Re: Evidence v Conclusions

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 14:09:21 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>

A recent T.O. topic illustrated a poster's failure to distinguish
between evidence and conclusions based on evidence.  My experience is
this is an especially common problem among pseudoskeptics.  To further
illustrate the point, the following is a recent X post aka Tweet from
a U.S. Congressperson:
>
************************************
God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent. 
Earthquakes and eclipses and many more things to come.
I pray that our country listens.
*************************************
>
Stipulating for argument's sake that natural events like earthquakes
and eclipses are evidence of God's displeasure, that would still be no
reasonable basis to conclude what to repent about.  ISTM as likely God
is pissed about willfully stupid people invoking God as a means of
virtue signaling.
>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

>
But people also say they know electrons exist, whereas they have never
actually seen one, but interpret electricity as evidence of them.
>
So you could have the same discussion in a less emotive way by
discussing electrons and lightning instead of God and earthquakes.

We could have had a more rational discussion if that congressperson
hadn't posted the above nonsense.  Besides, there's more evidence for
electrons than the mere fact of electricity.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge