17
   

Define "Evidence"

 
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 01:59 pm
@puzzledperson,
I know that Winnie the Pooh was written, but what about evidence of the Winnepeg Pooh??
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 02:05 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I thought this thread was about evidence?


I'm sure I've already said this in a different way, but "evidence" is basically a proposition that, if accepted, makes any given claim more or less likely to be true. It's important for reasoning. And, when it comes to reason, maybe Hume said it best:

Quote:
“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” (David Hume)
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 02:07 pm
@farmerman,
Thank you for getting back on topic. . .
Sorta.

If you ever get to Seattle we should poppa pizza or somethin'
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 02:09 pm
@layman,
You too, Layman.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 04:28 pm
@neologist,
Some people don't seem to know the difference between evidence and proof.

I read about a murder in a NYC newspaper a few years back, and I instantly knew that idiot brother-in-law of mine did it.

So I took a train there and talked to the cops. I told them: "I know he did it, and I can prove it."

They asked: "What's your proof?"

I said: "Looky here! Here's a cancelled out train ticket stub with his name on it. He was in New York that day!"

They said: "That might be evidence, Layman, but it aint proof."

The chumps.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 05:29 pm
@layman,
True, dat. Laughing
The same evidence is often ambidexterously applied by both sides of the debate.

Lends insight to the demand "show me some evidence".
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 05:43 pm
@layman,
SO, were you tried and acquitted? You should have at least been tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for murdering our mother -tongue

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 05:46 pm
@neologist,
Im surprised at you, youre usually able to catch slow pitches.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 05:52 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
SO, were you tried and acquitted?


Them pigs is the ones what should oughta have been put on trial, Farmer, caincha see?

For stupidity.

****, them fools can't even see the difference between evidence and proof.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 07:47 pm
@farmerman,
I did say 'sorta'.
Anything to get away from the previous digression.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 07:58 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

True, dat. Laughing
The same evidence is often ambidexterously applied by both sides of the debate.

Lends insight to the demand "show me some evidence".


Show me some evidence for the underlined part. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 08:53 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Lends insight to the demand "show me some evidence".


I don't care who presents evidence about what--long as I'm the judge.

Absent that, then gimme a little time with the judge's wife, know what I'm sayin?
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 08:57 pm
@layman,
Francis Bacon was accused of bein a corrupt and unfair judge because he took bribes. But they couldn't make it stick.

His defense: I never presided over a case where I was biased. I always took money from both sides.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 10:11 pm
Talkin about evidence, and all....

I was down to the lake fishin last summer, when, all of a sudden, I seen that candyass park ranger, Herman, comin my way in his shiny-ass car, on the lookout for "poachers."

Right quick I hid my pole, bait, and net under my blanket, and hid my bucket fulla fish behind a tree. Right soon, sho nuff, here comes Herman walkin my way.

I said, Zup, Hermie? Nice day, eh?

He didn't say nuthin but went moseyin around. Then he spotted my fish. He said: You got a fishin license, Layman?

I said: Naw, I don't bother, I don't fish no more. Just out here catchin a few rays, and ****, ya know?

He said: Yeah? What's this, then?

I said: Them's my pet fish, Hermie. I bring out here now and again, for a "walk." I dump them in the lake, so they can see some of their old homies for spell. Then when we're ready to head out, I whistle, and they all come and swim into my net so I can haul them on back home again, see?

He said: You expect me to believe that crap, Layman. Imma confiscate these fish and write you up a ticket.

I said: It's a stone-cold fact, Hermie. You can't write me a ticket for pet fish.

He said; "Show me."

I said: Sho nuff. Then I dumped all those fish into the lake, and went back to catchin rays.

After a spell, Hermie said: Well?

I said: Well, what?

He said: Let's see you whistle and call those fish in.

I said: What fish?

0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2015 10:14 pm
@neologist,
In order to divert a prior digression, I thought it reasonable to start a thread on worship
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 04:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
C'mon!

That was absolute nonsense...blather...and you should be intelligent enough to see it.
Maybe you're just not curious enough. Or just not your time.

In any case, I didn't expect it to be popular. But your star is rising. First time I've seen your post get two thumbs up!
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 05:36 am
@Leadfoot,
Laughing
Not from me I assure you !
Frank has a problem with the word 'know'. He he doesn't 'know' Wink that like most words, it take on different meanings in different contexts. He therefore interprets 'knowledge of God' only with respect to his own idiosyncratic context of his rationalization of his lapsed Catholic priesthood

Generally all 'evidence' is defined with respect to to the social context which focuses observation. Without a consensus, one person's 'evidence' can be another person's 'blather'. There is no such thing as 'neutral data'.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 06:23 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Laughing
Not from me I assure you !
Frank has a problem with the word 'know'. He he doesn't 'know' Wink that like most words, it take on different meanings in different contexts. He therefore interprets 'knowledge of God' only with respect to his own idiosyncratic context of his rationalization of his lapsed Catholic priesthood

Generally all 'evidence' is defined with respect to to the social context which focuses observation. Without a consensus, one person's 'evidence' can be another person's 'blather'. There is no such thing as 'neutral data'.


Thus spake Zarafresco!
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 08:21 pm
@layman,
Are you familiar with an autobiography by Gordon Parks called "A Choice of Weapons"?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2015 08:33 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Are you familiar with an autobiography by Gordon Parks called "A Choice of Weapons"?


Naw, I aint, PP. Truth be told, offhand I don't even know who Gordon Parks is. It it worth reading?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define "Evidence"
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 05:40:00