Light and Darkness

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:49 PM, RevTom said:

The only things we will ever have as "proofs" or indications are what we read from the scriptures, and how we interpret life's events and the events of history. The evidences will never be empirical with those who see God in a different context than do christians, yet these very evidences will be empirical to those who are christian.

 

Empirical evidence is just that.  Empirical.  It can not be different for anybody.  

[mererdog]

22 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Empirical evidence is just that.  Empirical.  It can not be different for anybody.  

Empirical evidence is evidence based on experience or observation, both of which have an inherently subjective nature. It will necessarily differ from person to person. That can actually be useful, as long as it is properly accounted for...

 

Imagine two people standing on opposite ends of a fairly short length of train track. As a train moves along the track, each person has a distinct perspective which leads to a distinct experience: The noise gets progressively louder to one and progressively quieter to the other. By understanding the hows and whys bethind the observational difference, you can figure out which way the train is going, and maybe even how fast. 

 

One of the reasons that reproduction is so important to the scientific method is that we can potentially learn more when everyone gets different results than when everyone's results are the same...

Edited December 16, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

Empirical evidence is evidence based on experience or observation, both of which have an inherently subjective nature. It will necessarily differ from person to person. That can actually be useful, as long as it is properly accounted for...

 

Imagine two people standing on opposite ends of a fairly short length of train track. As a train moves along the track, each person has a distinct perspective which leads to a distinct experience: The noise gets progressively louder to one and progressively quieter to the other. By understanding the hows and whys bethind the observational difference, you can figure out which way the train is going, and maybe even how fast. 

 

One of the reasons that reproduction is so important to the scientific method is that we can potentially learn more when everyone gets different results than when everyone's results are the same...

 

Empiricism is a striving for objectivity.  Interpretation may be poisoned by the subjective, but the goal is still objective evidence.  

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Empiricism is a striving for objectivity.  Interpretation may be poisoned by the subjective, but the goal is still objective evidence.  

Objective evidence is an impossibility. The subjective nature of observation cannot be avoided or eliminated- it can only be accounted for. Remember that objective facts don't become evidence until they are filtered through that subjective observation. If noone sees it, it can't prove anything to anyone.

You have a unique perspective that limits the hows and whats of your observations. A man with a microscope and a man with a telescope simply cannot gather the same evidence as each other. Being aware of this is crucial to properly designing experimental controls, which is what allows for at least some semblance of objectivity in the interpretation of evidence.

Edited December 17, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 hours ago, mererdog said:

Objective evidence is an impossibility. The subjective nature of observation cannot be avoided or eliminated- it can only be accounted for. Remember that objective facts don't become evidence until they are filtered through that subjective observation. If noone sees it, it can't prove anything to anyone.

You have a unique perspective that limits the hows and whats of your observations. A man with a microscope and a man with a telescope simply cannot gather the same evidence as each other. Being aware of this is crucial to properly designing experimental controls, which is what allows for at least some semblance of objectivity in the interpretation of evidence.

 

Seriously?