John, for my benefit, would you define:
as they relate to discussion in this forum. I should have asked months ago, but I’d rather ask now very belatedly than to never be quite sure, which I have been repeatedly. I think this has kept us from more positive interactions.
I’ll take a shot:
Evidence is the direct physical empirical data or verified facts used to scientifically support a conclusion. The 50,000+ yearly varves in Lake Suigetsu used as a calibration for C14 dating are conclusive evidence the Earth is older than 6000 years.
Hearsay is the indirect verbal or written source merely claiming to support a conclusion. Almost everything AIG publishes is just hearsay, not physical factual evidence. AIG’s claim the 50,000+ varves at Lake Suigetsu were laid down in only 4500 years is hearsay unsupported by any physical data and contradicted by lots of physical data.
That’s a good question.
Hearsay: X scientist claimed Y. The Evidence shows Z.
Evidence: X scientist claimed Y, and here is the quote with a link to the context. The evidence shows Z, and here is a salient figure along with a link to the full context.
They relate to discussions here or anywhere else in the same way that they relate to the legal system or theology.
Evidence: aka data. In science, the stuff that makes up most of the figures and tables. In law, what can be physically examined.
Hearsay: in science, what someone says or writes about the evidence. In law, testimony about what someone else said, not what someone else did, and generally disallowed as evidence because it is unreliable (even noted in the Bible!). It can be true or false.
Examples:
Did you just read the words, or did you look at any of that data you made a claim about?
There’s nothing to decide!
What anyone says in a video is always hearsay, whether he knows what he’s talking about or not. It doesn’t matter if it is true or false, it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree, it’s still hearsay and more importantly, misrepresenting it as evidence is simply unethical.
Well, what actual evidence have you actually examined that would actually justify such a claim?
Here’s my concern with what you wrote: Based on the first sentence of your definition, almost every post or comment here is hearsay. But it appeared to me I was the only one you were calling out for it. For example, when anyone says nested heirarchies are evidence of evolution, do they need to provide data everytime for it not to be hearsay?
I definitely could have provided data in the examples you mentioned.
Also, it seems you are saying that no video recording can be evidence, data must be in writing or in figures and tables, even if the figures or tables are provided in the video. I think that is too stringent.
In general, it would be helpful in the future if you would specifically mention where an interpretation or an assertion needs to be backed up by data. I felt as if the word “hearsay” was being used with little context so I would never quite be sure what you were responding to. That makes it hard to have a conversation.
I disagree. The evidence does not have to show that Z is true instead of Y for the claim to be hearsay.
Correct, except those that point to evidence.
Your perception is incorrect.
Pretty much. That being said, most of us have produced them ourselves and would be happy to help you produce one yourself. You don’t seem interested. Why is that?
You have yet to provide a single datum AFAIK. Please provide the data supporting the third example above.
I don’t see how, as I wrote “What anyone says, not what anyone shows”!
Obviously, figures and tables shown would be evidence.
As a rule, creationist interpretations are not backed up by data. At most, a few can be backed up (see Jeanson) by mendacious cherry-picking. So I think that covers it.
I’m responding to the identical context in each case: your repeated claims about evidence that you show no evidence of having examined.
Misrepresenting hearsay as evidence makes a rational conversation about any science impossible IMO.
Ok, I will have to do better in the future by providing more data to show you that I have examined the data. Thanks for the response. For the next few months I expect not to be doing much in the forum besides asking questions and reading posts anyway, but it’s helpful for the future.
Thanks. That was useful.
Additionally, it is not that uncommon for videos to list links to supporting data/cited sources in the video description.
Great and you’re welcome.
But since you already made the claim, how about providing the actual evidence you examined in my third example?
Evidence is what, combined logically into an argument, seeks to persuade someone to accept a view or position.
Hearsay is an early-00s pop group:
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.