Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence for gravity

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 4:44:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have no doubt there are posters here with odd ideas about what evidence is, or is not.
There are posters here with odd ideas about everything.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 8:08:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

I could tell you to go jump off of your roof if you would like to experience the proof af Gravity, but that might be construed as being a bit mean. And I would feel terrible if you actually tried it and got hurt.

But trust me: you would become a believer.

Now, a very interesting thing about the Law of Gravity is that, despite the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence for it, we have yet to find the sub-atomic particle that is responsible for it. That is, the medium by which it exerts its force.

Oh, we call it the "graviton" but that is thus far only a 'working" and hypothetical term.

Gravity is, by the way, very very weak insofar as the Four Fundamental Forces of Physics are concerned. The weakest by far, By magnitudes. (The other three: Strong Nuclear Force; Weak Nuclear Force; and of course the Electro-magnetic force.)

I believe I read that the force of gravity your body exudes is equal to the force required to attract a flea. or a gnat.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be honest, I'm trying to understand the fuss about 'evidence' rather than gravity per se.

My point - which I made elsewhere - is the evidence for Dark Matter is exactly the same as the evidence for gravity. Gravity (the idea that mass is mutually attractive) is a theory to explain the results of careful measurements of the way masses interact.

Gravity - a force betweeen masses - may not exist (things may fall for a quite different reason) but 'a mutually attractive force exists between masses' explains the equation f=m*m/sqr(d) very well so it is almost certainly true. Except it isn't true because gravity is really space being curved by the presence of mass.

The evidence for gravity, dark matter, dark energy, magnetism and electric charge is all the same - they explain the equations that describe observations. Does that mean they are real or that they are convenient fictions for calculation purposes (as Newtons gravity is)? I pass.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A note on the history of gravity. Gravity was originally thought of as a property of some elements (earth and water) to fall downwards. Air and fire were thought of as having not 'gravity' but 'levity', so they went up, not down.

That theory explains a wide range of observations - drop a stone (element earth) and it went down, not up. Flames(fire) always went upwards, not downwards. Only much later (with Newton) did the idea that gravity is a force between masses turn up, resulting in a change in the way the word gravity is commonly understood. The transition from gravity meaning a force and gravity meaning 'curvature of space' may never happen !
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:14:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Your 6th line does not follow from any of the preceding lines, and is incorrect. There is no requirement for evidence to "prove one hypothesis over other weaker ones", nor is there a requirement for evidence to support only one hypothesis over others. For any piece of information X, if P(H|X) =/= P(H), for any hypothesis or set of hypotheses under consideration, H, then X is evidence. Otherwise, it isn't. You still haven't provided a reasonable argument against this.

What about that are you having trouble understanding?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:38:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

See my earlier posts. Gravity isn't a force - it's the curvature of space due to the presence of mass. Or it's the tendency of earth and water to move down not up. 'A force' is most certainly not the only explanation of gravity', and not even the best one.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 12:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:38:59 PM, kp98 wrote:
Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

See my earlier posts. Gravity isn't a force - it's the curvature of space due to the presence of mass. Or it's the tendency of earth and water to move down not up. 'A force' is most certainly not the only explanation of gravity', and not even the best one.

True. But my point was that saying that gravity is an explanation of "the downward force we feel" is redundant in a way, since the Newtonian concept of gravity is itself that force, rather than an explanation for that force.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:26:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:14:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Your 6th line does not follow from any of the preceding lines, and is incorrect. There is no requirement for evidence to "prove one hypothesis over other weaker ones", nor is there a requirement for evidence to support only one hypothesis over others. For any piece of information X, if P(H|X) =/= P(H), for any hypothesis or set of hypotheses under consideration, H, then X is evidence. Otherwise, it isn't. You still haven't provided a reasonable argument against this.

What about that are you having trouble understanding?

Nothing. You don't know what you are talking about. I can't reaosn with you any more than I have done.

I showed you the definition of evidence. Still you do not want to use it.

I showed you and others links that address if evidence meets sufficient justification to be called evidence. If it makes H more likely than not-H.

You continue to drive on with ignorance and an air of arrogance, conflating hypothesis testing which is a way of discerning likely explanations with the identification of evidence.

