"Objective" Evidence

[untermensche]

What does it mean when we say something is "objective" evidence?

It means two people agree on the same subjective experience.

"The table is there."

"I agree."

We now have "objective" evidence of the table.

"The table is three feet wide. The experience of my ruler tells me that."

"The experience of my ruler tells me the same thing."

Three feet wide is now "objective" evidence.

 

[braces_for_impact]

In today's terms, I wonder if it actually exists. We have lots of objective evidence for any number of things that are just completely ignored.

 

[untermensche]

It exists if we agree it exists.

If we agree to call that which you and I both experience "objective" evidence it is.

 

[fast]

I fear that you're going to find this overwhelmingly complicated, but I'm going to drill into this a bit.

First, let's take existence out of the equation, for what can be considered objective evidence is not necessarily for the existence of something. If I take a gun, shoot someone, and throw it into a barrel of other guns, there's no question being posed about whether the gun exists. Each gun can be collected as evidence.

Now, because you accentuate "objective" and not "evidence," that tells me that your query is not about evidence but rather if it's objective or not. That being said, I will now move to take evidence out of the equation (only temporarily) so that it itself isn't confused.

A table is not evidence merely because it's a table. Take the barrel I tossed the gun into for example. That particular barrel may be evidence, but that doesn't make every barrel there is evidence. If something is evidence, it's partly so because it's what it's being used as.

Now, let's suppose you are trying to determine whether something that can be used as evidence is objective or not. That may have come across lexically ambiguous, so let me break it down. If there is something that is in fact being used as evidence, then is the something objective evidence or not?

Existence muddies the waters, and speaking of something as evidence further complicates matters, but with existence not being apart of the exact question and assuming the thing in question is truly evidence, then it's just a matter of determining whether or not the evidence is objective or not.

You seem to have some strange idea that the answer is somehow subjective, as if agreement that it is makes it so. No. It being so makes it so, not the agreement.

We can pull out the gun that was fired and both agree that it's a table. It's still objective evidence, but our agreement has no bearing on the issue. Rather than taking a path that leads you to think objective evidence is dependent on subjectivity, how about trying to characterize what evidence would be in the form of if it wasn't objective evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^

Or someone can have "objective evidence" such as burnt powder remains in the barrel of that gun that the gun had been fired. But there can also be subjective opinions from people that examine it as to whether it means anything.

 

[DBT]

It exists if we agree it exists.

If we agree to call that which you and I both experience "objective" evidence it is.

Not so, the external world does not cater to human agreement or someones opinion. A fall from a high cliff will injure or kill you whether you believe the cliff is there or not, it will still injure or kill you whether anyone else knows it is there or not. The cliffs existence is independent from subjective experience and is therefore an objective reality.

 

[untermensche]

It exists if we agree it exists.

If we agree to call that which you and I both experience "objective" evidence it is.

Not so, the external world does not cater to human agreement or someones opinion. A fall from a high cliff will injure or kill you whether you believe the cliff is there or not, it will still injure or kill you whether anyone else knows it is there or not. The cliffs existence is independent from subjective experience and is therefore an objective reality.

What do you know about the external world that is not an experience?

Everything that is or could be called "evidence" is something a human experienced.

 

[DBT]

It exists if we agree it exists.

If we agree to call that which you and I both experience "objective" evidence it is.

Not so, the external world does not cater to human agreement or someones opinion. A fall from a high cliff will injure or kill you whether you believe the cliff is there or not, it will still injure or kill you whether anyone else knows it is there or not. The cliffs existence is independent from subjective experience and is therefore an objective reality.

What do you know about the external world that is not an experience?

Everything that is or could be called "evidence" is something a human experienced.

You missed the point.

 

[untermensche]

...there's no question being posed about whether the gun exists

You have an experience of a gun.

I have an experience of a gun.

Does that mean it exists?

A table is not evidence merely because it's a table.

No it is evidence if two or more people have the experience of a table. If they have visual or tactile experiences of it.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you know about the external world that is not an experience?

Everything that is or could be called "evidence" is something a human experienced.

You missed the point.

You miss every point I make.

You have not addressed anything as usual.

If a person is killed they are not experiencing anything.

And a killed person is an experience for some other person.

All evidence is an experience of some human.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This thread is clearly a waste of time.

Oops, sorry! I'll rephrase that: This thread is objectively a waste of time.

Here, irrespective of whether it's true that this thread is a waste of time, I used the word "objectively" in accordance to what it means, i.e. I used it appropriately.

Yet, as it happens, there are two possible and very different senses:

Objective
a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.

Sense (a) is ontological, i.e. about "existence", sense (b) is epistemological, i.e. about "knowledge".

Not at all the same thing, that.

Me, I would say the OP is clearly about the epistemological sense.

Yet, most posters clearly are replying using the ontological sense.

Ensue inevitably a waste of time.

So, that's true, this thread is really objectively a waste of time.
EB

Note - I couldn't possibly let fast get all the credit.

 

[untermensche]

All a human has access to are their experiences.

There is no evidence of things in the external world that is not an experience.

We say something objectively exists in the external world when we really believe the experience points to something in the external world.

There is no verification of any evidence that is not an experience.

 

[untermensche]

Objective
a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.

You have no clue.

a. Means simply that people believe something exists.

Based on b.

Because b. is the only thing available to us.

You are not a waste of my time.

Pointing out where people are blind is fun.

 

[steve_bank]

Objective evidence is that which is not subject to subjective bias or interpretation.

In law someone caught with a smoking gun in hand is objective evidenced.

In science objective evidence is a repeatable experiment. Interpretations of data from experiment may not be objective.

 

[none]

objective evidence? it is infinite
the mind knows

 

[untermensche]

Objective evidence is that which is not subject to subjective bias or interpretation.

Like what?

In law someone caught with a smoking gun in hand is objective evidenced.

If somebody sees the criminal they experienced a representation of the criminal created by the brain.

The only thing any human has access to are experiences.

There is nothing else.

In science objective evidence is a repeatable experiment.

That's experiencing the same thing twice.

Still just an experience.

There is nothing else.

To a human all is experience.

There is nothing else.

 

[Jobar]

If you have an object- a demonstrable, physical thing- it's objective. Wordlessly real.

Objective evidence is an object with a tale attached. It may be that the tale is true or false. The words about the object have to be judged subjectively, or intersubjectively.

 

[untermensche]

If you have an object

You mean have some experience of an object?

How do you just have one?

 

[DBT]

You miss every point I make.

You have not addressed anything as usual.

If a person is killed they are not experiencing anything.

And a killed person is an experience for some other person.

All evidence is an experience of some human.

You have yet to make a single point. However, the point you missed on this occasion was that external world does not cater to our beliefs and assumptions, that a fall from a cliff will injure or kill you or anyone else regardless of beliefs, and is therefore objective.

The external world of objects and events being objective.

 

[untermensche]

You miss every point I make.

You have not addressed anything as usual.

If a person is killed they are not experiencing anything.

And a killed person is an experience for some other person.

All evidence is an experience of some human.

You have yet to make a single point. However, the point you missed on this occasion was that external world does not cater to our beliefs and assumptions, that a fall from a cliff will injure or kill you or anyone else regardless of beliefs, and is therefore objective.

The external world of objects and events being objective.

What do you know about the external world that is not a subjective experience?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Exhaustively define “experience”—and any other terms associated with it—or there is no point in continuing this discussion.