Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sonix" data-source="post: 184713" data-attributes="member: 10954"><p>[USER=443]@Harte[/USER] , there are two ways that the word evidence might be used in the context of a crime scene:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Facts or artifacts that might possibly later have relevance to the solution of the crime (as in a detective saying "Get all this evidence collected before anything is moved"). This use of the word evidence often includes facts or artifacts that turn out to have no bearing on the crime. For example, hair from a dog brought with a visiting relative that has been out of state for the last month would be evidence of this sort, collected with the rest, evidence from the crime scene but not evidence of the crime.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Facts or artifacts that have relevance to the solution of the crime. Blood on the carpet would be considered evidence of a possible crime. As you correctly note (and incorrectly suggest we are arguing differently), this evidence is not proof of a crime. It is merely an indicator of crime as one possible interpretation of the fact or artifact. The hair of the dog of the first definition is not evidence of this sort. Even if someone mistakes the dog hair as the hair of a human suspect and thinks it is evidence of the second sort, that means the person is mistaken, not that it is evidence of the second sort simply because they believe so. There is no possible interpretation of a one-month-old dog hair that makes it pertinent to determining whether a murder was committed or not, so it is not evidence of the second sort.</li> </ol><p></p><p>In regards to taking a reasonable stance on reported or experienced paranormal events, you must agree it is evidence of the second sort that should be considered. If someone mistakenly thinks their house is haunted because of chills and vibrations experienced and it is discovered the house has drafts and rattles every time the train goes by simultaneously with the person yelling "See! A ghost! The rattles! The chills!", surely you would recognize this as evidence of the first type and not the second type, because you determine they are mistaken and there is no evidence for anything other than drafts and trains. Similarly, if the crime lab tests, from the collected evidence (of the first sort), what appeared to be blood only to find it was spilled red wine, it would not be considered evidence of the second sort. They would say, "We thought maybe someone bled on the carpet but we were mistaken - it turned out to be wine", not "We found wine on the carpet and consider it evidence that someone bled there".</p><p></p><p>The point that some of us have been trying to make is that there is such a thing as absence of evidence being evidence of absence - that is the case whenever your search exhausts the the context that you are speaking of ("there are no red marbles in the bucket because I checked the entire bucket"). If your search exhausts the context, if your sample equals the entirety of what you are evaluating, this is evidence of the second sort. To suggest that exhausting the bucket and finding it void of red marbles is evidence regarding the presence or non-presence of red marbles elsewhere is just mistaken, making it evidence of the first sort and not relevant to any serious discussion of the topic of paranormal events other than how people make mistakes in their reasoning regarding evidence - whether for or against.</p><p></p><p>Even with the "haunted" house, discovering that the person's claims of chills and rattles correspond to drafts and passing trains does not provide evidence that there are no ghosts in the house - it simply dismisses what that person thought was evidence for there being ghosts there. One might reasonably say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and disbelieve there are ghosts there" but to say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and that is evidence that there are no such things as ghosts" is a fallacy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sonix, post: 184713, member: 10954"] [USER=443]@Harte[/USER] , there are two ways that the word evidence might be used in the context of a crime scene: [LIST="1"] [*]Facts or artifacts that might possibly later have relevance to the solution of the crime (as in a detective saying "Get all this evidence collected before anything is moved"). This use of the word evidence often includes facts or artifacts that turn out to have no bearing on the crime. For example, hair from a dog brought with a visiting relative that has been out of state for the last month would be evidence of this sort, collected with the rest, evidence from the crime scene but not evidence of the crime. [*]Facts or artifacts that have relevance to the solution of the crime. Blood on the carpet would be considered evidence of a possible crime. As you correctly note (and incorrectly suggest we are arguing differently), this evidence is not proof of a crime. It is merely an indicator of crime as one possible interpretation of the fact or artifact. The hair of the dog of the first definition is not evidence of this sort. Even if someone mistakes the dog hair as the hair of a human suspect and thinks it is evidence of the second sort, that means the person is mistaken, not that it is evidence of the second sort simply because they believe so. There is no possible interpretation of a one-month-old dog hair that makes it pertinent to determining whether a murder was committed or not, so it is not evidence of the second sort. [/LIST] In regards to taking a reasonable stance on reported or experienced paranormal events, you must agree it is evidence of the second sort that should be considered. If someone mistakenly thinks their house is haunted because of chills and vibrations experienced and it is discovered the house has drafts and rattles every time the train goes by simultaneously with the person yelling "See! A ghost! The rattles! The chills!", surely you would recognize this as evidence of the first type and not the second type, because you determine they are mistaken and there is no evidence for anything other than drafts and trains. Similarly, if the crime lab tests, from the collected evidence (of the first sort), what appeared to be blood only to find it was spilled red wine, it would not be considered evidence of the second sort. They would say, "We thought maybe someone bled on the carpet but we were mistaken - it turned out to be wine", not "We found wine on the carpet and consider it evidence that someone bled there". The point that some of us have been trying to make is that there is such a thing as absence of evidence being evidence of absence - that is the case whenever your search exhausts the the context that you are speaking of ("there are no red marbles in the bucket because I checked the entire bucket"). If your search exhausts the context, if your sample equals the entirety of what you are evaluating, this is evidence of the second sort. To suggest that exhausting the bucket and finding it void of red marbles is evidence regarding the presence or non-presence of red marbles elsewhere is just mistaken, making it evidence of the first sort and not relevant to any serious discussion of the topic of paranormal events other than how people make mistakes in their reasoning regarding evidence - whether for or against. Even with the "haunted" house, discovering that the person's claims of chills and rattles correspond to drafts and passing trains does not provide evidence that there are no ghosts in the house - it simply dismisses what that person thought was evidence for there being ghosts there. One might reasonably say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and disbelieve there are ghosts there" but to say "I've seen no evidence of ghosts there and that is evidence that there are no such things as ghosts" is a fallacy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Ghosts, Haunting & Beings from other Realms
Believers or skeptics
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top