You lack an understanding.

Stay in the Science section because for you that is the end-all be all of your epistemological, philosophical, logical knowledge.

You do not understand English. You constantly confuse the Way Science is Done with Logic. Science is Logic with the addition of assumptions and pragmatic techniques and heuristics!!!

You are confusing a logically consistent system for Logic,

This argument is about Semantics and you fail. you fail miserably. I got it you are a young dumb indoctrinated chap who can't think past the practice of Science. And you mistake that for Logic. And define everything through that lens.

Even the atheist evidentialist would agree with what I have been telling you. And I have linked to their quotes as well.

You apparently can't read.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 3:08:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Defined as an acceleration towards a massive body, yes, there is evidence. The moon shows this towards the Earth, the planets to the Sun, our spacecrafts to the planets they pass by, yourself towards Earth, etc.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 3:13:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:43:45 PM, kp98 wrote:
To be honest, I'm trying to understand the fuss about 'evidence' rather than gravity per se.

My point - which I made elsewhere - is the evidence for Dark Matter is exactly the same as the evidence for gravity. Gravity (the idea that mass is mutually attractive) is a theory to explain the results of careful measurements of the way masses interact.

Gravity - a force betweeen masses - may not exist (things may fall for a quite different reason) but 'a mutually attractive force exists between masses' explains the equation f=m*m/sqr(d) very well so it is almost certainly true. Except it isn't true because gravity is really space being curved by the presence of mass.

The evidence for gravity, dark matter, dark energy, magnetism and electric charge is all the same - they explain the equations that describe observations. Does that mean they are real or that they are convenient fictions for calculation purposes (as Newtons gravity is)? I pass.

Not convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way. Scientifc theories are not meant to claim absolute truth about reality (as you have said things may fall for a different reason) but to be models that explain reality as far as our observations of reality go.

Every theory from evolution to gravity, is not telling you "this is what really happens", but "this is the best explanation for our observations".
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 6:18:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way.

No argument from me. Whether you say or 'Model' or 'fiction' is only a matter of semantic nicety.

For any sceptics benefit, I'll mention a couple of such fictions/models used to help with calculations.

One example is a 'centre of gravity'. The effect of gravity on an extended object is the result of gravity acting on each part of that object individually - fortunately we can ignore that inconvenient fact and just use its centre of gravity most of the time. Centres of gravity don't exist in the concrete sense. You cant go online to but a dollars worth of centres of gravity.

Another example are the 'holes' that 'carry current' in p-type semiconductors. It is much easier to pretend it is a few fictitious holes (caused by 'missing electrons') carring current one way than to deal with the complexity of millions of real electrons going the other way.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:11:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:43:45 PM, kp98 wrote:
To be honest, I'm trying to understand the fuss about 'evidence' rather than gravity per se.

My point - which I made elsewhere - is the evidence for Dark Matter is exactly the same as the evidence for gravity. Gravity (the idea that mass is mutually attractive) is a theory to explain the results of careful measurements of the way masses interact.

Gravity - a force betweeen masses - may not exist (things may fall for a quite different reason) but 'a mutually attractive force exists between masses' explains the equation f=m*m/sqr(d) very well so it is almost certainly true. Except it isn't true because gravity is really space being curved by the presence of mass.

The evidence for gravity, dark matter, dark energy, magnetism and electric charge is all the same - they explain the equations that describe observations. Does that mean they are real or that they are convenient fictions for calculation purposes (as Newtons gravity is)? I pass.

Kp98 I have had this same argument with some posters. In the same breadth that they want everything proven with repeatable experiments and peer review they fail to see the hypocrisy. Take exchange particles. When 2 electrons "collide" a photon is exchanged between them. Has these photons been seen? I understand not with any eyes but not with any machines or tools either.

What is apparent should be apparent to all. We accept things as true when they seem reasonable to us. This "reasonable" is often tainted and bias. But no one, not even scientist have empirical evidence for all they take for granted or accept as being real.

