Re: Evidence v Conclusions

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 08:33:06 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

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

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.

>
The above is not nonsense. You think it is nonsense because you don't
understand.

I understand quite well.  The cited comments are mindless and
infantile.

Yes there is more evidence, but as I have pointed out, the fact that
there is more evidence does not mean that people do not make the
assertion that electricity is evidence. In fact we've had a variation on
the theme, asserting that an electron beam is evidence of electrons.
This is all reciting scripture, and begging the question. Confusing
evidence with interpretation of evidence, if you like.

A beam with measurable effects is empirical evidence of the existence
of something material.  If that material is called an electron, then
it's reasonable to call that beam an electron beam, by definition.

OTOH electricity is the flow of electric charges, either positive or
negative; even negative charges need not be electrons.  In fact,
electricity can be thought of as the flow of regions of deficient aka
a lack of electric charge.

Your confusion about these things is likely a result of your ignorance
of relevant facts.

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