Assertions and Evidence

[randomuser123]

"An assertion without evidence is just that; an assertion - and should be roundly discounted until proven when discussing actual facts."

It is common practice within scientific disciplines that if someone posits the existence of something, or claims some kind of fact or statistic, it is up to them to prove the existence or truth of it, using empirical evidence, rather than it being up to everyone else to disprove it. This means that as far as theories with no evidence go, they are pretty much completely ignored. Should this be applied more to the rest of the world?

It frustrates me that the majority of people will believe the "facts" handed to them with no citation, or blatantly inaccurate sources. With this comes purely anecdotal evidence.

Someone I know recently said to me, when talking about a certain facet of social justice, said that I "just had to accept some things" and that he did not need to provide a citation or evidence for his claim for me to take his assertion seriously. Others have claimed to me that there are some things that it doesn't matter if we have statistical evidence - they simply need to be changed (also in a social justice context).

In my mind, we can ignore someone's claim until they can empirically demonstrate it.

In case anyone is wondering, I feel that the religion vs. science debate should also follow this format. I.e. Religion must prove the existence of a God for action to be taken, it is not up to science to disprove it.

The reason for the "innocent until proven guilty" system is that it is generally impossible to completely falsify something, whereas it is comparatively trivially easy to verify it.


What are your thoughts?

[Judean Zealot]

Philosophy has to a large extent supported the idea of God (I'm not talking about particular dogmas, only God) from Plato until modern times. Science doesn't disprove God, and science cannot disprove God- they are entirely separate disciplines. The reason modern folk don't consider philosophical reasoning worth their while is the result of an unfortunate humanist propaganda trope of religion and science engaged in some kind of conflict.

I should be expanding on this more, but I'm not feeling up to it, so I'll just build up my position as the thread progresses. :P

Edit: Neither set theory nor quantum physics have been "empirically proven". They rely quite heavily, if not entirely, on abstraction- much like philosophy. Does that mean we ought to discount them?

[randomuser123]

Philosophy has to a large extent supported the idea of God (I'm not talking about particular dogmas, only God) from Plato until modern times. Science doesn't disprove God, and science cannot disprove God- they are entirely separate disciplines. The reason modern folk don't consider philosophical reasoning worth their while is the result of an unfortunate humanist propaganda trope of religion and science engaged in some kind of conflict.

I should be expanding on this more, but I'm not feeling up to it, so I'll just build up my position as the thread progresses. [emoji14]

Edit: Neither set theory nor quantum physics have been "empirically proven". They rely quite heavily, if not entirely, on abstraction- much like philosophy. Does that mean we ought to discount them?
You raise a good point. However:
- set theory is, and always has been abstracted and is purely a language for describing; it is strictly mathematical and does not explain anything. It does however attempt to be a tool to describe other things and thus is not necessarily relevant.

- If you do physics on a deeper level, you will discover that few physicists will say that it is "correct". The Schroedinger equation is not regarded as being true, simply a model that appears to return far more accurate results than any we have ever devised before.

This is a distinction that I feel science is more willing to make - at any moment, if provided with evidence, we can throw away a now outdated view of the world and adopt the updated one. Science claims, I think, not to have the correct answers but simply the most correct so far, to our knowledge?

[Vermilion]

Just want to say this what I was told at a school in science. " You can't prove anything" You can use evidence to back up your theory but it's only a theory. Who's to say you won't be proved wrong in years to come ?

[randomuser123]

Just want to say this what I was told at a school in science. " You can't prove anything" You can use evidence to back up your theory but it's only a theory. Who's to say you won't be proved wrong in years to come ?
Precisely!

[Vlerchan]

The actual claims of quantum mechanics are some of the best and most rigorously-tested of the entire discipline.

I've also never come across a philosophical argument for god's existence that doesn't form a reliance on some empirical observation - and thus can be demonstrated to be dubious. There's a good chance that's because it's not an area of interest to me. Though the case otherwise would involve the - to me - uncomfortable assumption of a priori knowledge.

---

It frustrates me that the majority of people will believe the "facts" handed to them with no citation, or blatantly inaccurate sources. With this comes purely anecdotal evidence [because?] Someone I know recently said to me, when talking about a certain facet of social justicem area [...]
:P

[randomuser123]

You may see it as irony if you wish - I am not using the experience as evidence, but as an example of that which frustrates me. Whether you believe it or not does not affect the validity of my argument, whereas if I had used it as evidence in my favour, my argument would be compromised.

[sqishy]

The reason modern folk don't consider philosophical reasoning worth their while is the result of an unfortunate humanist propaganda trope of religion and science engaged in some kind of conflict.

I agree here - this whole 'science V religion' debate is annoying, pointless and used by some to inflate their egos. (I might be giving an emotive response, but I'm keeping it realistic.)


I should be expanding on this more, but I'm not feeling up to it, so I'll just build up my position as the thread progresses. :P


That's me most times on here! I can be lazy :/


Edit: Neither set theory nor quantum physics have been "empirically proven". They rely quite heavily, if not entirely, on abstraction- much like philosophy. Does that mean we ought to discount them?

They are a priori - based systems of ideas, yes. I would extend it to physics though, in that it starts with empirical stuff and attempts to explain it, but by 'jumping out' into the area of abstract ideas. Perhaps (as a Kantian idea) the physics of the world is conforming to our mathematics, not the other way around.
This in itself is not a good reason for me to discount anything, least in my view.