Often times this comes down to Occam's razor. Or reworded a little and called the principle of parsimony. Some like Envisage have even called it the Law of Parsimony. And revered it as such. But the simplest answer is not always the right answer. Parsimony is not an heuristic in science to find "truth". It is a principle to help guide investigation. If the simple answer isn't working then look at smaller pieces and make a collection of simple answers.

So we have an idea, a conception, that matches the numbers and observations we have at present. In the past science has advocated for a Luminous Aether, and that heat was a fluid. And when observations came out that contradicted these conceptions they were thrown away.

But today, we have observations that indicate our theory of gravity is incorrect. Scientist attempt to correct these inconsistencies by adding in Dark Matter. Then Dark Energy. But I have read a few papers now that suggest Dark Matter and Energy are effected by a 5th force. They do not throw it away, because it's all they have.

"As scientists," he observes, "we first want to understand nature and our universe. In doing so, we have observed things that are deeply puzzling, such as phenomena related to dark matter. We see things happening that we don"t understand. There must be more matter out there that we don"t see. There"s also something called "dark energy". And then there"s the whole puzzle of the beginning of the universe. We now have what is called the "Big Bang" theory." -- Erik Verlinde, professor of Theoretical Physics ((He goes on state we have to assume there is dark matter and dark energy))
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
He wrote this paper: http://arxiv.org...

In Dr.Verlinde's model gravity is an emergent phenomenon like temperature. That after a collection of atoms get together then effects on space like gravity and heat become apparent.

All this may make a Model align with Reality, but Reality does not have to align to the model.

If we could find a force transmitting particle, "graviton". That would be one thing. The effects of Gravity move at the speed of light. And the strength is an inverse square relationship with distance. These 2 characteristics are a lot like electromagnetic radiation. (think lightbulb and dims as you move further away) This lends credence that it may be a massless transmission particle like the photon is for electromagnetic field. We haven't found this particle. But gravity is a weak force.

So there is some small evidence for gravity being a fundamental force. but it's so small and hypothetical, with the discussions I have had with others they should say it doesn't count as evidence.

Side note is some people on this site use Quantum Gravity to argue their side. Which is even more full of holes, incomplete, and imaginary.

I'm a classical thinker, so I'll just put my faith in God has something to do with it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:23:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 6:18:06 AM, kp98 wrote:
Not convenient fictions for calculations, but models that explain reality in a satisfactory way.

No argument from me. Whether you say or 'Model' or 'fiction' is only a matter of semantic nicety.

For any sceptics benefit, I'll mention a couple of such fictions/models used to help with calculations.

One example is a 'centre of gravity'. The effect of gravity on an extended object is the result of gravity acting on each part of that object individually - fortunately we can ignore that inconvenient fact and just use its centre of gravity most of the time. Centres of gravity don't exist in the concrete sense. You cant go online to but a dollars worth of centres of gravity.

Another example are the 'holes' that 'carry current' in p-type semiconductors. It is much easier to pretend it is a few fictitious holes (caused by 'missing electrons') carring current one way than to deal with the complexity of millions of real electrons going the other way.

You know what I have a problem with. They educate people on the fictions. Why are our kids told one thing and 2 years latter something different, then 2 years later something different?

If we taught children right, I don't see any reason a 8 year old can't grasp electron cloud, or how a semi conductor works.

You got the blind leading the blind in the education system. A system created for one purpose: make a compliant dependent mentally adequate workforce that is easily manipulated. College and universities are for the next class up from laborers. And there mission is: create a cult to exploit and explore technologies, that conform to the Socialist Liberal Ideology.

I don't think this comes as a surprise to you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:10:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:26:04 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:14:27 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Your 6th line does not follow from any of the preceding lines, and is incorrect. There is no requirement for evidence to "prove one hypothesis over other weaker ones", nor is there a requirement for evidence to support only one hypothesis over others. For any piece of information X, if P(H|X) =/= P(H), for any hypothesis or set of hypotheses under consideration, H, then X is evidence. Otherwise, it isn't. You still haven't provided a reasonable argument against this.

What about that are you having trouble understanding?

Nothing. You don't know what you are talking about. I can't reaosn with you any more than I have done.

I showed you the definition of evidence. Still you do not want to use it.

Let me say for the 5th or 6th time, then, that I am using the definition you provided.

