What distinctions exist between evidence and scientific evidence?

1. 43

   Joseph O Polancoposted 8 years ago

   What distinctions exist between evidence and scientific evidence?

   replyreport
2. 72

   lone77starposted 8 years ago

   Some evidence cannot be repeated. Some evidence cannot be measured by instruments that can be calibrated for accuracy and certainty of measurement.
   
   But anecdotal and other sparse evidence is still evidence.
   
   For instance, experiments in cold fusion could not be repeated easily. Sometimes they would work and frequently they wouldn't. But this didn't stop some scientists from pursuing the puzzle. They discovered, with careful measurement, why the experiments could not always be repeated. Success required the nodes to remain in a certain state perfect for the work to be done. Not all nodes could achieve or remain in this state.
   
   Perhaps the biggest failure for scientists in the spiritual realm rests on the unwanted extra ingredient that scientists insist on using -- skepticism. If you look closely at the meaning of this word, you will find a potent bias -- doubt. Things like telekinesis, telepathy, remote viewing and the like require faith and no doubt. Scientists have been ruining their own experiments with the poor paradigm of skepticism.
   
   Many skeptics betray their lack of logical skill by insisting that, because there is no evidence to support a thesis, the thesis must be invalid. This is an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy.
   
   Truth doesn't care if you have evidence or not. Truth will remain Truth, whatever that is.

   replyreport
   1. 43

      Joseph O Polancoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Very well put!

      replyreport
3. 86

   M. T. Dremerposted 8 years ago

   I don't think there is a distinction. Science uses evidence to form conclusions. It doesn't have ownership over it. But the process we use to recognize what is and isn't evidence, is scientific. I often use crossing the street as an example. Because you start with a question "is it safe to cross the street?" Then you test it by looking both ways. You observe that no cars are coming and conclude that yes, it is safe to cross the street. The evidence that proved it was safe to cross the street was already there, but you used the scientific method to observe it.
   
   By contrast, say you're at home and your friend tells you that it's safe to cross the street. Other than trusting your friend's word, the only way you can know for sure is if you walk outside and check. If the evidence is there, you will also confirm it. If it's not, you will conclude that your friend is wrong (for whatever reason).
   
   So, the reason I don't think there is a distinction is because science is built on facts, and evidence is facts. Since claims of the supernatural, be they religious or otherwise, cannot produce consistent evidence (you don't see it when you check for yourself) it falls under the realm of your friend telling you the street is safe to cross. Your friend might be trustworthy, but would you cross the street with their word alone, or would you still look both ways?

   replyreport