Evidence, Argument and Experience: How Does This Work in Philosophy?

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I am opening this thread is because in every one which I have written recently, the issue of evidence versus speculation is being raised almost daily. It may be a bit different in forum discussion to academic writing, because it is not as if there are clear guidelines. There is flexibility, which from my point of view is good in allowing for diversity, but at times it creates problems when people are looking for objective arguments. There are two threads currently looking at science but the reason I am creating this is because it may be that philosophy is not simply a matter of relating to science, but needs to be multidisciplinary.

The history of philosophy includes many thinkers who came from a different angle than science. Plato, Kant and Schopenhauer wrote previous to the 'evidence- based' approach often adopted within academic thinking. In reading and researching philosophy, I wonder how the discrepancies can be juggled, such as evidence based science and the hermeneutics of the arts. As I see it, the various approaches are based on different models, incorporating empirical observations, analysis and interpretation. It is also important to ask where does personal experience and reflection fit into the picture because it has an influence, even to the biases of areas of reading and focus. I am asking about the way in which the various sources of ideas are considered and evaluated. Is the distinction between objective 'evidence' and subjective understanding relevant in the pursuit of philosophical 'truth'?

I know that truth is an ambiguous concept, but an underlying aspect may be how is it found subjectively? Is this independent from the discipline of philosophy and logic, or rationality? In this respect there are cultural aspects of philosophy and that of the individual and how may these overlap?

That is because human beings are part of shared search for meaning and also trying to navigate this personally within the cultural contexts of knowledge. As individuals, within social frameworks, how may evidence and personal ideas be put together in a constructive, or even reconstructive way? That is because each person has a unique perspective or quest, or are people less free in the ideas which they interact with and develop. Tracing the basis of ideas in a cultural context, and how this interacts with personal experience, may be a basis for understanding one's own philosophy views and arguments.

[stevie]

The reason why I am opening this thread is because in every one which I have written recently, the issue of evidence versus speculation is being raised almost daily.

which is great if one is interested in progress, right?

That is because human beings are part of shared search for meaning and also trying to navigate this personally within the cultural contexts of knowledge. As individuals, within social frameworks, how may evidence and personal ideas be put together in a constructive, or even reconstructive way? That is because each person has a unique perspective or quest, or are people less free in the ideas which they interact with and develop. Tracing the basis of ideas in a cultural context, and how this interacts with personal experience, may be a basis for understanding one's own philosophy views and arguments.

All nicely put. But maybe mankind has arrived at a point where individual fantasies, emotions and musings are to be accepted as inferior to scientific evidence?

[JackDaydream]

The reason why I am opening this thread is because in every one which I have written recently, the issue of evidence versus speculation is being raised almost daily.

which is great if one is interested in progress, right?

That is because human beings are part of shared search for meaning and also trying to navigate this personally within the cultural contexts of knowledge. As individuals, within social frameworks, how may evidence and personal ideas be put together in a constructive, or even reconstructive way? That is because each person has a unique perspective or quest, or are people less free in the ideas which they interact with and develop. Tracing the basis of ideas in a cultural context, and how this interacts with personal experience, may be a basis for understanding one's own philosophy views and arguments.

All nicely put. But maybe mankind has arrived at a point where individual fantasies, emotions and musings are to be accepted as inferior to scientific evidence?

It depends what you mean by inferior and the context of judging. If it is about understanding the way something works, like the brain or the nervous system accurate knowledge based on research findings as evidence is essential. Understanding of biochemistry for example is essential to medicine. Evidence for how certain medical treatments is important. Also, archaeology is central to understanding of ancient history.

The complication comes more with understanding of psychology and social life and the way in which evidence is constructed. In psychology there was the experimental method and that has its limitations. Research about social life is also bound up with values. Even within the physical sciences there is the role of the participant observer, which involves the way in which the observer has a role in determining the outcome, making the process not objective.

Generally, there is the whole notion of what is described as evidence based research. This is important for substantiating claims. However, the more detailed level of analysis of the evidence is crucial, as opposed to mere citing of research. Also, it is important for there to be full critical thinking about the implications of evidence, which requires interpretation.

The question of evidence in relation to philosophy is likely to be about how philosophy is able to draw upon research. For example, in understanding how the brain works it is possible to draw upon understanding of neuroscience. But, the question does of course come down to the limitations of evidence.

In terms of values, and meaning, that is where the role of the arts comes in and analysis of ideas. Ethics and aesthetics cannot be examined through evidence because they are conceptually based.

Also, it is likely that evidence is able to refine the process of understanding ideas which were discovered in the past. When reading the works of great philosophers it is important to be aware that they were writing in a very different era, but does this mean that their ideas are not relevant any longer. Many are turning to ancient writers, including Neoplatism, for wisdom. Evidence can provide a basis for how the material reality works but cannot go beyond that. To rule out any areas which are beyond the physical would be a simple matter of adherence to materialism. That may be where the whole nature of the human imagination comes in. Understanding of the self involves the inner world and this source is important within philosophy and how experience is interpreted. Is the subjective world merely an aspect of personal experience or is this subjective world part of the basis of understanding reality? This may be where the difference of philosophy as arguments and human meanings comes into play. However, they are interconnected by shared meanings, the intersubjective world. Also, people draw upon the arts for inspiration and if philosophy does not draw upon this dimensions it can become rather dull. Many ideas, even philosophy, may be expressed in fiction and some important philosophers also wrote fiction, including Camus, Sartre and Iris Murdoch. Fiction and the arts may be able to reach a level of 'truth' which cannot be found in mere examination of evidence.

[Gee]

JackDaydream;

You are all over the place with your questions and ideas, but I think you might want to consider some simple truths.

1. Something is objective when a consensus of subjective opinions agrees that it is objective, so objectivity is dependent upon subjective opinion.

2. Without basic truths, facts can not be established, so facts depend upon truths in order to exist.

3. Evidence has no meaning without interpretation.

4. The saying, "Science is a child of philosophy." does not mean that science is an advanced new development of philosophy, it means that science is a dependent of philosophy. When philosophy is removed from science, science turns into garbage.

5. People argue that imagination is philosophy's greatest weakness, but sometimes forget that confirmation bias is science's greatest weakness.

6. Stevie likes to pull your chain because you let him. IMO

Gee

[JackDaydream]

JackDaydream;

You are all over the place with your questions and ideas, but I think you might want to consider some simple truths.

1. Something is objective when a consensus of subjective opinions agrees that it is objective, so objectivity is dependent upon subjective opinion.

2. Without basic truths, facts can not be established, so facts depend upon truths in order to exist.

3. Evidence has no meaning without interpretation.

4. The saying, "Science is a child of philosophy." does not mean that science is an advanced new development of philosophy, it means that science is a dependent of philosophy. When philosophy is removed from science, science turns into garbage.

5. People argue that imagination is philosophy's greatest weakness, but sometimes forget that confirmation bias is science's greatest weakness.

6. Stevie likes to pull your chain because you let him. IMO

Gee

I am sure that I am a bit 'over the top' with all my questions. It is because I spend so much time reading. Philosophy became my way of life during lockdown and I am still finding it hard to stop pursuing as if I am a student.

In response to your points, the main thing about objectivity in relation to other shared objective truths, that is the most common measure. Aspects of reality are tested by consensus. If one sees or hears things that others hear, they are often confirmed. The person who sees a policeman in the room when no one else can be regarded as delusional. The only problem with this kind of objective confirmation may be where it extends to group interpretations, leading to public consensus of ideas about reality, including some religious dogmas and political ideas. People may look for 'objective' ideas rather than developing independence of thought.

As far imagination and interpretation, this can be almost like the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of philosophy. Unconsciously, as intuition it may hover below the threshold of thought, but affecting a person profoundly. In particular, what is seen on television and what music is listened to may act like a hidden subtext to daily life.

However, imagination and its development is extremely important to consciousness, as well as science. It was really this notion that lead me to write this thread. I could see that two new threads had been written on science. It seems lopsided when science gets all the attention, so I wanted to look more at other sources of 'truth'. The role of symbolism is often underplayed in discussion of philosophy and it is extremely important, especially as human beings may often think in images rather than just words.

