What makes the thing you’re pointing at different than just “deduction” or “logic”?
You have empirical evidence.
You use the empirical evidence to generate a theory edifice, and further evidence has so far supported it. (induction)
You use the theory to make a prediction (deduction), but that is not itself evidence, it only feels like it because we aren’t logically omniscient and didn’t already know what our theory implied. Whatever probability our prediction has comes from the theory, which gets its predictive value from the empirical evidence that went into creating and testing it.
The early discussions about mask effectiveness during COVID were often between people not trained in physics at all, that just wasn’t part of their thinking process, so a physics-based response was new evidence because of the empirical evidence behind the relevant physics. Also, there were lots of people talking past each other because “mask,” “use,” and “effective” are all underspecified terms that don’t allow for simple yes/no answers at the level of discourse we seem able to publicly support as a society, and institutions don’t usually bother trying to make subtler points to the public for historical, legal, and psychological reasons (that we may or may not agree with in specific cases or in general).
What makes the thing you’re pointing at different than just “deduction” or “logic”?
Good question. Maybe one of those is the correct term for what I am pointing at.
You use the theory to make a prediction (deduction), but that is not itself evidence, it only feels like it because we aren’t logically omniscient and didn’t already know what our theory implied. Whatever probability our prediction has comes from the theory, which gets its predictive value from the empirical evidence that went into creating and testing it.
I may be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but it sounds to me like you are saying that evidence is only in the territory, not in our maps. Consider the example of how the existence of gravity would imply that aerosol particles containing covid will eventually fall towards the ground, and so the concentration of such particles will decrease as you get further from the source. My understanding of what you’re saying is that gravity, the theory, isn’t evidence. Apples falling from a tree, the empirical observations that allowed us to construct the theory of gravity, that is the actual evidence.
But this would violate how the term is currently used. It seems normal to me to say that gravity is evidence that aerosol particles will dissipate as they get further from their source. In the sense that it feels correct, and in the sense that I recall hearing other people use the term that way.
Then maybe I’m mixing up terms and should make a better mental separation between “evidence” and “data.” In that case “data” is in the territory (and the term I should have used in my previous post), while “evidence” can mean different things in different contexts. Logical evidence, empirical evidence, legal evidence, and so on, all have different standards. In that case I don’t know if there is necessarily a consistent definition beyond “what someone will accept as a convincing reason to reach a conclusion to a certain kind of question,” but I’m not at all confident in that.
Can you cite someone else using the word evidence to refer to a theory or explanation? I can’t recall ever seeing that, but it might be a translation or regional thing.
As a souther california Jewish native American English speaker, saying “gravity is evidence that” just sounds wrong, like saying “a red, fast, clever fox”
What makes the thing you’re pointing at different than just “deduction” or “logic”?
You have empirical evidence.
You use the empirical evidence to generate a theory edifice, and further evidence has so far supported it. (induction)
You use the theory to make a prediction (deduction), but that is not itself evidence, it only feels like it because we aren’t logically omniscient and didn’t already know what our theory implied. Whatever probability our prediction has comes from the theory, which gets its predictive value from the empirical evidence that went into creating and testing it.
The early discussions about mask effectiveness during COVID were often between people not trained in physics at all, that just wasn’t part of their thinking process, so a physics-based response was new evidence because of the empirical evidence behind the relevant physics. Also, there were lots of people talking past each other because “mask,” “use,” and “effective” are all underspecified terms that don’t allow for simple yes/no answers at the level of discourse we seem able to publicly support as a society, and institutions don’t usually bother trying to make subtler points to the public for historical, legal, and psychological reasons (that we may or may not agree with in specific cases or in general).
Good question. Maybe one of those is the correct term for what I am pointing at.
I may be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but it sounds to me like you are saying that evidence is only in the territory, not in our maps. Consider the example of how the existence of gravity would imply that aerosol particles containing covid will eventually fall towards the ground, and so the concentration of such particles will decrease as you get further from the source. My understanding of what you’re saying is that gravity, the theory, isn’t evidence. Apples falling from a tree, the empirical observations that allowed us to construct the theory of gravity, that is the actual evidence.
But this would violate how the term is currently used. It seems normal to me to say that gravity is evidence that aerosol particles will dissipate as they get further from their source. In the sense that it feels correct, and in the sense that I recall hearing other people use the term that way.
Then maybe I’m mixing up terms and should make a better mental separation between “evidence” and “data.” In that case “data” is in the territory (and the term I should have used in my previous post), while “evidence” can mean different things in different contexts. Logical evidence, empirical evidence, legal evidence, and so on, all have different standards. In that case I don’t know if there is necessarily a consistent definition beyond “what someone will accept as a convincing reason to reach a conclusion to a certain kind of question,” but I’m not at all confident in that.
Can you cite someone else using the word evidence to refer to a theory or explanation? I can’t recall ever seeing that, but it might be a translation or regional thing. As a souther california Jewish native American English speaker, saying “gravity is evidence that” just sounds wrong, like saying “a red, fast, clever fox”