Subject: krici

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:58:51 -0500 (EST)

How different would this discussion have been in Lojban? We've come to the
final phase of the discussion, where the word "evidence" must now be
analyzed. Naturally, English impedes us from understanding. English words
are not as well defined as gismu places are. Specifically, the word
"evidence" has two usages.

Usage one is the informational basis for a belief. (velji'i?)

Usage two is the quality of the informational basis for a belief.
(jezvelji'i?) This is invoked chiefly when criticising the evidence of
another. People will say "you have no evidence for that"; a sentence
which, using usage one reads "the evidence you are using has insufficient
quality".

The evidence is there. Something convinces the believer. But the skeptic
is not convinced by that evidence; they feel it has no quality. In
English, they will often apply the second usage and assert that the
believer has no evidence.

The difference can also be resolved with the revelation of tacit
subjectivity. The skeptic, in an E-prime mood, can better say "the
evidence you are using has insufficient quality TO ME".

In these discussions, we must distinguish the question of "What is your
evidence -- what convinced YOU of this?", from "What is the evidence that
you can provide that is up to MY standards?".

Furthermore, there is a distracting conflation occurring. Let me sketch it
using the example of a scientist who is deeply religious. He uses rigorous
standards of evidence in his work, and possibly in his daily life, but may
make an exception when dealing with religious issues. Let's assume he
believes a certain statement because it is found in his scripture. The
evidence for his belief of the statement is the sentence in the scripture!
("Why do I believe that? Because the Bible tells me so!") This issue is
different from the question of why he takes that as sufficient evidence;
why his standards of evidence (the QUALITY of evidence) are so low or so
exceptional in this case!

Evidence means evidence for a particular belief; not a rigorous defense of
ones entire belief system, or a psychoanalysis of the person's motivations
and the resolution of apparent contradictions of character!

To summarize the distracting conflation: the question of WHAT constitutes
evidence for a certain individual is different from the question of WHY
that person chooses to allow it to constitute valid evidence!

Therefore I restate: No belief is ever held without something existing as
evidence in the mind of the believer, whether or not this piece of
evidence is acceptable to any other human being.

And I re-issue my challenge: Show me a case of somebody believing
something without evidence according to the first usage, not the second.

-----
"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.