Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debating: Wet grass is evidence of rain.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.

I have no problem with the claim about wet grass is evidence for rain.

As I recall after establishing that you implied that like wise there is inthe same sense evidence for God. (The God you believe in of course, not the countless other Gods that have plagued mankind)

Evidences over rain and wet grass, observable, repeatable etc etc. We can even look at water under a microscope.

Evidence for God ?.................................Well I had a spiritual experience..........which just so happens to highly correlate to the religious beliefs I was taught before said experience.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

If not then what is evidence?

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

The point people are making is that wet grass CAN BE evidence that it rained, but IS NOT NECESSARILY evidence that it rained. There are other explanations for wet grass. If all we have to go on is wet grass, then we cannot logically draw the conclusion that it rained because we cannot rule out the other explanations.

The analogy, however, fails when you bring in the supernatural because natural explanations always have a higher prior probability than supernatural ones. In the analogy you have natural vs natural explanations.

If not then what is evidence?

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

Also, it doesn't even follow that it CAN be evidence for something.

Circles exist.
Squares exist.
They are both evidence for square circles, right?

No, because square circles cannot exist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:55:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:40:53 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

The point people are making is that wet grass CAN BE evidence that it rained, but IS NOT NECESSARILY evidence that it rained. There are other explanations for wet grass. If all we have to go on is wet grass, then we cannot logically draw the conclusion that it rained because we cannot rule out the other explanations.

The analogy, however, fails when you bring in the supernatural because natural explanations always have a higher prior probability than supernatural ones. In the analogy you have natural vs natural explanations.

If not then what is evidence?

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.

Now use your Atheist illogic to demonstrate "Can be Evidence" means "No evidence".
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:44:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

Also, it doesn't even follow that it CAN be evidence for something.

Circles exist.
Squares exist.
They are both evidence for square circles, right?

No, because square circles cannot exist.

I knew you wouldn't fail me.

Tell me what the frak counts as evidence then?

I think I understand perfectly, Evidence is data that supports your conclusion.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:13:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.

Scientific evidence is whatever science says it is.
They decide what it is and what its not depending on whether it supports their theories or not.
http://www.kurtoonsonline.com...

Whatever doesn't support the theories is irrelevant and whatever does is evidence.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:21:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

No. Wet grass is evidence that grass is wet.
Rain is evidence of rain.

If not then what is evidence?

All things are evidence of themselves, not evidence of anything else.

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

Evidence supports nothing but itself. Humans use anything they can to support their arguments. If something appears to support the argument they claim it is evidence. If it does not appear to support their argument they claim it is irrelevant to that particular argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

Human conclusions about the facts can be wrong.
The fact might be the grass is wet but the conclusion that it got wet due to rain might be totally wrong.
Water can come from sources other than rain.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:29:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

It can be, however, only if other possible causes are eliminated, otherwise, it's simply correlation.


If not then what is evidence?

Observations which support a claim. Now, there are various qualities of evidence. I can have good/reliable evidence or suspect/weak/circumstantial evidence. The grass being wet example is weak and circumstantial evidence at best for it having rained (in the absence of other evidence).


Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

sure, however, you must be honest as to how much support the evidence actually grants the theory. The grass being wet in Dubai is more likely to be evidence for the sprinkler being on last night. In Portland, it may not have rained at all, it may simply have been humid and misty. You may be able to claim that there is a correlation between wet grass and rain, therefore, the grass being wet indicates the possibility of it having rained last night. However, you are far from being able to say, the grass is wet therefore it rained last night.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

Not necessarily. There is a graph (http://pubs.acs.org...) which shows the correlation between traffic accidents and lemons being imported from Mexico. There is a clear positive correlation between the number of lemons imported and the number of car accidents. That's a fact, there simply is a correlation. If I were to make the claim that lemons from mexico cause car accidents in the US, I would be able to point to this graph to support my claim. However, that doesn't mean it's evidence for the truth of my claim.


You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

It can. The lemons to car wrecks example clearly shows that I have observations to support my claim that Mexican lemons cause US car wrecks. However, I doubt anyone would call it evidence that Mexican lemons cause US car accidents.


