• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sufficient Evidence

GreatNews2night said:
Haven't you noticed that if this is what you think, then you should have said, yes, it is subjective?
You said NO (meaning, it is not subjective, therefore it is objective, clear-cut, not dependent on personal interpretation, factual, reality-based, black-on-white...), and then you go and say that people will interpret it the way they want and will never be satisfied... that is, people will interpret it in a subjective way.
Click to expand...

Wrong...it is objective, not open to personal interpretation...sufficient evidence leads to one conclusion...
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...it is objective, not open to personal interpretation...sufficient evidence leads to one conclusion...
Click to expand...

It *should* lead to one conclusion, but then *you* indicated that it doesn't, that people still interpret it the way they want and are never satisfied.
So, these people, instead of seeing it objectively, are seeing it subjectively, that is, from the standpoint of the subject, the person, not from the standpoint of the object, the data.
So, there was a contradiction in your phrasing.
 
Dragonfly said:
Is this a true statement:



If your answer is yes, then how or why would you ever expect or suggest that what's "sufficient" for you, should be equally "sufficient" for somebody else?

If your answer is no, please explain.
Click to expand...

Yes it's a true statement. Sufficient is subjective. We're going camping, it might rain but I have matches. You argue what if the matches get wet? I say they won't and that should be a sufficient enough answer that I think they won't get wet. I think owning three firearms and having a hundred rounds of ammo is sufficient but I'm not a gun owner. I think people worth over ten million should pay higher taxes because they have sufficient money. Sufficient evidence is not concrete and should be challenged.
 
GreatNews2night said:
It *should* lead to one conclusion, but then *you* indicated that it doesn't, that people still interpret it the way they want and are never satisfied.
So, these people, instead of seeing it objectively, are seeing it subjectively, that is, from the standpoint of the subject, the person, not from the standpoint of the object, the data.
So, there was a contradiction in your phrasing.
Click to expand...

Through no fault of the evidence...some people are just dumb that way...
 
Elvira said:
Through no fault of the evidence...some people are just dumb that way...
Click to expand...

OK, but a set of data only has meaning once it's interpreted. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is inserted, for example, into a legal procedure, that of a trial. If the people doing the interpretation are doing it subjectively...

An analogy: a virus is often inert, even at times subsisting in crystal form, if it is not interacting with a living cell. Once it does interact with it, then it becomes in a sense alive... starts reproducing genetic material or altering the host cell. If the virus infects certain cells - like the HIV infecting lymphocytes - it might do a lot of damage, while if it infects other cells, it may stay dormant, with the host becoming a carrier, but not sick. Same inert virus, becomes active when it interacts, two different cells, two different results.

The evidence on its own has no meaning... it's just an inert piece of data. When you make it interact with prosecutors, juries, defense lawyers, judges... then the matter of how convincing it is will come into play, and it will acquire meaning. That meaning resides in the heads of the people considering the evidence, like a jury. They will call it sufficient to create certainty of guilt, or insufficient, therefore leaving space for reasonable doubt, because people will have different (and subjective) thresholds for what they consider convincing. Not to forget, defense lawyers and prosecutors will deal with the same objective evidence, and do their best to subjectively make it different, to fit their purposes, usually in a very opposite way.

And the thing is, the exact same set of evidence might be interpreted differently by a different set of jurors, thus jury selection (when lawyers try to pick jurors likely to be most favorable to their side).

Say there is a mistrial aborting one trial, the case is tried again, so the same evidence is presented to two sets of jurors.

Even though you're calling it objective, it might be subjectively interpreted quite differently by those two sets of jurors; one for example inclined to consider the defender guilty, another one rather esteeming the defender not guilty.

Same evidence, leading to two different conclusions... once it interacts with the different (and subjective) psychological make-up of those people.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
OK, but a set of data only has meaning once it's interpreted. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is inserted, for example, into a legal procedure, that of a trial. If the people doing the interpretation are doing it subjectively...

An analogy: a virus is often inert, even at times subsisting in crystal form, if it is not interacting with a living cell. Once it does interact with it, then it becomes in a sense alive... starts reproducing genetic material or altering the host cell. If the virus infects certain cells - like the HIV infecting lymphocytes - it might do a lot of damage, while if it infects other cells, it may stay dormant, with the host becoming a carrier, but not sick. Same inert virus, becomes active when it interacts, two different cells, two different results.

The evidence on its own has no meaning... it's just an inert piece of data. When you make it interact with prosecutors, juries, defense lawyers, judges... then the matter of how convincing it is will come into play, and it will acquire meaning. That meaning resides in the heads of the people considering the evidence, like a jury. They will call it sufficient to create certainty of guilt, or insufficient, therefore leaving space for reasonable doubt, because people will have different (and subjective) thresholds for what they consider convincing.

And the thing is, the exact same set of evidence might be interpreted differently by a different set of jurors, thus jury selection (when lawyers try to pick jurors likely to be most favorable to their side).

Say there is a mistrial aborting one trial, the case is tried again, so the same evidence is presented to two sets of jurors.

Even though you're calling it objective, it might be subjectively interpreted quite differently by those two sets of jurors; one for example inclined to consider the defender guilty, another one rather esteeming the defender not guilty.

Same evidence, leading to two different conclusions... once it interacts with the different (and subjective) psychological make-up of those people.
Click to expand...

Wrong again...evidence presented to a jury has much more to do with the way it is presented, than with the evidence itself...example, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"...sufficient evidence leads to only one conclusion...otherwise, it would not be sufficient but only evidence...
 
