"There is no evidence"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why don't we all simply agree that when someone says there is no evidence for X, this means that the person believes there is no compelling evidence for X. This is particularly reasonable if we are supposed to assume that anything a person calls "evidence" is actually evidence, though not necessarily strong evidence.

We all understand that evidence is not proof.

~~ Paul

[wildewurst]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why don't we all simply agree that when someone says there is no evidence for X, this means that the person believes there is no compelling evidence for X. This is particularly reasonable if we are supposed to assume that anything a person calls "evidence" is actually evidence, though not necessarily strong evidence.

We all understand that evidence is not proof.

~~ Paul

Because there is a difference between "no evidence existing" and "no compelling evidence existing". There might be cases when there's really - in context of the question asked - no evidence existing. Why should we accept a limitation of our faculty of speech just to create an "impersonal shortcut" for saying "I don't believe this"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by wildewurst

Because there is a difference between "no evidence existing" and "no compelling evidence existing". There might be cases when there's really - in context of the question asked - no evidence existing. Why should we accept a limitation of our faculty of speech just to create an "impersonal shortcut" for saying "I don't believe this"?

Every statement we ever make is implicitly prefixed with "I believe that ..." There is no reason to require that prefix in front of certain classes of statement.

I agree that if there are nuances to the amount or kind of evidence, then the person should explain more precisely what she means. However, I don't think that:

I believe there is no seriously compelling evidence for X.

is much more informative than:

There is no evidence for X.

If you're trying to say something more nuanced, then you need more words.

The primary reason I started this thread is because I think paqart's insistence that Scott pledge allegiance to some sort of statement about evidence is unnecessary. In particular, as I asked in that thread, do I now report every thread in which someone denies evidence of evolution? How about something like "correlation between brain state and consciousness is not evidence that consciousness is brain function"?

~~ Paul

[Johann]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Why don't we all simply agree that when someone says there is no evidence for X, this means that the person believes there is no compelling evidence for X. This is particularly reasonable if we are supposed to assume that anything a person calls "evidence" is actually evidence, though not necessarily strong evidence.

We all understand that evidence is not proof.

~~ Paul

I agree with you, Paul. While I find it tediously counter-productive to state that "there is no evidence for x", and regard most of these statements as purely rhetorical, I think that people should be free to express this opinion, especially new skeptics who join the forum, who may indeed believe that this is so. It is perhaps too overbearing to state, as a condition for posting, that members should not express this opinion; much better simply to point out why it is wrong. And in the case of entities or concepts like "god", I can understand why an atheist might feel that way - though I would disagree with the specifics of his/her argument.

On the other hand, it might be better if people who know better could state "no direct evidence", or "no convincing evidende". Scott, this means you.

- Johann

[billw]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

However, I don't think that:

I believe there is no seriously compelling evidence for X.

is much more informative than:

There is no evidence for X.

But there is a difference. If the second statement were true, Wiseman would have never said "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven." But he did. Big difference coming from a well known skeptic. Even if he feels it isn't compelling enough, and wants to raise the bar.

Cheers,
Bill

[fls]

I use 'evidence' to refer to something which has the potential to elevate an idea into the realm of reasonably possible, and 'good evidence' to make something more likely than not. The vast majority of what gets called "evidence" here does neither. Instead it makes a trivial difference to ideas which are already likely to be false and which remain likely to be false. If we are obliged to call that "evidence", then the term is rendered meaningless.

Linda

[Johann]

Originally Posted by fls

I use 'evidence' to refer to something which has the potential to elevate an idea into the realm of reasonably possible, and 'good evidence' to make something more likely than not. The vast majority of what gets called "evidence" here does neither. Instead it makes a trivial difference to ideas which are already likely to be false and which remain likely to be false. If we are obliged to call that "evidence", then the term is rendered meaningless.

Linda

As everyone can see, this is a perfect example of what I stated earlier about counter-productivity and wasting time. I may be in danger of changing my previous opinion.

- Johann

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by billw

But there is a difference. If the second statement were true, Wiseman would have never said "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven." But he did. Big difference coming from a well known skeptic. Even if he feels it isn't compelling enough, and wants to raise the bar.

I'm not sure what you mean. He used sufficient words to explain what he meant, particularly considering the rest of what he actually said.

~~ Paul

[Vesalius]

Originally Posted by fls

I use 'evidence' to refer to something which has the potential to elevate an idea into the realm of reasonably possible, and 'good evidence' to make something more likely than not. The vast majority of what gets called "evidence" here does neither. Instead it makes a trivial difference to ideas which are already likely to be false and which remain likely to be false. If we are obliged to call that "evidence", then the term is rendered meaningless.

Linda

I find myself agreeing with Linda in the fact that what is sometimes cited as evidence for the existence of something else, is sometimes highly debated in itself.

Where I differ is that evidence is just a term used to judge that x is suggestive of y. I don't see that it would be too much of a concession for the more skeptical people to see that proponents are just putting forward facts/ideas that are suggestive of what they are trying to argue. Calling something "evidence" does not in itself suggest equality, the suggestive quality is somewhat subjective in that each individual needs to assess how strong it is.

[paqart]

Think of it in the context of a legal case. The plaintiff and the defendant both have evidence and both sides acknowledge it as such, their own and that of their opponents. This is despite the fact that the evidence in question is often intended to prove completely opposite facts. Therefore, the value of the evidence in the mind of any given person is totally irrelevant to whether it is or is not evidence. To deny that evidence exists, when clearly this is not the case in parapsychology, is akin to denying humanity to a human with whom we disagree. This happens fairly often in colloquial speech, as we observe when a person says of another "you're not human" after witnessing a moral lapse. Because moral lapses are judged differently by different persons, particularly when the object is political, it is not only incorrect to apply a relative standard to an absolute statement, but the absolute statement is also absolutely incorrect every time.

I agree that it may seem strange to request that a poster admit the existence of evidence before being allowed to post, then issuing a temporary ban when the answer was unsatisfactory, but it was clear that if in that case the poster could not overcome that hurdle, his posts would only try the patience of other forum members, without contributing anything useful whatsoever. In that case, it was a test to see if that person was willing to comply with the forum rules. I do not anticipate issuing further tests of that type, unless it is useful to do so.

To get back to the subject of this thread: evidence is evidence, regardless of the perceived value of it. It may be "Sheldrake's evidence" or "Shermer's evidence", but it is evidence. Keep in mind again the legal example, where evidence is weighed. This cannot be done unless both sets of evidence are considered evidence and treated neutrally. To assume that one set of evidence is not evidence because it has been found unsatisfactory by one's personal standard, then it is being treated in a biased and prejudicial manner.

I have what I call specific direct knowledge of the reality of psi. I also have what I call evidence of this, and on that basis, I "believe" and "know" that psi is genuine. This does not prevent me from discussing "evidence" to the contrary presented by people like Gerald Woerlee, Susan Blackmore, Richard Wiseman, and others.

There is a difference between evidence and opinion, but thousands of psi experiments cannot credibly be called opinion rather than evidence. Some on both sides will get personal opinions mixed up with evidence sometimes, but this is not the same same as making blanket statements to the effect that "no evidence exists."

One could argue that "evidence" is a term that is appropriate in a courtroom but not in science. In science, one could say that "data" is the better term to use. However, if this is to be accepted, then one would have to say that there is no evidence against psi or for it, but there is data in favor of and against psi. In the latter example however, we run into the same problem. As we have seen on this forum, posters and even interviewees on the podcast have stated that there is no data, just as others have said there is no evidence. Therefore, as a matter of fact, if not as a courtesy to the rest of humanity, it is appreciated if posters accept the value neutral terms "data" and "evidence."

AP