to bad you can't use that "Free Wil" to come up with an answer

No need to respond, thanks.

I do not think that that is evidence. That is a good enough reason to look for more evidence, however, until it is found it is not considered evidence, because all evidence can be shown. You have shown good reason to believe that more evidence can be found. However, given that, one cannot claim that evidence until it is. As funches has shown, it may or may not be an actual gun. That would require more examination of the available evidence in order to logically determine that. It could have been more than one gun as well.

If it is known exactly what is missing, then the evidence which proves that has been sufficient enough to do so, and warrants a search for known evidence or probable evidence. It is not actually evidence until it has been found. That is my point, if you do not agree, show me an example of evidence which has not been found to exist, not an example in which known evidence is missing.

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from. I would agree with you if the evidence were to be used in a court of law, but I thought we were speaking scientificaly. It would have been more clear to me had you used the terms "stuff" or "possible evidence" instead of calling what you were searching for "evidence".

The first sentence of your reply is an opinion. All evidence has to be approved by you, so by your rules, I cannot give an example.


If I could do this, I wouldn't be on this dating site. That restricts my example to a "new" scientific discovery.

But, if you are willing to "consider" my proposal of evidence, I'll try to give a few examples...

1st: evidence which is known, but not what it supported or proved.
a) Light... Light was evidence of protons before protons were discovered.
b) Sound... Sound was evidence of sound waves before the sound waves were discovered.
c) Gravity... Weight and the fact that things fall were evidence of gravity before gravity was discovered.

2nd: evidence which is not known, but we know what we're trying to prove.
a) An oasis in the desert... We know there's a source of the water, now we need to find the evidence of it. It could be a spring, rainfall, villagers carrying buckets, you name it. (the known evidence is the water source)
b) Oil or coal... We know it's out there somewhere, so we drill and take core samples looking for the evidence of the deposit or vein.
c) Inteligent life on earth... We assume it's out there, so we give IQ tests to people and keep hoping. (that's a joke, not directed at anyone)

Now my whole point is that scientists, lawyers, investigators and even us here in the forums all search for "evidence", not "stuff", "possible evidence" or "probable evidence". To me, it's only NOT evidence if it doesn't support my theory. (everyone's welcome to give their opinion on this statement)

"Stuff" as evidence:

Consider a crime scene. The investigators are collecting samples of "stuff" and putting that "stuff" into evidence bags.

They take the stuff to the lab and examine it. Some of it is evidence that the person is a smoker, has diabetes, is sloppy and dropped some cow's blood on the floor.

None of the "stuff" collected proves that he murdered his wife. It also does not prove that he did NOT murder his wife.

Is the "stuff" evidence?

The answer is NO. It is just "stuff" because it does not prove nor is it relevant to the crime or what they are trying to prove.

So, the "stuff" exists, but it does not become "evidence" until it relates to the crime and proves something. There has to be a connection between the evidence and the crime.

They may find a bloody knife, a discharged gun, and a pair of pantie hose. But if the woman was strangled with a pair of pantie hose, the only evidence would be the pantie hose. The gun and knife would not be evidence relating to the crime. The bloody knife he used to cut up a steak that night. The discharged gun was used to kill a squirrel.

Still the pantie hose may not be enough "evidence" to prove the murder because they may discover he used them to pull over his face to rob a convenience store, and he may still not be the murderer.

So, the pantie hose can be considered as evidence, but it might be insufficient to prove the murder. The only DNA on the pantie hose was his. It does not connect to the victim. (so the defense attorney will argue.

But the prosecutor might still insist that he used the pantie hose to murder his wife, and leave it for the jury to decide.

Then it is up to the decision of the jury if the pantie hose is sufficient evidence.

So is the pantie hose evidence or not?

Jeannie makes a good point. I was thinking along the same lines.

And to make it even simpler...

I'm walking through the forest and I find a gun.

Is that gun evidence?

I'm walking through the forest and I find a dead body.

Is that body evidence?

Does this mean you changed your position on what you consider evidence?

