|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Evidence vs. scientific evidence 2
#20697254 - 10/13/14 01:50 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I can't count the number of times this has been tossed around as some lame excuse for the failure of the paranormal to be examined and/or validated.
Here is the deal: evidence is evidence. There is no such thing as scientific evidence and non-scientific evidence.
If we want to categorize there may be sufficient or insufficient evidence to support a specific conclusion. Furthermore, 'subjective evidence' i.e. personal experience, is not evidence at all. Does that mean that we discount personal experience? Not exactly. What is usually cast in doubt is the conclusion.
Example: "I saw an alien spaceship."
Here the experience and the conclusion are intermingled as if they are the same. They are not. If we dig a little deeper what we will find is something like "I saw a light in the sky that did not fit any model of aerial phenomenon that I am familiar with and appeared to make unusual maneuvers, therefore it was piloted by ETs."
--------------------
|
Sun King
Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
Joe said he saw a flying saucer. - hearsay evidience
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Not exactly? Not exactly?
What doesn't that exactly not not mean?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: LunarEclipse]
#20697690 - 10/13/14 03:15 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I 'splained it so that native English speakers could comprehend.
--------------------
|
Gorlax
Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 6,697
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
|
|
Take a class on the philosophy of science. I'm glad I did one of my favorite classes I have ever taken. Scientific evidence is truly an amazing human discovery.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: Gorlax]
#20697808 - 10/13/14 03:45 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I did not know that.
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: I 'splained it so that native English speakers could comprehend.
It was weak sauce like watered down Ragu.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
hTx
(:
Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: I can't count the number of times this has been tossed around as some lame excuse for the failure of the paranormal to be examined and/or validated.
Here is the deal: evidence is evidence. There is no such thing as scientific evidence and non-scientific evidence.
If we want to categorize there may be sufficient or insufficient evidence to support a specific conclusion. Furthermore, 'subjective evidence' i.e. personal experience, is not evidence at all. Does that mean that we discount personal experience? Not exactly. What is usually cast in doubt is the conclusion.
Example: "I saw an alien spaceship."
Here the experience and the conclusion are intermingled as if they are the same. They are not. If we dig a little deeper what we will find is something like "I saw a light in the sky that did not fit any model of aerial phenomenon that I am familiar with and appeared to make unusual maneuvers, therefore it was piloted by ETs."
so according to this logic: a robbery occurs and the police have suspects as to who is responsible, they gather witnesses and question them, one says, "I saw this man rob the store" along with 30 other eyewitnesses which say "This man robbed the store", and the police reply "these accounts of what happened are not real evidence, since they are subjective"
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:
Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: hTx] 1
#20701085 - 10/14/14 10:58 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Said no court ever.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
soldatheero
lastirishman
Registered: 03/09/07
Posts: 2,856
Loc:
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: hTx]
#20701205 - 10/14/14 11:27 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- ..and may the zelda theme song be with you at all times, amen.
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 15 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: hTx]
#20703094 - 10/14/14 05:53 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: hTx]
#20703258 - 10/14/14 06:34 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
so according to this logic:
a robbery occurs and the police have suspects as to who is responsible, they gather witnesses and question them, one says, "I saw this man rob the store" along with 30 other eyewitnesses which say "This man robbed the store", and the police reply "these accounts of what happened are not real evidence, since they are subjective"
Thanks for furnishing such an easily defeated argument.
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. Ideally this recollection of events is detailed, however this is not always the case. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness' point of view. Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased...
>> Said no court ever.
...Due to this, many countries and states within the USA are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court.
Elizabeth Loftus is one of the leading psychologists in the field of eye witness testimony. She provided extensive research on this topic, revolutionizing the field with her bold stance that challenges the credibility of eyewitness testimony in court. She suggests that memory is not reliable and goes to great lengths to provide support for her arguments. She mainly focuses on the integration of misinformation with the original memory, forming a new memory.
In one of her experiments, Loftus demonstrates that false verbal information can integrate with original memory. Participants were presented with either truthful information or misleading information, and overall it showed that even the false information verbally presented became part of the memory after the participant was asked to recall details. This happens because of one of two reasons. First, it can alter the memory, incorporating the misinformation in with the actual, true memory. Second, the original memory and new information may both reside in memory in turn creating two conflicting ideas that compete in recall.
Loftus conducted more experiments to prove the reliability of expert psychological testimony versus the accepted basic eyewitness testimony. It was found that jurors who hear about a violent crime are more likely to convict a defendant than of one from a non-violent crime. To reduce this tendency for a juror to quickly accuse, and perhaps wrongly accuse, choosing to utilize expert psychological testimony causes the juror to critically appraise the eyewitness testimony, instead of quickly reaching a faulty verdict.
Also, it has been shown that intelligence and gender has a role in the ability of accurate memory recall. Participants were measured in eyewitness performance in two areas: 1) the ability to resist adding misinformation to the memory and 2) accuracy of recalling the incident and person. It showed that when a woman was recalling information about a woman, the resistance to false details was higher and the recall was more accurate. If a man was recalling an incident involving a man, similarly the recall was more accurate. However, when dealing with opposite genders, the participants gave into the suggestibility (misinformation) more easily and demonstrated less accuracy.
Facial recognition is a good indicator of how easily memories can be manipulated. In this specific experiment, if a misleading feature was presented, more than a third of the participants recalled that detail. With a specific detail, almost 70% of people claimed that it had been there, when it had not been present.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (10/14/14 06:42 PM)
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 15 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: Ped]
#20704428 - 10/14/14 11:00 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You didn't defeat this argument, you supported. Eye witness testimony used as evidence is considered many times unreliable and is also under consideration to be treated differently than it is now? It is not being eliminated as source of information, but it is not treated the same as scientific evidence.
If evidence is evidence why would it need a qualifier?
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: falcon]
#20704445 - 10/14/14 11:06 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
>> You didn't defeat this argument, you supported. Eye witness testimony used as evidence is considered many times unreliable and is also under consideration to be treated differently than it is now? It is not being eliminated as source of information, but it is not treated the same as scientific evidence.
The argument defeated is the one which says eye witness testimony qualifies as reliable evidence. The argument supported is the one which says eye witness testimony does not qualify as reliable evidence.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 15 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: Ped]
#20704473 - 10/14/14 11:11 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
...Due to this, many countries and states within the USA are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court.
This statement sounds like it will still be used as evidence.
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: falcon]
#20704514 - 10/14/14 11:24 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
>> This statement sounds like it will still be used as evidence.
Well, eye witness testimony still has a role, of course, but it is no longer seen as definitive in the way that it once was, especially in cases involving emotionally-charged crimes (violent crimes, typically).
Speculation, conjecture, and anecdote are like eye witness testimony in that they guide legitimate investigators toward possible avenues of actual evidence-gathering. Eye witness testimony is not, however, evidence unto itself, because its subjectivity means that it is necessarily fallible, manipulatable, and basically unreliable. Not only can a person's private emotional state contaminate their eye witness account, it is also subject to influence and error which can be difficult or impossible to detect.
Relying on eye witness testimony alone to obtain a conviction is totally irrational. Speculation, conjecture, and anecdote are also totally irrational when relied upon to inform an individual's relationship with reality. When speculation, conjecture, and anecdote are relied upon instead of actual evidence, a departure from reality necessarily occurs, because all of these are necessarily fallible, manipulatable, and basically unreliable.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
falcon
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,035
Last seen: 15 hours, 21 minutes
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: Ped]
#20704606 - 10/14/14 11:45 PM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
And that sounds like it will still be used, in your own words as a guide, which to me sounds like evidence, that is treated differently, than actual evidence. Actual evidence?
It's a silly thread, of course evidence is evidence, but once you distinguish it by putting a qualifier on it, such as scientific you've as much as said it is different. Unless science is meaningless, in which case then scientific evidence is the same as any other evidence.
Edited by falcon (10/14/14 11:57 PM)
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: falcon]
#20704673 - 10/15/14 12:02 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's not a silly thread, because it addresses a major deficit in critical thinking that is prominent not only on these boards, but all throughout mainstream society. This deficit has to do with conflating anecdotal evidence with actual evidence. Anecdotal evidence may or may not be true, and it is liable to misinterpretation, misconception, and misapplication. Actual evidence (i.e., empirical evidence), on the other hand, is actually true from all perspectives. It does not change when different people view it from different angles, and this is precisely why it is reliable.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evidence vs. scientific evidence [Re: Ped]
#20704781 - 10/15/14 12:43 AM (9 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Finally.
Ped has grown enough to take over my skeptical mantle and I may now retire in peace knowing that PSP is in solid hands.
--------------------
|
Ped
Interested In Your Brain
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 5,494
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
|
>> Ped has grown enough to take over my skeptical mantle and I may now retire in peace knowing that PSP is in solid hands.
We'll just see how long I can hang on to this shiny 5-mushroom rating I've been sporting for the past 15 years. In my experience, the moment somebody starts insisting upon evidence and clear-thinking on a given issue, that person is usually cast as woefully arrogant, flippant, or otherwise aloof in what ought to be the most natural approach to rational discourse. Indeed, it may be that I grow weary of dressing up my rhetoric with flowery language to make it easier to digest, such that the annoyingly obtuse may find themselves soured of the milk, inadvertently weaned even further from the tit of reason.
Don't worry, that doesn't mean anything.
-------------------- Dark Triangles - New Psychedelic Techno Single - Listen on Soundcloud Gyroscope full album available SoundCloud or MySpace
Edited by Ped (10/15/14 01:20 AM)
|
|