- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 5,544
- Reaction score
- 1,061
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).
I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".
I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.
Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?
I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).
I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".
I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.
Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?
It's not meaningful in itself, but something has to be uncaused. Whatever it is that you think was not caused by something else and was just always there is going to be defined by itself and be a meaningless statement that carries no information. The universe could be the first cause. Or we could groundlessly postulate some other thing that caused the universe and call that thing the first cause. In either case, we have the same problem, and since the universe exists and we have no evidence for anything that caused the universe, Occam's Razor would suggest that we should assume that the universe is itself the first cause.
I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).
I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".
I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.
Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?
If P really does imply P then there's nothing left to say about the matter. Or did I misunderstand?
P is evidence for P simply means that P is not, by itself, evidence of anything else. For example, a quarter inch hole in my wall is, by itself, not evidence that someone shot my wall. Or that someone hammered a nail into it. Any number of things could have caused the hole, and the mere presence of the hole is only evidence that there's a hole.
And if I hear what sounds like a gunshot, that is only evidence that a loud sound was made. Maybe someone fired a gun in my house, maybe it was the television, maybe it was something else entirely that his sounded like a gunshot.
Now, if I hear what sounds like a gunshot, AND there's now a hole in my wall, then the hole is evidence that a shot was fired into my wall, and so is the sound. But not if the two occurred more than say a second apart. It's still possible something else caused the hole but we would need evidence to contradict the gun theory (And lack of a bullet where there should be one would be evidence).
That is all true because we know that bullets cause holes and that firing a gun makes a certain sound. So we have a known correlation. The problem with saying that the universe is evidence for something else is that we have no known correlations: we only have a sample of one.
But saying that "P is evidence for P" is a valueless statement, it is always true no matter what P is, it tells us nothing unless there are cases where P is not evidence for P.
By stating P implies P, or rather that P only implies P, the meaning is that P does NOT imply anything else. You are correct that it has no value as a positive inference, but it does have value as a negative inference.
But it's always true whether P is evidence of additional stuff or not.
P implies P does not mean that P only implies P, because if so that means that P implies nothing, but surely everything implies something?
trueBut it's always true whether P is evidence of additional stuff or not.
By itself, you are correct. But in use, P implies P would only be used to indicate that P only implies P and nothing else (in the absence of additional information). Does everything imply something else? Nope. Not by itself. A hole in my wall, without any additional facts, does not imply anything.P implies P does not mean that P only implies P, because if so that means that P implies nothing, but surely everything implies something?
No but you have to show that P implies something else you cant just claim it does.
Bolded is a claim you are free to try and prove however even if you do it doesnt mean P implies whatever someone wants it to imply they must have a reason.
Taking the hole example from post 5 there is no reason to claim the hole implies pixies, to even begin to try and do that you would need to show that pixies exist. You cannot use the hole as evidence of pixies existing.
true
By itself, you are correct. But in use, P implies P would only be used to indicate that P only implies P and nothing else (in the absence of additional information). Does everything imply something else? Nope. Not by itself. A hole in my wall, without any additional facts, does not imply anything.
I disagree, recall we used "imply" as an alternative way to express these statements about "evidence", it is "evidence" that we are really discussing.
Not knowing what the hole is evidence of does not justify saying it is evidence only of itself.
Anyone with half a brain would know that the hole in the wall is evidence of something but what isn't yet known.
I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).
I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".
I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.
Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?
Ok, so P implies X, but we don’t know the value of X except that X = P. Saying P is evidence of something but we don’t know what that something is is a meaningless statement. All we’re left with is P implies P. We have no other values for X without additional input.
There is a hole in my wall. There are multiple natural and supernatural explanations for what caused that hole. You cannot just pick one at random and claim the hole as evidence. And saying that something caused the hole adds no value to saying that there is a hole.
One other option that describes the statement well is strawman fallacy.
While the statement, "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" is correct.
The so called intent is your assumption and not anything i have said or have seen from another atheist.
The correct statement is not a rejection of the idea that there is good reason to study the universe and look for answers. The statement i would think for most atheists would be that the universe is not evidence of god. Rather than your misunderstanding that it means it is not evidence of anything in general.
Another fail sherlock.
It is a misuse of the term "evidence" but perhaps explains why the atheists around here are all muddled and confused much of the time.
By all means dispute that the universe is evidence of God, but don't pretend that "the universe is evidence of the universe" is anything to be proud of, it is an abuse of English and used by atheists because they'd rather say something absurd then say nothing at all.
The thread is about the validity, the meaning, the information conveyed in the sentence "X is evidence of X".
It is my contention that "evidence" in the English language can only be used in statements like "X is evidence of Y" that is some thing is evidence of something else.
I think its a misuse of the word "evidence" to say something is evidence of itself.
The thread is about the validity, the meaning, the information conveyed in the sentence "X is evidence of X".
It is my contention that "evidence" in the English language can only be used in statements like "X is evidence of Y" that is some thing is evidence of something else.
I think its a misuse of the word "evidence" to say something is evidence of itself.
So if I wanted to show evidence that I have a cat, producing the cat itself would not be evidence that it exists? I think that that would be the best evidence that it exists.
It is a misuse of the term "evidence" but perhaps explains why the atheists around here are all muddled and confused much of the time.
By all means dispute that the universe is evidence of God, but don't pretend that "the universe is evidence of the universe" is anything to be proud of, it is an abuse of English and used by atheists because they'd rather say something absurd then say nothing at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?