evidence always exists in every case despite the fact that none has been found.

It is that simple.

Your assessments of my words do not make sense.

Those are illogical conclusions. I am not calling it 'unfound evidence' or 'unrevealed evidence' or 'unknown evidence' while it is being sought after. You are. Those labels can only be applied after the fact when one is referring to beforehand, and that is exactly what every example given has done. Those labels refer to before it was found, revealed, known.


It is also not hypocritical to realize that we seek evidence. It is also quite obvious that if one is seeking, then it has not been found. That does not make 'unfound' or 'unrevealed' or 'unknown' evidence exist. That is what you're claiming. You're claiming that those kinds of evidence exist. They only exist in past tense. Those two labels only apply to evidence after it has been found when one is referring to a point in time before it was 'found' or 'revealed'.

Just because one looks for evidence does not mean that 'unfound evidence' exists. This is the semantic game that I so despise. Any and all evidence is not considered evidence until after it is found and/or revealed. Therefore, there is no such a thing as unknown, unfound, or unrevealed evidence until after it has been found. It is then, and only then, that those labels can apply when talking about the time beforehand.

... 'Unfound' presupposes that evidence exists. 'Unrevealed' presupposes not only that evidence exists, but also that there is *something* responsible for revealing such evidence.

Therefore, there is no such a thing as unknown, unfound, or unrevealed evidence until after it has been found.

Your agreement does not equate to being true or logical.

PeterPan:

Ad hominem. Fail.

PeterPan wrote:

2 ad hominems right there. You state JB is "overthinking" and you claim her assessments don't make sense.

You then claim "It cannot be considered as evidence until it is found".
That is False. It cannot be "presented" as evidence until it is found. You, on numerous occasions, look for "evidence" before it has been found.

Just because one looks for evidence does not mean that 'unfound evidence' exists. This is the semantic game that I so despise. Any and all evidence is not considered evidence until after it is found and/or revealed. Therefore, there is no such a thing as unknown, unfound, or unrevealed evidence until after it has been found. It is then, and only then, that those labels can apply, and they only do so when talking about the time beforehand.

What is it that you are considering 'evidence' before it is found?

He claimed it was "faith". Like I said, just because it's hidden or ignored doesn't mean it's not evidence, it only means it's not perceived or accepted.

Peter_Pan....it was you that claim just because someone was shot therefore it was a gun that delivered the bullet ...until I pointed out to you that there are ways a bullet can be fired without a gun

but of course you never responded back

Whatever "evidence" you are searching for I would consider evidence.

I liked the murder scenario.... I'll resubmit it using my own example.

In front of 20 witnesses, Joe shoots and kills 2 people. He then flees the scene and ditches the gun in a river.
At the crime scene, there are found shell casings, blood, bullets and the bodies of 2 victims.

Now, this is where I'll state my opinion, I don't want anyone to agree with me in writing as it could be construed as "ganging up". (although everyone is welcome to agree with me silently if they wish)

It is logical for me to think that THE gun used in the killings could be, would be and is considered evidence. So the search begins...