Evidence for a court case is not a good example.
jrbogie even mentioned that fact.
Court evidence is admissable or not based on the laws of the government and the ruling of the judge.
You may very well present the murder weapon and the judge could rule against it being admitted in evidence. It would not change the fact that the murder weapon does support your theory.


JB wrote:


My whole objection was that creative placed himself as the sole judge of the validity of not only the evidence, but what could even be considered as evidence.
He then supported that decision by claiming that he used "objective means" to verify it with no evidence to prove his "objectivity" only his opinion.

As for me, I'll go with the general concensus here that evidence is still evidence even if it's not discovered yet. And, to be "objective" about my choice, I did a search on bing for the phrase "search for evidence" and found 77,500,000 results. Among those were NASA, Harvard and ScienceDaily on the first page alone.

Jeannie seems to always make the best points.

She's one clever private eye. I'd definitely want her on my side if I were being accused of something. I think she would make a great scientist as well. She appears to have a very solid grasp on what constitutes evidence and how to go about seaching for it.

If you think that "smelling the roses" can be reduced to the simple chemistry of pheromones then you're not even playing the same game as I am, much less being in a position to be claiming "Checkmate".

All you've done here is demonstrate your extreme FAITH that all of life can be explained in terms of objective billiard balls, chemistry and biology. As far as I can see, all you're doing is proclaiming that your basically a Newtonian hold-out and just don't realize it, is all.

I fully understand that line of thinking. I just no longer feel restricted by it. I feel that it has been surpassed by far better thinkers, most of whom were the major scientists of the 20th century.

So from my point of view, you're holding views that I myself held back when I was in my 20's before I started to realized the true insights gained by the new physics. However, even then I was wise enough to realize that those views do not imply non-spirituality. So unlike you, I never accepted On Faith the non-spirituality of the world.

So I can fully understand where you're coming from. To me it's just "old news" that has been surpassed is all. Also, to have faith that everything can be reduced to the mere equations of interactions is indeed a "faith-based" belief in its own right.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

I'm in agreement with Stephen Hawking. The equations of science are merely a description of how the miracles unfold. To confuse those descriptions with the miracle itself is utterly silly.

This is why I used the term "Smell the Roses". Because this saying implies far more than merely smelling the scent of the rose.

But clearly the deeper meaning went right over your head because you come back with the simply chemistry explanation again thus revealing that you've completely missed the deeper essence of life.

Based on your previous stance, I'm not at all surprised by your view. I could have foretold it and I wouldn't have even needed to use a crystal ball.

So we just have totally different views. Apparently I'm fully aware of the vantage point that you're coming from. It appears that you are the one who is not aware of the vantage point that I'm coming from. Maybe try re-reading the words of Stephen Hawking above and see if that helps.

I have not actually changed my position, I am just getting a better understanding of what the term "evidence" actually means.

"Stuff" can be collected, put into evidence bags etc. but it may not be given the label "evidence" in connection to a particular truth or crime...until a valid connection is made.

It certainly can be evidence of something. But whether the "stuff" is given the label "evidence" will depend on an agreement as to whether it has a connection to the statement, assertion, accusation, crime, or assumption.

The person who has to be the judge of the validity of the evidence is indeed the person or persons you are attempting to convince.

If you are trying to convince Creative of something then he is the one who is the judge and he is the one who must determine if your "stuff" is "valid evidence." Valid evidence has to have some connection to the statement, crime, assertion, accusation or assumption etc.

I think I see the underlying issue here regarding the term 'evidence' being described with the term 'unfound', and I am necessarily a part of it. Knowing that, let's see if it can be cleared up.



What difference does it possibly make? The argument presented has not been made clearly, all that has been done is attempt to judge my character with the use of the term hypocritical and other ad hominem grounds.

Just because one looks for evidence, it does not necessarily follow that evidence actually exists. That is my point. 'Unfound' evidence does not necessarily exist. All evidence, if it is to warrant the label of evidence, requires the ability to show it. Evidence is an outward sign or indication of proof.

I think one(though not the only) problem with the communication here lies in the use(perhaps my use as well) of the term 'unfound'. I am referring to the actual existence of known evidence, and it has also been used to wrongly refer to evidence which has not yet been proven to exist.