[ernestm]

One only has to look at the lionfish to see the amazing evidence for evolution. The red lionfish has poisonous barbs, so it is colored brightly in order that predators avoid it. Also there are members of the red lionfish species which are actually blue, still same species, but no worries, obviously the blue color is camouflage. Evolution has explanations for everything so who can deny the evidence for it.

[Gee]

I am sure that I am a bit 'over the top' with all my questions. It is because I spend so much time reading. Philosophy became my way of life during lockdown and I am still finding it hard to stop pursuing as if I am a student.

Well, there are certainly worse ways to spend lockdown. You write interesting threads and the diversity is probably helpful in garnering more responses, but I like to focus on a single idea and take it to a conclusion.

In response to your points, the main thing about objectivity in relation to other shared objective truths, that is the most common measure. Aspects of reality are tested by consensus. If one sees or hears things that others hear, they are often confirmed. The person who sees a policeman in the room when no one else can be regarded as delusional. The only problem with this kind of objective confirmation may be where it extends to group interpretations, leading to public consensus of ideas about reality, including some religious dogmas and political ideas. People may look for 'objective' ideas rather than developing independence of thought.

Regarding the sentence above that I underlined, the person can be seen as delusional or deceitful. If I walk into a room where a dead man is on the floor, a man that I hate and everyone knows it, and I pick up the gun that is laying next to him because guns should not be on the floor, it could prove disastrous. If anyone sees me, I could be prosecuted for murder. I would be innocent, but could still become a convicted killer. The evidence would support this idea as there is not only the court evidence, but also the conviction and sentencing to validate that I am indeed a killer. Truth is subjective, so it can not always be determined through objective evidence. This is a problem that science has and because they know this, they tend to test over and over, which actually gives more and more evidence, which becomes a circular argument. This is why I stated that science's greatest weakness is confirmation bias.

When the majority of people, or a culture, believes something to be true, when it is not, it becomes more problematic. I recently learned about the Doctor's Plague, which I found in Wiki. This covered about 200 years in the 1700's and 1800's where the deaths of thousands of women and babies were ignored because it was impossible to believe that doctors were actually spreading a contagion that was causing birthing fever. It was easier to believe that women were just weak. No one believed that intelligent, educated, gentlemen doctors were actually spreading death because they were dirty. Once they realized that they were indeed spreading germs, they washed up and then reasoned that the women needed to be shaved in the pubic area because they were the ones, who were not clean. So for 50 or 60 years, women were shaved before giving birth, which was just great as they had the stitches, the new growth, and all the rest that came with delivering a baby to deal with. It did not occur to the doctors that females of many species filled up the world without being shaved.

These are the kinds of things that the scientific method does not address -- philosophy is required to keep science valid.

As far imagination and interpretation, this can be almost like the missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of philosophy. Unconsciously, as intuition it may hover below the threshold of thought, but affecting a person profoundly. In particular, what is seen on television and what music is listened to may act like a hidden subtext to daily life.

Yes. People think that religion affects our thinking, but so does television and music and culture in general. Everything that we believe affects our thinking -- even our belief in science.

However, imagination and its development is extremely important to consciousness, as well as science. It was really this notion that lead me to write this thread. I could see that two new threads had been written on science. It seems lopsided when science gets all the attention, so I wanted to look more at other sources of 'truth'. The role of symbolism is often underplayed in discussion of philosophy and it is extremely important, especially as human beings may often think in images rather than just words.

Einstein thought that imagination was very important, and I think he was a science guy.

One of our best sources of truth is observation. I have read a great deal about evidence and speculation and imagination, but very little about observation. Years ago I was posting at a science forum and talking about how plants will respond to the sun. One of the members asked where I got my information because he did not know of any science that supported that idea. I told him that it was not science, it was housekeeping. When you go through your house cleaning, you will find that some plants will turn to the sun, so while dusting the furniture, you turn the plant so the pretties will show inside.

