This is a refutation of the concept of "empirical evidence" based on how I see people use the word "evidence".
Figure 1 shows an equation in which logically a must be 1.
1. a + 1 = 2
Figure 2 shows an equation in which it is impossible to logically determine the value of a or b.
2. a + b + 1 = 2
Figure 3 shows a series of data instances in a model of a phenomenon.
3. a + b + 1 = 2
a + b + 2 = 3
a + b + 3 = 4
The extra variable represents the "grey area" of imperfect knowledge. What people mean when they say "evidence" is that in their arbitrary opinion the grey area (a or b) is not significantly variable enough to worry about solving for the other based on the data. Evidence is a status granted to data based on personal intuition. The status "evidence" is not a fact more than anything else is fact. There is only one type of evidence (this). When offering "evidence" one appeals to the intuition of others. When asking for evidence one asks for assistance reaching congruous intuition.
Are you talking about causality in terms of the social sciences? Are you talking about the attempts to utilize empirical methods in the social sciences that try and establish:
A-> B
B
/: A
This is not that specific. To all those that screech about people "ignoring the evidence", using "blind faith" rather than empirical evidence, etc.
If you're talking about the empirical sciences in themselves, then you've identified the problem associated with the scientific method, namely that it commits the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.
It confuses necessary and sufficient conditions--however, I do believe that it is a valid method if used strictly inductively, since cause and effect relationships as well as variables can be more readily isolated and examined, so as to confirm the correlation between A and B.
I'm not exposing a fallacy. I'm showing that "evidence" is subjective.
That's essentially Thomas Sowell's point, that people don't form their opinions based on evidence, but based on an underlying intuition. Evidence is not convincing if it isn't interpreted with the same intuition as the one who brings it fourth. And usually presenting evidence isn't about the evidence itself, it's an attempt to sneak in the intuitive assumptions. Which the other side just doesn't accept, that's why people talk past each others on so many political issues. In other words, there's just no hope of convincing those who have a different brand of intuition than you. I think that's largely why people still believe in central planning, even though it was pretty much objectively debunked, it's what their intuition tells them and they just don't care about the empirical facts. Part of humanity just isn't wired to grasp spontaneous order.
This is why I typically look past the "evidence" per se and investigate others' premises, including (especially) their semantics.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Caley McKibbin:This is a refutation of the concept of "empirical evidence" based on how I see people use the word "evidence". Figure 1 shows an equation in which logically a must be 1. 1. a + 1 = 2
Right, the only logically tenable value for a here is 1.
Caley McKibbin:Figure 2 shows an equation in which it is impossible to logically determine the value of a or b. 2. a + b + 1 = 2
This reduces to:
a + b = 1
I'm not sure what you mean by "it is impossible to logically determine the value of a or b". Do you mean it's logically impossible to reduce each variable to one and only one constant value? Why must there be such a single value for each?
Caley McKibbin:Figure 3 shows a series of data instances in a model of a phenomenon. 3. a + b + 1 = 2 a + b + 2 = 3 a + b + 3 = 4
Right, those all reduce to the formula I gave above - as I'm sure you already know. :P
Caley McKibbin:The extra variable represents the "grey area" of imperfect knowledge. What people mean when they say "evidence" is that in their arbitrary opinion the grey area (a or b) is not significantly variable enough to worry about solving for the other based on the data. Evidence is a status granted to data based on personal intuition. The status "evidence" is not a fact more than anything else is fact. There is only one type of evidence (this). When offering "evidence" one appeals to the intuition of others. When asking for evidence one asks for assistance reaching congruous intuition.
Translation: what ignorant laymen refer to as "evidence" is quite different from what scientists refer to as "evidence". :P
On another note, could the "fact" here be not about the correct values for a and b, but rather about the relationship between the two? If you re-state the equation like so:
∃a ∃b (a + b = 1)
the emphasis is placed on the relationship - "There is some value for a and some value for b such that a + b = 1".
Just a thought. I'm not sure how relevant it is.
Do you mean it's logically impossible to reduce each variable to one and only one constant value? Why must there be such a single value for each?
In the instances where the observations are made. Such as the temperature recordings in the case of climate study.
I'm sorry but I don't see the connection. Can you please explain it in more detail?
If you mean to say that evidence consists of those things that cause people to come to conclusions, and that, depending on the person, the conclusion will be different, that is certainly true. Evidence does not mean the same thing as proof, though the terms tend to be used interchangeably.
Okay, I think I just had an insight. Taking "climate study" as the starting point, are you (Caley) saying that people are using rising temperature readings as "evidence" of anthropogenic global warming?