So is this? Who cares about that? It is the grounds which any opinion rests upon that interests me. The fact is that I am using a Merriam Webster's definition of evidence that is well-accepted. Evidence, by the very meaning of the word, must exist and be able to be shown in order to be evidence at all. Unfound evidence is often used as a misnomer, it does not necessarily exist, except in a past tense reference as I explained earlier, and one other situation which I have just thought of.

This is where I can take *some* responsibility for not thinking this through very carefully earlier... I can also imagine a situation in which there necessarily is a particular piece of missing evidence whose actual existence has already been logically proven by other evidence, but has not yet been found. In that case, the 'unfound' evidence is known to exist. So the term 'unfound' refers to the lack of physical possession, and not known existence. That is the underlying confusion here, I think. I think it has been had in whether or not one is talking about 'unfound' evidence - which is already known to exist, but is missing; or if one is talking about 'unfound' evidence which is not already known to exist. The term 'unfound' is inapplicable in the latter case, for the logical aforementioned reasons.



Ad hominem. Fail.

I am simply offering my own opinion, along with what grounds it rests upon. I am interested in reading your grounds, but most of it thus far has just been your personal opinion of me. A very weak argumentative form.



Non sequitur. Fail. Not 'my' definition. Not 'my' rules of logic.



You're referring to an earlier conversation with Abra regarding a specific claim of his which I researched and had obtained independently verified evidence which refuted his claim. Using that in an attempt to describe this particular side discussion is a little misleading, because my words about that particular set of circumstances cannot be forced to apply here. There are different conditions and different things are being focused upon, therefore different claims are being made.

Opinions can be shown in an objective manner. See above.

You think thats a 'semantic based argument' ???? I'm just trying to address the question in a straightforward manner.

The fact that a person might mistake a wineglass projection for a wineglass, to me, was the most interesting aspect of the example you gave.



I don' think so. Depending on the history of his communication witht he sighted persion, thats probably jumping to a conclusion without cause. If, however, he knows the sighted person frequently plays practical jokes on him, or is delusional, then that might be a sensible conclusion, even if its not an objective position.



Not in the situation you describe - but in the spirit of Shokus comments, he could investigate the matter further. Perhaps by randomly selecting sighted people who are unlikely to have communicated with each other, and have them each state what they see.



Based on this example you give, no.



Absolute objectivity is not possible for humans, but relatively high degrees of it are, and that is what I often term an 'objective' position or approach. He, he can be objective about this. He would realize the limitations of his senses, the possibility of delusion and deception and confusion on the part of the sighted person (and people), and begin by neither 'believing' nor 'disbelieving' in the projection, and coming up with a plan to investigate the matter that compensates both for his lack of sight and the lack of objectivity of others.

The blind doesn't see light either but the photons can be perceived in other ways. A holographic image is not an "OBJECT" therefore what the blind man would need to understand is the technology which emits light in such a way as to produce an image which the blind cannot see anyway.

The point is - if there is no "object - of matter" there is nothing to perceive. If there is reason to believe an 'object' exists, there will (eventually) be 'objective' data to qualify the existence of the object, and some way to prove - even to a blind man - the validity of the objects existence - without requiring 'faith' in a subjective interpretation.

In the case of the holographic image - your subjective interpretation was incorrect, there was not wine glass, therefore if the blind had faith in your subjective interpretation - his faith would have been broken when you realized the wine glass was NOT a wine glass at all but a holographic immage.

Pan - you are creating a scenario to match what you have said. But that is not the scenario which began the discussion. JB has realized the confusion in her posts - let me explain.

A person is found dead
The scene indicates violence
Physical examination of the body indicates a gun-shot wound(s).

At that point no weapon has been found - but we KNOW there is a gun involved - there is no faith yet invoked - there is a dead body, and knowledge that a gun was the murder weapon.

The gun can not yet be evidence because it has not been found

The gun does exist, but it was not found at the scene therefore it is "unrevealed knowledge" We know it exists it has not been found

A suspect is rounded up based on some weak circumstantial evidence.

You can now have "faith" that the man is guilty and you can have "faith" that the weapon will be found.