Gee

[Gee]

One only has to look at the lionfish to see the amazing evidence for evolution. The red lionfish has poisonous barbs, so it is colored brightly in order that predators avoid it. Also there are members of the red lionfish species which are actually blue, still same species, but no worries, obviously the blue color is camouflage. Evolution has explanations for everything so who can deny the evidence for it.

Thank you for that fine example of confirmation bias.

Or did you mean to say that all brightly colored species are poisonous? Peacocks, butterflies, birds, my calico cat?

Gee

[JackDaydream]

One only has to look at the lionfish to see the amazing evidence for evolution. The red lionfish has poisonous barbs, so it is colored brightly in order that predators avoid it. Also there are members of the red lionfish species which are actually blue, still same species, but no worries, obviously the blue color is camouflage. Evolution has explanations for everything so who can deny the evidence for it.

The idea of evolution as evidence is interesting. It may be that change; as encountered by observation through the senses is as important as evidence through science, taking this back to the nature of experience itself as the raw data of understanding in philosophy.

[ernestm]

One only has to look at the lionfish to see the amazing evidence for evolution. The red lionfish has poisonous barbs, so it is colored brightly in order that predators avoid it. Also there are members of the red lionfish species which are actually blue, still same species, but no worries, obviously the blue color is camouflage. Evolution has explanations for everything so who can deny the evidence for it.

The idea of evolution as evidence is interesting. It may be that change; as encountered by observation through the senses is as important as evidence through science, taking this back to the nature of experience itself as the raw data of understanding in philosophy.

Indeed. Evolution is so powerful a theory that it supplies two entirely opposing selection forces to create two entirely differently colored fish in the same species. In the face of such power, who could possibly be so idiotic as to think it might not be the only explanation for species variation.

[Pattern-chaser]

[M]aybe mankind has arrived at a point where individual fantasies, emotions and musings are to be accepted as inferior to scientific evidence?

Or maybe mankind has arrived at a point where individual fantasies, emotions and musings can be accepted for what they are, on their own merits? Such things have little to do with scientific evidence, to the extent that it is difficult to see why one should be compared to the other. Are petals inferior to hypersonic missiles?

"Individual fantasies, emotions and musings" have value to humans. If we aim to produce philosophy and science that is relevant and useful to human beings, should we not take account of human values - along with a near-infinite number of other things - in our philosophical and scientific journeying?

[EricPH]

Indeed. Evolution is so powerful a theory that it supplies two entirely opposing selection forces to create two entirely differently colored fish in the same species.

Colour does not seem to be a big deal, Africans are dark skinned and Europeans are light skinned.

In the face of such power, who could possibly be so idiotic as to think it might not be the only explanation for species variation.

Starting from single cell life, how did any species first evolve with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons?

[Pattern-chaser]

Starting from single cell life, how did any species first evolve with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons?

One step at a time. Not forgetting that each intermediate 'stage' must be viable, able to survive and to reproduce.

[LuckyR]

Starting from single cell life, how did any species first evolve with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons?

One step at a time. Not forgetting that each intermediate 'stage' must be viable, able to survive and to reproduce.

A lot can happen in 3.75 billion years...

[JackDaydream]

Starting from single cell life, how did any species first evolve with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons?

One step at a time. Not forgetting that each intermediate 'stage' must be viable, able to survive and to reproduce.

A lot can happen in 3.75 billion years...

One book which is relevant to the discussion in your post and a couple of other posts is, 'What is Life? ' by Paul Nurse (2021), which looks at evolution and natural selection in relation to arguments about chance and necessity. Nurse suggests that,
'We know that complex life forms endowed with a sense of purpose can be generated without a designer of any kind, and that is due to natural selection.'.
He goes on to say that it is a creative process, 'just as wonderful as any of the creation myths'. In arguing this way he is paying attention to evidence but in his interpretation he is not reducing the process to insignificance. He also pays attention to Darwin's attention to the beauty underlying the process. The reason why I think that this is of significance is because sometimes evidence can be used in such a way as to dismiss 'life' itself as if it can be explained away in the language of theory rather than being aware of complexity and the many minute changes and microdetails which have lead to current lifeforms, including human beings.