[Uniquemind]

"An assertion without evidence is just that; an assertion - and should be roundly discounted until proven when discussing actual facts."

It is common practice within scientific disciplines that if someone posits the existence of something, or claims some kind of fact or statistic, it is up to them to prove the existence or truth of it, using empirical evidence, rather than it being up to everyone else to disprove it. This means that as far as theories with no evidence go, they are pretty much completely ignored. Should this be applied more to the rest of the world?

It frustrates me that the majority of people will believe the "facts" handed to them with no citation, or blatantly inaccurate sources. With this comes purely anecdotal evidence.

Someone I know recently said to me, when talking about a certain facet of social justice, said that I "just had to accept some things" and that he did not need to provide a citation or evidence for his claim for me to take his assertion seriously. Others have claimed to me that there are some things that it doesn't matter if we have statistical evidence - they simply need to be changed (also in a social justice context).

In my mind, we can ignore someone's claim until they can empirically demonstrate it.

In case anyone is wondering, I feel that the religion vs. science debate should also follow this format. I.e. Religion must prove the existence of a God for action to be taken, it is not up to science to disprove it.

The reason for the "innocent until proven guilty" system is that it is generally impossible to completely falsify something, whereas it is comparatively trivially easy to verify it.


What are your thoughts?

True, but the strictness of that standard, allows for cover-ups and obsfucation and a lot of truth never sees the light of day. Instinctually people will know when justice is denied and so that fuels distrust, and that the standard between assertion and evidence is of itself is no longer credible to be used, because it's used a shield for injustice.

That's a problem when this rightful concept in applied in the real world. We're seeing this now in political campaigns, in everyday social circles in casual and professional business relationships.

[Judean Zealot]

I am sorry for my delay in responding, nerddigestive Vlerchan and Paraxiom.

I'm really not feeling too good these days, but I hope I will get back to you guys.

[randomuser123]

True, but the strictness of that standard, allows for cover-ups and obsfucation and a lot of truth never sees the light of day. Instinctually people will know when justice is denied and so that fuels distrust, and that the standard between assertion and evidence is of itself is no longer credible to be used, because it's used a shield for injustice.

That's a problem when this rightful concept in applied in the real world. We're seeing this now in political campaigns, in everyday social circles in casual and professional business relationships.
As far as I am concerned, this should simply drive people to find evidence for injustice. Are you suggesting that we throw out politicians on the hunch that they are doing something unjust?

[Vlerchan]

[...] Instinctually [...]
If she's a witch, then she won't drown.

---

I can understand this to an extent. In economics there's still no valid criterion for asset bubbles but on an instinctive level we can imagine them. However in this regard out instinct is still referencing past observations.

[Uniquemind]

As far as I am concerned, this should simply drive people to find evidence for injustice. Are you suggesting that we throw out politicians on the hunch that they are doing something unjust?

In an ideal world, yes I agree it should drive people to find evidence for that injustice, but in some cases that's impossible due to cover-ups, because evidence is destroyed, hence why law enforcement is forever behind a mountain of "cold-cases" and justice is denied for many.

It's also apparent in recent dynamics regarding law enforcement saying they're having a hard time finding dangerous individuals organizing crimes using social media communications that are encrypted and self-destruct too fast before detection (think snapchat).



If I were Trump and I won the nomination, I'd be daring those in Congress during their own election campaigns to pledge vote support for bills and policies or face a Trump endorsement for an opponent running against them for someone else who will so the gridlock is broken.

So it's not just politicians, it's a whole bunch of scenarios. Also I'm not suggesting it, I'm describing what we're seeing in the news with the rise of Donald Trump's campaign, it's fueled because of the dark side of human emotions and it is not to be underestimated.

I could easily give examples of drama and fights within romantic relationships, where it's gotten so emotionally volatile and toxic that assumptions are enough for one partner to walk away or justify a whole spiral-chain of actions in response to a hunch.

Is it right/wrong? That's not my main point or the OP's main point, I am just illustrating situations where humans use the concept of assertion without evidence, everyday, and that it's not going away, it plays an integral and intimate role in everyday interactions.

[Vlerchan]

[...] hence why law enforcement is forever behind a mountain of "cold-cases" and justice is denied for many.
Sure. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to charge people on a hunch. Our unideal world is unideal because of the dominance of interests (entrenched cultural hegemonies) and the shape intuition (hunches) takes beneath that.

That's not my main point or the OP's main point, I am just illustrating situations where humans use the concept of assertion without evidence, everyday, and that it's not going away, it plays an integral and intimate role in everyday interactions.
It seems to me that the OP takes issue with people engage in the behaviour described. I'm sure it will exists - because it benefits people with ulterior motives and so forth - but that doesn't mean we can't criticise it.

[randomuser123]

Sure. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to charge people on a hunch. Our unideal world is unideal because of the dominance of interests (entrenched cultural hegemonies) and the shape intuition (hunches) takes beneath that.


It seems to me that the OP takes issue with people engage in the behaviour described. I'm sure it will exists - because it benefits people with ulterior motives and so forth - but that doesn't mean we can't criticise it.
You hit the nail on the head, sir.

[Uniquemind]

I'll join in then on this context in more inclined to agree generally on the premise.