But the man can not be found guilty on faith alone and an "unrevealed" gun cannot 'evidence'of the man's guilt.
In fact for the gun to be 'evidence' for anything at all - it must be found.

Therefore if there is no 'evidence'. It does not exist....
Even though we know a gun is the murder weapon - we are not saying the gun does not exist - we are saying there is not evidence to convict ANYONE.

Truly.

Ok, I can see that it is theoretically possible to create a device that would translate the light from the holographic image into some other tye of sensory input that could be detected by the blind man. Point taken.

Just from a purely philsophical perspective, I wonder what sort of subjective interpretation would be given to that kind of sensory input. It's seems fairly certain that it would not be identical (or even similar?) to that of a sighted person. Interesting thought.

Red


Sky


The hypothesis is ‘generally’ based on subjective interpretation or ‘educated guess’. We use ‘objective’ analysis (that is; unbiased mechanisms) to test if our predictions have validity outside the mind alone. So I would have to say, yes we use ‘objective’ methods to find possible errors that can occur in the subjective interpretation.




So I’m not misunderstanding your statement let me repeat it to you this way:
If the test results using objective methods do not yield the results expected in the hypothesis we conclude that there is either an error in our testing design or an error in our hypothesis.

In this way yes – we are using the objective methods to determine the validity of the ‘subjectively’ concluded hypothesis.

Sky


Yes, that is correct.



No, not exactly. You have knowledge of computers and programs, I will assume you know how Excel works – in excel (as in math) you make one argument at a time. In your statements above you are not completing the arguments in order.

Our agreement is only on the methods we will use to test the hypothesis. That is the only agreement we have made.

We have a hypothesis that we want to test for validity. We agree on the methods to be used to test the assertion of the hypothesis. That is all we have agreed on.

The next step is the testing.
If the tests do not yield the results expected from the hypothesis then we will have to come to another agreement - that either the hypothesis is incorrect or the methods used to test were in error.


Red wrote:


Sky wrote:


Yes.

Analysis of the argument that semantics is a game being played. I will show the arguments and I offer my opinion –please say exactly what flaw you think exists.




I see no flaw in the above argument – Creative is right.





Evidence is the substantial proof (qualifies as sufficient) of “something” (relevance)
Substantial = having substance; true or real
Relevance = Pertinence to the matter at hand.

I see no flaw in the argument Creative makes that “… evidence is the determination of it’s sufficiency and relavence.





I see no flaw in the argument Creative makes.




Unfound - is not a commonly used word so we might conclude one of two things
That it simply means NOT FOUND or it refers to
Unfounded - not based on fact or sound “evidence”

Creative interprets based on context using the simpler version Not found which “presupposes that evidence does exist (of course what shape that evidence takes is undetermined)

Unrevealed means, hidden, undisclosed, or not made known and that
Which matches the “presupposition” which Creative describes.

Either way – the evidence that is presupposed to exist cannot be shown in order to assess it’s sufficiency or relevance.

I see no flaw in the argument.





Sound right to me.







The only flaw I see between these three posts falls in the argument of Peter Pan.
“if someone is shot, there is a gun that did the shooting” This is a true statement The problem is that Pan has left out the most pertinent element in the discussion and that is
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? No one is questioning that a gun which caused the harm exists – the question is if we can’t produce the gun, how can it be ‘evidence of a person’s guilt?





The only flaw I see is in the logic Pan uses.
(explanation) There have not been any examples for unrevealed or unfound evidence because (logically) it has not been found.




The flaw I see in this argument is that Pan presents a definition that proves there is a semantic game afoot. Evidence is not commonly considered to be proof of a persons thought, while evidence may be a statement made by a specific person it would only qualify as evidence if the form the statement was presented in could be sufficiently proven to have been made, in its original context (relevance) to be valid evidence – as heresay does not qualify…
I will end this analysis here - hopefully it has shown that sometimes we simply make evaluation about something we have read too quickly or likewise write without thorough consideration of our words and how they come across.
I PLEAD GUILTY – and the “evidence” of my guilt is in this thread. I, for one, will try to do better.

My evidence proves otherwise - as posted above
If you can PRESENT your "UNREVEALED" evidence I it would be a step in the right direction.