I showed you and others links that address if evidence meets sufficient justification to be called evidence. If it makes H more likely than not-H.

Which is my point. In the example we are debating, what does X make H more likely than not H? No.

You continue to drive on with ignorance and an air of arrogance, conflating hypothesis testing which is a way of discerning likely explanations with the identification of evidence.

I think it was you who brought out hypothesis testing. It's not at all important to my point.

You lack an understanding.

Stay in the Science section because for you that is the end-all be all of your epistemological, philosophical, logical knowledge.

You do not understand English. You constantly confuse the Way Science is Done with Logic. Science is Logic with the addition of assumptions and pragmatic techniques and heuristics!!!

You are confusing a logically consistent system for Logic,

This argument is about Semantics and you fail. you fail miserably. I got it you are a young dumb indoctrinated chap who can't think past the practice of Science. And you mistake that for Logic. And define everything through that lens.

Even the atheist evidentialist would agree with what I have been telling you. And I have linked to their quotes as well.

You apparently can't read.

This is pretty much an irrelevant rant that doesn't support your conclusion or refute mine. You're basing all of this on the false assumption that I am basing my argument on hypothesis testing and practices of science, which actually don't have much to do with my argument. My conclusion directly follows from your definition of evidence and the properties which you supplied, irrespective of how hypothesis testing works or how science is done. I am even using the links you've provided to support your conclusion.

Based only on what you've provided to support your argument (I really don't know what your argument is any more, because you haven't been consistent), if some information is equally well-explained by all of the hypotheses under consideration, then its inclusion does not make any hypothesis more likely than not including it, and it has no effect on the likelihood of any hypothesis. Therefore, by your definition and the definitions in the links you've provided, it is not evidence of any of the hypotheses. Hypothesis testing and scientific practice have nothing to do with it.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...

But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 11:36:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just in passing, I have a sneaking fondness for MOND - modified Newtonian Dynamics. Basically MOND is about 'tweaking' the formulas to make them fit observation rather than keeping the equations the same and inventing dark matter/energy to account for the discrepancies.

MOND is a mainstream but minority take on the problems dark matter/energy are usually invoked to solve. I'm not upto the advanced maths needed to make a truly informed opinion, but I'd bet a quatloo or two on MOND, if only because I'd get better odds.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:28:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Yes. Please stand up. Can you feel that pressure on the bottom of your feet? That is the surface of the Earth accelerating upwards towards you. That acceleration is gravity.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 7:46:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.

I don't concede. Out of every links you posted and I posted, evidence is that which make a belief more likely than the negation of the belief likely.

Even if that evidence is weak to make a decision upon the actual truth or falsehood of a statement, it is still evidence.

There is no sense in me trying to beat sense in you. The words are in black in white in the dictionary, the links I gave you, and the links you gave.

Even if one piece of information makes a set of hypotheses likely it does not negate that it is identified as evidence.

I'm done saying this repeatedly. And All the thinkers, papers, and links presented agree with me.

I don't discuss Algebra with my dogs, For the same reasons I see no point in discussing this further with you.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 8:01:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 7:46:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.

I don't concede. Out of every links you posted and I posted, evidence is that which make a belief more likely than the negation of the belief likely.

Even if that evidence is weak to make a decision upon the actual truth or falsehood of a statement, it is still evidence.

Yes. Everything I am saying is entirely consistent with that, and I have said that myself several times. Are you just pretending that's not what I'm saying?

There is no sense in me trying to beat sense in you. The words are in black in white in the dictionary, the links I gave you, and the links you gave.

Even if one piece of information makes a set of hypotheses likely it does not negate that it is identified as evidence.

I'm done saying this repeatedly. And All the thinkers, papers, and links presented agree with me.

Yes, and I think I may have said those things as many times as you have. Did you not understand what I have been saying this whole time? Read the post above. I'm clearly saying that the reason is not evidence is because it does not change the likelihood of the hypotheses.

I don't discuss Algebra with my dogs, For the same reasons I see no point in discussing this further with you.

Except I'm the one who has mathematics on my side. And I can prove my point mathematically.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 8:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 8:01:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:46:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.

