Evidence and Certainty

[cuppajoe_9]

Is mass, large scale evolution taught in schools as truth or theory? Is it taught as the most likely to have happened, what could have happened, or what did happen?

Why?

Just saw this bit upon re-reading the thread. If I might paraphrase a Ken Miller lecture, talking about the difference between theory and fact: "If you are a physics major going to university, you would have to take a class called Atomic Theory. Is the professor ever going to change the name of that class to Atomic Fact? No, because 'theory' is actually a higher level of understanding than 'fact'. Theories bind facts together in such a way as to make sense of them."

You can watch the entire lecture here, and I highly recomend it if you have the time and the interest. Ken Miller is, by the way, a theist.

I can't speak for everybody, but large scale evolution was taught to me as something that is 99.9% certain to have happened. Evolution is, contrary to popular opinion, one of the most robust theories in biology.

[kyleain]

In the light some recent discussions on the Forum, I would like to start a new thread. What is an unacceptable proof?

That which is not true.

How do we form our opinions?

An opinion is a based on feeling and therefore cannot be called a fact.

How do you form one? You decide to believe something is true or not based on a feeling.

Beyond that your question sounds like, "How do we lift up our arm?" I don't think anyone but God knows how by your will you can cause your arm to lift up. That's my opinion.

How willing are we to accept AND admit that we might be in fault in an argument or that the other party's suggestions are more persuasive than ours?

You are taking a poll of how honest people are willing to be lol? HAHAHAH. Why not just ask, "Which ones of you are most likely to lie because you are arrogant, stubborn and hate the truth?"

Coincidentally, I have come across this article on BBC Magazine this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4950876.stm

There is no such thing as coincidence, like the Bible teaches, everything happens for a reason. Ironic that there are many atheists who love claiming there are such things as random, chaos, chance, and coincidence and yet love to make fun of all Christians as being stupid for claiming that things "just happen" or "magically". No, the magic nuts are atheists, with their imaginary Big Bang that happened for no reason and their imaginary abiogenesis.

[kilted exile]

That which is not true.

I am trying to remember the context that led to the OP, I believe it was a discussion between myself & ktd regarding how much proof we need to accept something as true. So in this this case an "unnacceptable proof" would be evidence which shows something to be the case, which we feel is in someway flawed & therefore unreliable to be used to "prove" the assumption.

An opinion is a based on feeling and therefore cannot be called a fact.

How do you form one? You decide to believe something is true or not based on a feeling.

Beyond that your question sounds like, "How do we lift up our arm?" I don't think anyone but God knows how by your will you can cause your arm to lift up. That's my opinion.

Some people form their opinions based on feeling and intuition, some people do some research on a subject in order to have an informed opinion. As an example some research would show you exactly how we cause our arm to lift. (see motor neurones & muscle response)

You are taking a poll of how honest people are willing to be lol? HAHAHAH. Why not just ask, "Which ones of you are most likely to lie because you are arrogant, stubborn and hate the truth?"

Which side do you think you would come out on? I am quite willing to admit I can be blinkered at times, are you?

There is no such thing as coincidence, like the Bible teaches, everything happens for a reason. Ironic that there are many atheists who love claiming there are such things as random, chaos, chance, and coincidence and yet love to make fun of all Christians as being stupid for claiming that things "just happen" or "magically". No, the magic nuts are atheists, with their imaginary Big Bang that happened for no reason and their imaginary abiogenesis.

Well, to begin with a confession - I am a "magic nut" as you so politely put it. I am fully willing to admit that some things just happen, I am also an engineering technologist, and as a result have to base a lot of my work on probabilities and chance. I know chance to exist.


PS: It is not normally a good idea to refer to a mod as a bigot with your first post in a forum

[blazeofglory]

The truth of the matter is that if we are uncertain about our own ideas we do not tend to assert at all.

[jgweed]

What if "truth" is perspectival, that is to say that our criteria of truth is different at different times and for different subject matters? Does truth in each and every occasion have to imply absolute certainty? And do we normally understand that the same kind of evidence is appropriate to each and every truth statement?
Cheers,
jgw

[blazeofglory]

I too subscribe to the idea that there is nothing we can come to absolute truth. Maybe it exists or not but the fact is we can not easily arrive at. When we see a mountain peak thinking that is the summit, another rises up before our sight, much bigger than that.

[dramasnot6]

A fairly recent and increasingly popular method of treatment in clinical psychology, in conjunction with "cognitive therapy", is to encourage patients to ask themselves "Where's the evidence?".The idea is that if one can not thoroughly justify a negative emotional state or worry,etc., then there is really no point in staying in that state.
I thought it was interesting, although maybe not directly relevant to this thread, but certainly illustrative of how irrational humans are in 'feeling' or 'believing' anything, evidence is really just the icing to the ideological cake that is already installed in our minds.

[PeterL]

A fairly recent and increasingly popular method of treatment in clinical psychology, in conjunction with "cognitive therapy", is to encourage patients to ask themselves "Where's the evidence?".The idea is that if one can not thoroughly justify a negative emotional state or worry,etc., then there is really no point in staying in that state.
I thought it was interesting, although maybe not directly relevant to this thread, but certainly illustrative of how irrational humans are in 'feeling' or 'believing' anything, evidence is really just the icing to the ideological cake that is already installed in our minds.

I also find that interesting. It might be good or effective in some conditions, but it could further mess up people with conditions that questioned some of the basic assumptions in the consensual relity, because there is no solid evidence for some parts of that.

[jgweed]

But at the same time, "evidence" often or at least in circumstances which force us to carefully attend to the problem presenting itself, can change one's belief or opinions, or even whether one considers something to be true.

Talking about truth-itself does not seem to be helpful in the least; it seems to me that one would be further along if one looked at statement X, and asked (first) if it made sense to apply the true/false schema to it, and then asked (second) what makes the statement true (or false). The second question is really about what is the evidence or warrant for the attribution, and what are the rules and procedures for considering anything as applicable evidence?

(It is a fact that) Beethoven wrote the Missa Solemnis.
(It is true that) I have a headache.
(The statement) Chicago is not the capital of Illinois ( is true)
And so on.

It may be that there are common grounds for calling each of these true, or there may only be a "family resemblence."

[blazeofglory]

Certainty is totally relative. Take an onion and try to see the kernel of it. But you will be simply amazed at the endless layers of it and the fact is that there is nothing called kernel.

So is certainty in point of fact.