This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.
TyroneShelton
Posts: 19
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:42:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wet grass could mean the lawn was watered, all you know from wet grass is that somehow the grass had to get wet, and without any other context, that is all you can conclude without a doubt
Imagine there's no heaven
It isn't hard to do
No hell below us
Above us only sky

Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

Three conditions entailed by recent precipitation are recent rain-clouds, high humidity and residual surface ground moisture. With those elements it may or may not have rained, but absent any element it certainly did not.

So what you have is not evidence that rain did occur, but evidence consistent with rain having occurred.

Evidence that it occurred would be a positive observation of occurrence.

Strong evidence would be independently corroborated observation.

Evidence beyond reasonable doubt would be independently corroborated observations of rain coupled with records of rain-clouds, high humidity and residual surface ground moisture.

I think that nuance is what's confusing you.

In short: Rain implies wet grass, but wet grass does not imply rain.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:14:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.

"The observable fact that the grass is wet is evidence that it rained last night."

As an atheist currently, I would not deny that wet grass is circumstantial evidence[ evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact][1] of rain. The issue is that wet grass can also be cause in other ways. Dew, grass sprinklers, etc can all cause wet grass.

Grass being wet is not direct evidence[no need for other evidence or inference] of precipitation last night as an inference is required to make the connection between moisture on vegetation and rain.

"On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation[Dew, grass sprinklers, etc being the cause for wet grass]. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

[1]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
http://dictionary.law.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:16:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 2:14:39 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.


"The observable fact that the grass is wet is evidence that it rained last night."

As an atheist currently, I would not deny that wet grass is circumstantial evidence[ evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact][1] of rain. The issue is that wet grass can also be caused in other ways. Dew, grass sprinklers, etc can all cause wet grass.

Grass being wet is not direct evidence[no need for other evidence or inference] of precipitation last night as an inference is required to make the connection between moisture on vegetation and rain.





"On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation[Dew, grass sprinklers, etc being the cause for wet grass]. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others."

https://en.wikipedia.org...

[1]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
http://dictionary.law.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 2:35:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If all we know is "grass is wet", then it is just as much evidence that a sprinkler went off as it is that it rained. If someone was trying to use wet grass as a reason to believe it rained then it would be unjustified, because there is just as much reason to believe a sprinkler went off, or someone sneezed on the grass, or someone watered the lawn with a hose. There would need to be more information before we could say that wet grass was sufficient to believe it rained.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 3:11:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Like many words in English the meaning of 'evidence' is a bit woolly. It can mean little more than 'indication' - that is a hint, or something that suggests a possibility, or maybe a probabililty. But it can mean - or be used to mean - 'proof'.

Wet grass does suggest the possibility of rain, so it's evidence according to the former usage, but its falls short of being 'evidence' according to the latter definition.

So I can say without any doubt or quibble that the answer to whether wet grass is evidence of rain is a definite 'Yes.... and No'
I think a good solution is to say 'proof' when you mean proof and reserve 'evidence' for cases which strongly suggest but do not quite prove something, but I won't mind if anybody wants to use the word 'evidence' differently as long as they make it clear what they intend.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 6:47:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:29:02 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

It can be, however, only if other possible causes are eliminated, otherwise, it's simply correlation.


If not then what is evidence?

Observations which support a claim. Now, there are various qualities of evidence. I can have good/reliable evidence or suspect/weak/circumstantial evidence. The grass being wet example is weak and circumstantial evidence at best for it having rained (in the absence of other evidence).


Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

sure, however, you must be honest as to how much support the evidence actually grants the theory. The grass being wet in Dubai is more likely to be evidence for the sprinkler being on last night. In Portland, it may not have rained at all, it may simply have been humid and misty. You may be able to claim that there is a correlation between wet grass and rain, therefore, the grass being wet indicates the possibility of it having rained last night. However, you are far from being able to say, the grass is wet therefore it rained last night.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

Not necessarily. There is a graph (http://pubs.acs.org...) which shows the correlation between traffic accidents and lemons being imported from Mexico. There is a clear positive correlation between the number of lemons imported and the number of car accidents. That's a fact, there simply is a correlation. If I were to make the claim that lemons from mexico cause car accidents in the US, I would be able to point to this graph to support my claim. However, that doesn't mean it's evidence for the truth of my claim.

Your claim may be false or true.

But if you are pointing at something to justify an argument you are making then what you are pointing at is evidence. Look the word up. Words have meanings, atheist don't get to redefine them.



You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

It can. The lemons to car wrecks example clearly shows that I have observations to support my claim that Mexican lemons cause US car wrecks. However, I doubt anyone would call it evidence that Mexican lemons cause US car accidents.


This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 6:49:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:42:22 AM, TyroneShelton wrote:
Wet grass could mean the lawn was watered, all you know from wet grass is that somehow the grass had to get wet, and without any other context, that is all you can conclude without a doubt

Actually I can doubt my senses. And the context you're referring to is called a 'logical argument' .
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 6:56:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Okay I'm an athiest and I agree with the OP that wet grass is evidence of rain.

If you make the claim that it rained last night, the fact that the grass is wet IS evidence for your claim.

But it is not definitive evidence. It is circumstantial evidence, and could indicate a number of other things. But its still evidence.

I think we are getting confused between evidence and proof. Wet grass is not proof of rain. There are many other causes for wet grass. But wet grass is a piece of evidence that when combined with other pieces of evidence could constitute proof of rain.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:45:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:58:47 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

Three conditions entailed by recent precipitation are recent rain-clouds, high humidity and residual surface ground moisture. With those elements it may or may not have rained, but absent any element it certainly did not.

So what you have is not evidence that rain did occur, but evidence consistent with rain having occurred.

Evidence that it occurred would be a positive observation of occurrence.

Strong evidence would be independently corroborated observation.

Evidence beyond reasonable doubt would be independently corroborated observations of rain coupled with records of rain-clouds, high humidity and residual surface ground moisture.

I think that nuance is what's confusing you.

In short: Rain implies wet grass, but wet grass does not imply rain.

That's exactly what it does. It implies it rained.

Is the accelerated expansion of the universe evidence for dark energy?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 2:35:16 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If all we know is "grass is wet", then it is just as much evidence that a sprinkler went off as it is that it rained. If someone was trying to use wet grass as a reason to believe it rained then it would be unjustified, because there is just as much reason to believe a sprinkler went off, or someone sneezed on the grass, or someone watered the lawn with a hose. There would need to be more information before we could say that wet grass was sufficient to believe it rained.

Just as much reason... do you you mean different and equally valid inferences from the same evidence is possible?

Is the fact of a conscious mind evidence of a mental reality?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:48:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

If not then what is evidence?

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.

Atheism isnt mental poison. It is the rational stance based on the evidence provided.

When you have the same evidence that necessarily supports, on the same level, different arguments that contradict each other, you cannot use that evidence to support one argument over another, and it is irrational to accept belief of that argument over another simply based on that evidence alone.

This is why atheists say that there is no evidence for God, because, within the context of belief and accepting one claim over another based on evidence, the evidence is non-existant that is exclusive and justifies such belief.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 6:56:43 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
Okay I'm an athiest and I agree with the OP that wet grass is evidence of rain.

If you make the claim that it rained last night, the fact that the grass is wet IS evidence for your claim.

But it is not definitive evidence. It is circumstantial evidence, and could indicate a number of other things. But its still evidence.

I think we are getting confused between evidence and proof. Wet grass is not proof of rain. There are many other causes for wet grass. But wet grass is a piece of evidence that when combined with other pieces of evidence could constitute proof of rain.

As an Atheist do you say, 'there is no evidence for God' or do you say 'there is no proof of God'

One is a disingenuous lie, the other a pragmatic point of concession.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:07:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even in a court of Law when evidence is combined with a prosecutor's arguments and a plaintive proven guilty, 'proof' is a summation of reason and evidence.

And proven guilty doesn't mean the guilt is irrefutable! If so there would be no appeals!

'Evidence' is a noun. Terms like 'circumstantial' are adjectives furthr describing the noun. They don't change the meaning of the noun. They describe the magnitude or add attributes to the noun.

I am just jaw droppingly dumbfounded by the near complete lack of understanding a simple matter. A matter foundational to the formulation of any reasonable argument
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:36:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, what I am getting from this thread is that if I go to Mhykiel's house, spray his lawn with water, then Mhykiel will assume it rained?

If I go to Mhykiel's house, flood the street (with overflow) in the night, by morning the "flooding" is gone, and Mhykiel sees wet grass that it means it rained?

Sorry Mhykiel, in order to draw conclusion X you need sufficient reason Y.

Wet grass alone is not sufficient reason to draw the conclusion of rain.

Furthermore, it does not matter what "evidence" one has if the conclusion is logically incoherent.
Again, circles exist. Squares exist. This IS NOT evidence of square circles because it is IMPOSSIBLE for square circles to exist.

Bachelors exist. Married people exist. This IS NOT evidence of married bachelors because it is impossible for married bachelors to exist.

And lastly, the analogy of "wet grass is evidence of rain just like X is evidence of god" is A FALSE ANALOGY.
Wet grass and rain are natural. We know that rain causes wet grass.
X is (based off previous discussions with you) natural, but god is NOT NATURAL. We do not know that god can cause anything, we do not even know if god exists.
FURTHERMORE, natural causes have a higher prior probability than supernatural ones.

LASTLY:
If X can be called evidence of A or B,
and A and B are mutually exclusive,
and A has a higher prior probability than B,
And A is supported much more than B,
then it is not inappropriate to label X as evidence for A and not as evidence for B (when talking in layman's terms).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:37:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:48:19 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:32:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/15/2015 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Mhykiel, that's perhaps the silliest debate I've ever seen the Religion forum spawn.

Rain overnight predicts wet grass, but so do sprinklers, dew and a burst water main uphill. And if the grass is wet, but nearby cement is not, then that offers a different account than if everything is wet. And if you live in a place where precipitation has never been proven, then you need to be more stringent in your fact-checking than in Oregon, say, where overnight rain is routine.

So to confidently conclude rain, you need to take into account all the evidence, not just one observation and unsupported prejudices. And you shouldn't need others to tell you that.

But that's not what makes this debate silly. What makes it silly is that you're debating an analogy. So even should you win the debate, it still doesn't demonstrate that your analogy applies.

I sometimes wonder whether your account has been hacked, y'know... You can make some astute observations about science at times, but then some ignorant, dogmatic curmudgeon apparently abducts you and posts on matters religious. :)

Anyway, good luck with it, I suppose. Debates don't have to be sensible, and this one is silly enough that the outcome might be funny. So if you learn something stupendous, or even just stupifying, please don't hestitate to post about it here. :D

Is wet grass evidence it rained?

If not then what is evidence?

Evidence is a body of facts, observations, previously accepted true statements, that lead or support an argument.

That is all. If a fact supports a conclusion then it is evidence.

You may need more evidence, you may need different evidence, you may not have enough evidence, to make a cogent and confident conclusion. BUT that doesn't retro actively make the body of facts not-evidence.

This really is such a simple concept I'm just stupefied it's being rejected.

Actually I'm not. Atheism is a mental poison.

Atheism isnt mental poison. It is the rational stance based on the evidence provided.

When you have the same evidence that necessarily supports, on the same level, different arguments that contradict each other, you cannot use that evidence to support one argument over another, and it is irrational to accept belief of that argument over another simply based on that evidence alone.

This is why atheists say that there is no evidence for God, because, within the context of belief and accepting one claim over another based on evidence, the evidence is non-existant that is exclusive and justifies such belief.

You are conflating 'ambiguous' with 'non-existent'

I suggest you read a book. The dictionary.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:50:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.

Though it could also be evidence of a heavy dew.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:19:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Looking for a challenger.

http://www.debate.org...

I was trying to make a point with the illustration of the correlation between wet grass and rain, but it seems even in the simple example atheist illogic is rampant.f

Why do you insist on slandering the entire group of atheists, and treat "atheism" as if it was some substantive thing - when it is only one position on one question?

You ever wonder why people are hostile and do not like talking/debating you? Perhaps you need to reevaluate how you enter discussions and talk about groups of people. Given that I was the one who corrected you on how modus ponens was sound, I don't think you can honestly hold the position that there exists this "atheist illogic".

So now I have to argue what "evidence" actually is.

It seems posting numerous different dictionary definitions is useless to the fool.

I don't disagree with the title of this thread, having wet grass raises the probability of it raining last night to higher than it would have been without it, however it doesn't make it most likely the case it rained. This wet grass is insufficient to establish the conclusion. You can put this through the process of abductive reasoning and find the same thing - a sort of reverse baysian theorem. Regarding the implied point here, I would argue that is absolutely impossible in principle for anything to ever be evidence of God due to the infinitely flexible nature of God's definition. I would happily debate you on that much.