Re: [lojban] Objective Reality & krici (was: Random lojban questions/annoyanc...

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 04:38 PM 03/21/2001 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Great summary! I never claimed "good evidence", or "evidence you and I
> >would agree to". A great many beliefs are based on evidence that I do not
> >approve of. But they ARE based on something that is taken as evidence by
> >the believers. And that's why krici is a meaningless term. Its true
> >meaning is "djuno where x4 is controversial".
>
> I guess coming from a scientific background, I have always defined
> "evidence" in terms of  repeatability or at least independent
> verifiability.  A phenomenon that is experienced only by one person is not
> "evidence", nor is testimony that is not itself backed by such direct
> evidence (they call that "hearsay" in the courts and will not consider it
> as evidence).


Various courts have various standards of evidence. Various sciences have
more; social scientists believe ideas based on evidence that physicists
would laugh hysterically at if they delved into social topics. This is the
basis of those jokes that compare different types of scientists &
engineers.

Further, common sense has another, weaker standard of evidence. And plenty
of other fields, such as religion and mysticism, have others.

An experience seen by only one person is evidence for that person.
Evidence is what proves something to someone. It can apply to a single
individual. In fact, something is proven to a group by proving it to each
individual in the group. Since ideas are held by individuals, evidence
must convince individuals.



-----
"The trees are green, since green is good for the eyes". I agreed
with him, and added, that God had created cattle, since beef soups
strengthen man; that he created the donkey, so that it might give
man something with which to compare himself; and he had created
man, to eat beef soup and not be a donkey.