AuldSoul
Oh dear, is THAT the crux of your argument? Argumentum ad sanguineus diluceo; a statement of the bleedn' obvious (well, something like that, LOL).
Pedantic, semantic, fallacious, and all to point out what we all know. That groups of people are comprised of individuals. Stop the press! Yes AuldSoul, a group is comprised of individuals as prone to error and subjectivity as the next person, and any grouping can have it's qualifications and objectivity questioned.
What a lot of trees. Can you see the wood yet?
You state the obvious in what seems to be an attempt to question the knowability of anything and the highlight the falability of human opinion. Given the thinking you normally defend I can see how both these actions are desirable as the intellectual slack they allow is condusive to certain belief structures.
What you say is true. But what you ignore is also true, and this makes the relevency of what you say questionable.
'Qualified' means people who know what they are talking about. Both legal institutions and scientific bodies have systems in place to ensure those in positions of authority or power pass certain tests of knowledge, competence, and experience. It is not perfect, but it is better than unqualified opinion, that held by those without adequate knowledge, competence or experience, formed without any reference to a developed system for reducing error.
You might quibble in a discussion, but when you have tooth-ache you go to a dentist. When your dog is sick you go to the vet (oh, I'm not saying you have a dog by the way, I know you can take things personally... ). By your actions you show how you subscribe to the model.
'Objective' means based on observed facts, relating to material objects, actual existence or reality, not influenced by the emotions or prejudices. All good things and the method that a qualified group such as those mentioned would strive to attain.
Used in contrast to 'subjective' as in this context it also implies consensus opinion as distinct from individual opinion.
All of this does not mean that qualified objective bodies are incapable of error. this is impossible as they are built of error-prone units.
But all of this means that qualified objective bodies are far less likely to be in error than an individual.
In what seems to be an attempt to sow doubt about the knowability of anything due to human fallability you miss the error-correction that groups tend to apply to a decison making process. The point is NOT that it is perfect; no one said that. The point is that it is more reliable than individual unqualified subjective opinion.
By all means argue with this, but I don't see why you would as it is fairly self evident. But then I am an individual and my subjective assessment of your next action could well be wrong, as could your subjective assesment of whether groups of qualified decision makers who try to be subjective are less likely to be in error than unqualified subjective individuals.
It may be subject to group phenomena, but this does not remove the lower risk of error of groups of qualified decision makers who try to be subjective in comparison to unqualified subjective individuals.
If it contains a member who says, "There is no evidence for a Creator" is he qualified as an objective participant in the body, or has his stated bias disqualified him?
To avoid pointless semantic routines that result in more statements of the obvious I would say someone who said "There is no know evidence for a Creator that conforms to common scientific expectations and definitons of evidence" would be making a statement that was very difficult to disprove. IF a single member of a group IS biased, the error-correction offered by the descison making of a group protect the group's outcome from error; again, no one says perfectly, but a better average outcome than individual decision making.
Suppose another believes that a pink kangaroo named &*()785(&%&*^( from the star system Yxmalcan near the Kloznix nebula presses the shift key for him whenever he asks, but he has never said so to a single person, his pink kangaroo friend is a secret...is he qualified as an objective participant in this august assemblage? On what basis? Who qualifies him?
As you fail to specify the group's purpose it may be he is in a group where he IS qualified despite holding unprovable opinions in other areas. He could be a great member of a PTA, or prehaps an Antiques Expert sitting on a panel determining an insurance valuation. If the groups area of expertese is one where the secretly-held opinions stated by you would cause his decison making to be questionable, the error-correction offered by the decison making of a group protect the group's outcome from error; again, no one says perfectly, but a better average outcome than individual decision making.
Your "qualified body" is a variation on one my father used to an excess. As is your "court-of-law or science journal" farce. Here's his, I bet you can detect the similarity in style:
"If you took 100 people and..."
The 100 people always agreed with dear old dad. They were his imagination, of course, but they were always unaminous in their conclusions.
A rather shallow comparison; your dad was dealing with IMAGINARY groups; you state this yourself.
I was not saying "100 people agree with me". This is an appeal to the majority 'argumentum ad populum'.
I was saying "It doesn't matter what a single person thinks is evidence, it's what a qualified objective group would consider as evidence".
My examples were not imaginary or specific, just groups selected for the qualities of the decison making process they employ.
IF I was not comparing two things and saying one is better at determining an issue, I would be making an argument to authority 'ad verecundiam'. But I WAS comparing two things and in no way can it be said I was using a perfect solution fallacy or affirming the consequent. By all means show me where say 'objective qualified groups are inerrant, therefore a conclusion reached by a objective qualified group is inerrant'.
Only by taking what I say and running with it to an extreme can you reach the point where your accusation of fallcious argumentation STARTS to become valid. On top of this straw man argumentation (including deliberate re-phrasing of what I said to make your accusations seem valid) you equivocate LOTS and make an association fallacy. There's probably some ad hoc argumentation in there too, but I ain't reading it again, LOL. A major fault is your use of 'evidence', which you claim;
Evidence does not constitute proof
Which is funny as one major definiton of evidence is;
Something that furnishes proof (Mirriam-webster)
You also ignore that is something is not legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter (because it does not fit in with the rules for permissable evidence) it hasn't become evidence yet. Again, Mirriam-Webster.
But then if you actively EXCLUDE common definitons and insist testimony not-heard by a qualified objective group as it is not submittable as evidence IS evidence all the same in order to build a pocket-reality where your argument seems slightly more valid (ignoring the straw man's it was based on) it does make life easier I suppose...
It was the pendantic exclusion of common deinitons and the sloppy argumentation that made me think you might be taking this personally... I try not to to traduce someone by means of logical fallacy. It's just not elegant.
(1) Testimony is evidence which lends to a proposition. Anyone got a problem with that statement?
Yeah, I do. Testimony only becomes evidence to other parties when it is accepted as being submissable. What, never heard a judge say to a jury 'You will disregard the testimony of the witness, it's not submissable as evidence'?
(2) For some people, testimony alone may be sufficient evidence to prove a thing true. Anyone dispute this claim?
Yes, but whilst I do not dispute YOUR claim there are such people I would dispute the validity of such people's claims. So some people make claims I dispute the validity of... this gets us where exactly?
(3) Testimony which forms a body of evidence that proves a thing true to a specific person can properly be termed "proof" in any context outside of science. Anybody objecting so far?
Yes, loads. In additon to your above definiton not being proof in science it would not be proof in law. Wow, so testimony can be termed proof other than in two structures developed for the purpose of minimising error and determing facts. Nice way of putting it, thanks...
If not, why did anyone have a problem with me objecting to the demonstrably erroneous statement "There is no evidence for a Creator." The body of evidence may not compel Abaddon to believe, it may not be proof for him, but it is unquestionably evidence and it certainly exists.
Funny how you idolise subjectivity but elect to take a statement I make as not subjective (when you claim this is impossible) and insist on a special class of evidence (unknown evidence or mislabelled evidence) in order to find error in the statement when associated statements by me make it obvious the possibility of such evidence is implicitly accepted by the person who made the statement.
Doesn't it disturb you that the whole thread, as far as those supporting ID goes, consists of ad hoc arguments and semantics?
