Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
Scoble, Alex Scoble
Does what someone believes belong in a conversation about interpreting evidence?
If the belief colours the interpretation, then yes, it's a part of the conversation. - Johnny from iPhone
Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Yeah, odd that. I mean, if you are talking to someone about something that is evidence based and you say, "I believe that the thing the evidence describes doesn't exist", aren't you opening yourself up to a logical beatdown assuming that there's plenty of verified evidence that the thing does, in fact, exist? - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Like if I say to you, "Hey Johnny, did you hear that they found evidence that there may be water on Mars?" and you say "I don't believe there's water on Mars." - Scoble, Alex Scoble
<deleted> Was misremembering what was said. - Not Me
Alex, there is no logical beatdown in that specific conflict. Water may exist. So I'm free to believe that it doesn't. - Not Me
So you think it's OK to say things in a conversation that are completely orthogonal to the other person's conversation? - Scoble, Alex Scoble
That doesn't make sense. If we have found water on Mars, then there is no interpretation needed. There is a distinct difference between dismissing evidence and interpreting it. Look at fission in the sun. After Einstein worked out E=mc2, some other dude (cant remember his name) came up with a theory (a belief) that the sun was hot enough to support fission. The current 'evidence' available for interpretation at the time suggested he was wrong and he was ridiculed. He was eventually found to be correct about the sun's temperature as new ways of gathering evidence was found. I get what you are on about Alex, but if you have a problem with ignorance, come right out and say it. Mixing philosophical and scientific language will result in such misunderstandings - Johnny from iPhone
Alex, if someone asked me if I had heard about some new evidence that says the Singularity will occur. There's a lot of 'evidence' out there, but the interpretations have all been wrong. I still wouldn't believe them, until it actually happened. So yes, sometimes it's perfectly fine, but there should be a reason for it. - Not Me
Also, your example on FB is not comparable to the one you gave here. The one on Facebook equates to "Hey Johnny, did you hear that they found evidence that there is water on Mars? [note: may is removed] and Johnny says "I don't believe Mars exists." - Not Me
And in the other direction: "Evidence shows that Excel [may] make people 59% more productive (and have actual data to back that statement up)." and I say, "I don't believe that Excel makes people more productive." - Not Me
you guys make my vat bubble - chaz2b
I can go and find you hundreds of studies, with evidence, that say things that aren't necessarily true. And I can disagree with studies that maybe are true. Because it's all in the interpretation of the evidence. - Not Me
Johnny, I asked a question to get your opinion. If I had wanted to make a statement, I would have. :D - Scoble, Alex Scoble
And that's fine, but what about when there's 100s of studies worth of validated evidence or even thousands with no credible studies invalidating the previous studies? At some point, there has to be some level of evidence that defies someone's lack of belief. - Scoble, Alex Scoble