I don't concede. Out of every links you posted and I posted, evidence is that which make a belief more likely than the negation of the belief likely.

Even if that evidence is weak to make a decision upon the actual truth or falsehood of a statement, it is still evidence.

Yes. Everything I am saying is entirely consistent with that, and I have said that myself several times. Are you just pretending that's not what I'm saying?

There is no sense in me trying to beat sense in you. The words are in black in white in the dictionary, the links I gave you, and the links you gave.

Even if one piece of information makes a set of hypotheses likely it does not negate that it is identified as evidence.

I'm done saying this repeatedly. And All the thinkers, papers, and links presented agree with me.

Yes, and I think I may have said those things as many times as you have. Did you not understand what I have been saying this whole time? Read the post above. I'm clearly saying that the reason is not evidence is because it does not change the likelihood of the hypotheses.

I don't discuss Algebra with my dogs, For the same reasons I see no point in discussing this further with you.

Except I'm the one who has mathematics on my side. And I can prove my point mathematically.

The math you cite, what is the result stated in English,

A test result is called statistically significant if it has been predicted as unlikely to have occurred by sampling error alone, according to a threshold probability"the significance level.

It identifies the likelihood of an hypothesis, it does not identify what is or is not "evidence".

As I said we come to an impasse, where you are either too stupid or unwilling to admit what my posts have been about "wet grass" is evidence for "it rained last night".

And any argument about "Wet grass" supporting any number of other hypothesis is irrelevant to the matter of identifying what is or is not evidence for the one scenario I posit.

This is beyond your understanding, So I withdraw from talking about it with you anymore.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 8:50:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 8:11:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 8:01:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:46:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.

I don't concede. Out of every links you posted and I posted, evidence is that which make a belief more likely than the negation of the belief likely.

Even if that evidence is weak to make a decision upon the actual truth or falsehood of a statement, it is still evidence.

Yes. Everything I am saying is entirely consistent with that, and I have said that myself several times. Are you just pretending that's not what I'm saying?

There is no sense in me trying to beat sense in you. The words are in black in white in the dictionary, the links I gave you, and the links you gave.

Even if one piece of information makes a set of hypotheses likely it does not negate that it is identified as evidence.

I'm done saying this repeatedly. And All the thinkers, papers, and links presented agree with me.

Yes, and I think I may have said those things as many times as you have. Did you not understand what I have been saying this whole time? Read the post above. I'm clearly saying that the reason is not evidence is because it does not change the likelihood of the hypotheses.

I don't discuss Algebra with my dogs, For the same reasons I see no point in discussing this further with you.

Except I'm the one who has mathematics on my side. And I can prove my point mathematically.

The math you cite, what is the result stated in English,

I've stated it in English several times. We both agree with the following definition (which you keep repeating as if it effects the argument): Evidence - A fact or body of facts which supports an hypothesis or set of hypotheses. "If E is evidence for some hypothesis H, then E makes it more likely that H is true: in such circumstances, E confirms H. On the other hand, if E is evidence against H, then E makes it less likely that H is true: E disconfirms H."
http://plato.stanford.edu...

We are arguing over whether a fact is evidence of a hypothesis if it is equally explained by all of the hypotheses under consideration. This means that the increase in likelihood due to that fact is equal for each hypothesis. Since the total probability of all of the hypotheses is 1, that means the the increase in likelihood is precisely 0. Since the likelihood of each hypothesis is unchanged, that fact is not evidence for any hypothesis.

That's it. You've not once shown how any of this is inconsistent with any of the definitions you've provided or with any of your sources. More importantly, you've not once even attempted to refute this.

A test result is called statistically significant if it has been predicted as unlikely to have occurred by sampling error alone, according to a threshold probability"the significance level.

It identifies the likelihood of an hypothesis, it does not identify what is or is not "evidence".

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As I said we come to an impasse, where you are either too stupid or unwilling to admit what my posts have been about "wet grass" is evidence for "it rained last night".

We came to a sufficient agreement about that days ago, and since then have been arguing, explicitly, whether a fact is evidence for a hypothesis if it is equally well-explained by all other hypotheses under consideration.

And any argument about "Wet grass" supporting any number of other hypothesis is irrelevant to the matter of identifying what is or is not evidence for the one scenario I posit.

This is beyond your understanding, So I withdraw from talking about it with you anymore.

Just like v3nesl, you feel compelled to run away from a debate when fallacies and insults aren't helping you to win it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 8:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 8:50:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 8:11:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 8:01:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:46:05 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 7:21:09 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:13:41 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 10:33:28 AM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:29:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 11:16:10 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:22:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/18/2015 4:01:00 PM, kp98 wrote:
Is there any?

Is gravity the only explanation for the downward force we feel?

If so then no. because if there is one hypothesis to explain one observation then it is not evidence.

If there are more hypothesis and they all can equally explain the downward force we feel then No.

because if there is no distinguishing probability between hypothesis then the observation is not evidence.

At least that is what I am learning from other posters.

Apparently the only thing that counts as evidence is a body of information that proves one hypothesis over other weaker ones.

So you have to show other hypothesis than Gravity, and present information THAT ONLY Gravity can explain. Then you will have some evidence.

Forgot to add, gravity is defined as that force... So you're asking whether gravity is the only explanation for gravity.

All the stuff you have been saying about evidence. Show me some links that back you. I'm tired of hearing you just keep claiming it.

Link to some reputable sources that back what foolishness you have been saying about "evidence".

The links you have provided do just fine to support my statement. Everything I am saying can be directly and trivially derived from what it says in the main link you've used:
http://plato.stanford.edu...


But if you want others...

This one talks about how evidence relates to hypotheses in a legal setting using probability theory. See equation 1 and read about the prosecutor's fallacy. In equation 1, see what happens if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0) (the bottom should be H0, of course). How does P(H1) and P(H0) change?
http://www.sagepub.com...

In this one, see what happens in equation 1 when s(A) = s(B).
http://www.princeton.edu...

In fact, I don't think you could find any text or reputable source discussing evidence which would contradict what I'm saying. What I'm saying follows directly from the definition of evidence.

Both of those would treat "wet grass" as evidence of "it rained".

Which is something that we don't disagree over, except that I say that it is a vague statement that doesn't apply irrespective of context. However, it has nothing to do with what we've been arguing about. If you don't have a response to my previous post, then I take it you concede on my point. You can see for yourself that if P(E|H1) = P(E|H0), then P(H1|E) = P(H1) and P(H0}E) = P(H0). There is no denying this on any rational grounds.

I don't concede. Out of every links you posted and I posted, evidence is that which make a belief more likely than the negation of the belief likely.

Even if that evidence is weak to make a decision upon the actual truth or falsehood of a statement, it is still evidence.

Yes. Everything I am saying is entirely consistent with that, and I have said that myself several times. Are you just pretending that's not what I'm saying?

There is no sense in me trying to beat sense in you. The words are in black in white in the dictionary, the links I gave you, and the links you gave.

Even if one piece of information makes a set of hypotheses likely it does not negate that it is identified as evidence.

I'm done saying this repeatedly. And All the thinkers, papers, and links presented agree with me.

Yes, and I think I may have said those things as many times as you have. Did you not understand what I have been saying this whole time? Read the post above. I'm clearly saying that the reason is not evidence is because it does not change the likelihood of the hypotheses.

I don't discuss Algebra with my dogs, For the same reasons I see no point in discussing this further with you.

Except I'm the one who has mathematics on my side. And I can prove my point mathematically.

The math you cite, what is the result stated in English,

I've stated it in English several times. We both agree with the following definition (which you keep repeating as if it effects the argument): Evidence - A fact or body of facts which supports an hypothesis or set of hypotheses. "If E is evidence for some hypothesis H, then E makes it more likely that H is true: in such circumstances, E confirms H. On the other hand, if E is evidence against H, then E makes it less likely that H is true: E disconfirms H."
http://plato.stanford.edu...

We are arguing over whether a fact is evidence of a hypothesis if it is equally explained by all of the hypotheses under consideration. This means that the increase in likelihood due to that fact is equal for each hypothesis. Since the total probability of all of the hypotheses is 1, that means the the increase in likelihood is precisely 0. Since the likelihood of each hypothesis is unchanged, that fact is not evidence for any hypothesis.

That's it. You've not once shown how any of this is inconsistent with any of the definitions you've provided or with any of your sources. More importantly, you've not once even attempted to refute this.

A test result is called statistically significant if it has been predicted as unlikely to have occurred by sampling error alone, according to a threshold probability"the significance level.

It identifies the likelihood of an hypothesis, it does not identify what is or is not "evidence".

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As I said we come to an impasse, where you are either too stupid or unwilling to admit what my posts have been about "wet grass" is evidence for "it rained last night".

We came to a sufficient agreement about that days ago, and since then have been arguing, explicitly, whether a fact is evidence for a hypothesis if it is equally well-explained by all other hypotheses under consideration.

And any argument about "Wet grass" supporting any number of other hypothesis is irrelevant to the matter of identifying what is or is not evidence for the one scenario I posit.

This is beyond your understanding, So I withdraw from talking about it with you anymore.

Just like v3nesl, you feel compelled to run away from a debate when fallacies and insults aren't helping you to win it.

You haven't met any burden of proof that when the evidence supports a set of hypothesis equally that it is no longer evidence.

The math you cite shows the probability of one hypothesis over another. Not that hypothesis compared to it's negation. Which is what identifies evidence.

This isn't running. It's a dead horse. You
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 9:40:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 8:55:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/19/2015 8:50:45 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 7/19/2015 8:11:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I've stated it in English several times. We both agree with the following definition (which you keep repeating as if it effects the argument): Evidence - A fact or body of facts which supports an hypothesis or set of hypotheses. "If E is evidence for some hypothesis H, then E makes it more likely that H is true: in such circumstances, E confirms H. On the other hand, if E is evidence against H, then E makes it less likely that H is true: E disconfirms H."
http://plato.stanford.edu...

We are arguing over whether a fact is evidence of a hypothesis if it is equally explained by all of the hypotheses under consideration. This means that the increase in likelihood due to that fact is equal for each hypothesis. Since the total probability of all of the hypotheses is 1, that means the the increase in likelihood is precisely 0. Since the likelihood of each hypothesis is unchanged, that fact is not evidence for any hypothesis.

That's it. You've not once shown how any of this is inconsistent with any of the definitions you've provided or with any of your sources. More importantly, you've not once even attempted to refute this.

A test result is called statistically significant if it has been predicted as unlikely to have occurred by sampling error alone, according to a threshold probability"the significance level.

It identifies the likelihood of an hypothesis, it does not identify what is or is not "evidence".

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

As I said we come to an impasse, where you are either too stupid or unwilling to admit what my posts have been about "wet grass" is evidence for "it rained last night".

We came to a sufficient agreement about that days ago, and since then have been arguing, explicitly, whether a fact is evidence for a hypothesis if it is equally well-explained by all other hypotheses under consideration.

And any argument about "Wet grass" supporting any number of other hypothesis is irrelevant to the matter of identifying what is or is not evidence for the one scenario I posit.

This is beyond your understanding, So I withdraw from talking about it with you anymore.

Just like v3nesl, you feel compelled to run away from a debate when fallacies and insults aren't helping you to win it.

You haven't met any burden of proof that when the evidence supports a set of hypothesis equally that it is no longer evidence.

The math you cite shows the probability of one hypothesis over another. Not that hypothesis compared to it's
negation. Which is what identifies evidence.

This isn't running. It's a dead horse. You

I noticed the change in definition you made, adding that it needs to support a hypothesis over its negation. Supposedly you made this change because it would support your conclusion better, failing to realize that a hypothesis and its negation is just a specific case which fits under statement perfectly fine. But the best part is that you don't realize that the change in definition completely contradicts the very point you were trying to make by conjuring up your wet grass example! It's so hilarious that I don't want to explain it to you just yet. You should try writing it out formally though, in case you can see why for yourself.

Actually I have made a much stronger argument than you have, but no, I haven't proven it yet. But it's a really easy proof if you understand elementary probability theory. And yes, the proof says that it is not evidence, by definition (even by any of the definitions you have tried to use to support your case).

By the way, are you implying that you can't win a debate against a dead horse? Sounds about right.