What do people on here mean by "verifiable evidence"? Does it involve a notary office? What is this great verification process they speak of?
Surely the non-religious people who answer questions on here are not stuck in some kind of childish pre-Popperian positivism..?
It's perhaps no wonder that the current remedies for the cancer that is Christianity are not really working, if this is the level people are at..?
Religious people shouldn't expect to understand this question, but my point is that outspoken atheists should educate themselves concerning how science is done, and what the pitfalls are - if there is to be any hope for a better future.
- DerekLv 52 months agoFavorite Answer
Popper made some good points about that. Science cannot answer ‘ultimate questions’ was a main point. It cannot solve the riddles of existence, or man’s task in this world. What science is good at is forming hypotheses about material things and gathering evidence for, or against the proposed idea. There must be the possibility of showing the idea to be false before it can eventually be accepted as correct. Without this element of ‘falsification’, the idea can only ever be a theory that cannot be proven. Popper recognised in his ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’ (2002) that the formulation of hypotheses required a creative process for which he had no theory at all. But without the constraint of the real world to guide it, scientific imagination has no control. It can only fragment into thousands of possible accounts of reality, while the truth becomes all the more obscured. It is the severe confrontation of creative imagination with the constraint of observation and experiment that together produce the wonderful and dynamic field of the sciences. Good science is not just cold logic.
Let me quote from a scientist in the book below, where he explains the role of Carl Popper in all of this. “Popper portrays us [scientists] as working continuously to find evidence that refutes our current hypotheses, then when it does so, cleanly discarding them and proposing new ones. His balefully negative view arises, admittedly logically, from the general nature of scientific theory: our task is to deduce universals that apply to every conceivable specific instance… So for Popper one never proves a scientific law (he is right there, ‘scientific proof’ is another mythical beast in an imaginary conceptual zoo, on view in the cage next to the one for ‘scientific method’). One may, however, and at one stroke, disprove it.
“Even mainstream commentators on science have pointed out the severe shortcomings of Popper’s analysis. Logical it may be, but the continual striving to prove one’s own ideas incorrect finds no innate human energies on which to draw. Even at the level of scientific community, where rivalry might be tapped to drive the drama of refutation and counter-hypothesis, the real story is far more complex for two important reasons. First, Popper is silent on the provenance of the hypotheses themselves, yet without their coming into being there is no theory even to refute. Second, many subsequent critics have pointed out that even at the heart of the action – the act of refutation of a hypothesis – is a far more slippery affair in practice than in principle. Confronted with new data that do not quite ‘fit’ a theory, it is usually far simpler to modify some of its assumptions, change the value of a parameter, build in a new effect, than to ditch the entire edifice.”
Faith & Wisdom in Science by Tom McLeish, pp 199 & 244 (Oxford, 2014)
I hope you don't mind me, a Christian person, providing this info for the benefit of religious and scientific people alike.
- RicardoLv 72 months ago
What do people on here mean by "verifiable evidence"?
- Anything that would not be laughed out of any legitimate court on this planet.
- bender_xr217Lv 72 months ago
Something reliably testable, such as an experiment that can be performed many times by many independent individuals that nets similar results despite any bias those individuals may have prior to performing the experiment.
- VeschengroLv 62 months ago
proof in one word..........
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CharlesLv 52 months ago
You can put two apples on a table. Then you can put two oranges on the same table. Then if you count them, you get 4 pieces of fruit, but it would be wrong to say you have four apples or four oranges on the table.
- canadacraigLv 72 months ago
You truly are an arrogant, ignorant pos.
- BuddyLv 62 months ago
Something you don't have to already believe in order to work.
Something that always gives the same results when tested even if the person testing it doesn't want those results.
You may not want to believe that I have ten thousand dollars in my pocket, but if I pull ten thousand dollars out of my pocket and show it to you I've offered verifiable evidence that I had ten thousand dollars in my pocket.
Pull out a god and show it to us; that would be verifiable evidence.
- Space WaspLv 62 months ago
'Verifiable evidence' is an evidence that can be confirmed by an independent person.
It really is that simple.
For example, independent scientists can repeat experiments that other scientists have conducted to confirm whether the results that are claimed are actually obtained.
- EverardLv 62 months ago
Verifiable evidence would be evidence outside of bibel because let's face it, bibel is all they have to back up their fantasies.
Evidence like a reports from a few contemporaries would be a start.
- 2 months ago
they mean evidence that someone with more power and influence than them tells them is true.