Elvira said:
Wrong again...evidence presented to a jury has much more to do with the way it is presented, than with the evidence itself...example, "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"...sufficient evidence leads to only one conclusion...otherwise, it would not be sufficient but only evidence...
Click to expand...

Great, so why have juries? The evidence will always point to one inevitable conclusion, according to you.
If an evidence opens the door to looking different according to the way it is presented, then it's not that objective and clear-cut to start with, right?
I know you'll say "wrong" - but it isn't.
Anyway, we'll be going in circles. You'll dig in, and not budge. I won't, either, so let's just agree to disagree.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Great, so why have juries? The evidence will always point to one inevitable conclusion, according to you.
If an evidence opens the door to looking different according to the way it is presented, then it's not that objective and clear-cut to start with, right?
I know you'll say "wrong" - but it isn't.
Anyway, we'll be going in circles. You'll dig in, and not budge. I won't, either, so let's just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Nope, sufficient...that makes the difference...there's lots of evidence that is insufficient to be able to reach an objective conclusion...
 
Elvira said:
Nope, sufficient...that makes the difference...there's lots of evidence that is insufficient to be able to reach an objective conclusion...
Click to expand...

Sufficient or insufficient, it's in the eyes of the beholder...
What is sufficient for someone, is not, for someone else.
Which is precisely why there is a jury that is not made of one person, but rather, 12, to provide for nuances and discussion, in the hope of eventually reaching a conclusion they all can live with.
It's all very far from clear-cut like you pretend.

But anyway, I had already said, let's agree to disagree, but you, as I predicted, wouldn't budge. It's kind of like this, when people only think in black-and-white terms.

Life is more complex than that.
 
Last edited:
GreatNews2night said:
Sufficient or insufficient, it's in the eyes of the beholder...
What is sufficient for someone, is not, for someone else.
Which is precisely why there is a jury that is not made of one person, but rather, 12, to provide for nuances and discussion, in the hope of eventually reaching a conclusion they all can live with.
It's all very far from clear-cut like you pretend.

But anyway, I had already said, let's agree to disagree, but you, as I predicted, wouldn't budge.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it wasn't for that nasty word sufficient...:2razz:...agree to disagree...;)
 
Elvira said:
Yeah, if it wasn't for that nasty word sufficient...:2razz:...agree to disagree...;)
Click to expand...

You're stuck in semantics, without understanding that meaning is not fixed, but rather, variable, as established by Linguistics and Semiotics.
 
Elvira said:
Wrong...it is objective, not open to personal interpretation...sufficient evidence leads to one conclusion...
Click to expand...

That is a very challenging assertion. Let's see if you can show that to be true. In fact, as far as I can see, since the same so called evidence has lead so many people to so many different conclusions, that is substantial evidence to say that statement is falsified.
 
Elvira said:
Through no fault of the evidence...some people are just dumb that way...
Click to expand...

Elvira, you have given at least a good handful of people here sufficient evidence to conclude you have a complete and total misunderstanding of the word sufficient.

Is that a subjective statement?
 
Dragonfly said:
Elvira, you have given at least a good handful of people here sufficient evidence to conclude you have a complete and total misunderstanding of the word sufficient.

Is that a subjective statement?
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly...it's the OP who misused the word...
 
Elvira said:
I understand it perfectly...it's the OP who misused the word...
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

We have sufficient evidence you clearly do not understand it.

Since your definition of sufficient is that it's not subjective, then you must conclude that statement is true.
 
Dragonfly said:
Don't these two comments contradict each other? :thinking
Click to expand...

No, the second statement attempts to address what is meant by the single word sufficient. Nothing is ever perfectly objective or subjective; there is a range in both directions. Sufficient implies that no more is needed. But it is not the same as perfect.
 
Dragonfly said:
Did you answer the question?

Is "sufficient evidence" subjective?
Click to expand...

No, 'sufficient' is not subjective. To be 'sufficient' or enough/adequate, evidence must be both subjective and objective collectively. The two should be the bar by which conclusions are draw, not merely one or the other.
 
HumblePi said:
No, 'sufficient' is not subjective. To be 'sufficient' or enough/adequate, evidence must be both subjective and objective collectively. The two should be the bar by which conclusions are draw, not merely one or the other.
Click to expand...

Can we conclude that there is no objective evidence for the existence of any god?
 
HumblePi said:
No, 'sufficient' is not subjective.
Click to expand...

It all truly depends on the context of what we're applying "sufficient" to doesn't it?

What is sufficient for you to believe something does not determine what's sufficient for me.

Right?
 
zyzygy said:
Can we conclude that there is no objective evidence for the existence of any god?
Click to expand...

There is no observable, testable, verifiable evidence of anything that people call god.
 
Dragonfly said:
Therefore there is not sufficient evidence a god(s) exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. Evidence has certain criteria that must be met. Personal stories and claims are not evidence at all if they cannot be independently verified.
 
Dragonfly said:
No, you don't.

We have sufficient evidence you clearly do not understand it.

Since your definition of sufficient is that it's not subjective, then you must conclude that statement is true.
Click to expand...

Very clever, dragonfly! You used her own argumentation against her point, in a very demonstrative way! Bravo!
 
Testing Testing 123 ............ 123 ....... DNA < the fingerprints of God

 
Oh, indeed ..... the sufficient evidence is all around and even in our face ... God has deemed it so
the only way not to see it, is to not WANT to see it

because that which is known about God is evident within them .. for God made it evident to them .... Romans 1:19
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom