A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't matter shuny - a fact of history is a fact of history no matter who confirms it or not. My experience of drinking my morning tea is as true and real as any other fact. Whether anyone else believes it or not.

It does matter if 'facts' are to be meaningful, beyond one's own anecdotal experiences and beliefs. True to you, but meaningless beyond your own limited anecdotal experience. Reasonable academic evidence, confirmation and verification is part of the real world that brings historical 'facts,' events, and people into the acceptance of human history.

Examples:

There were numerous references to cruxifiction by Romans in ancient references. The references were accepted as reasonable 'evidence,' because of many different sources, but it was the find of a hand pierced by a nail (objective evidence) that helped build a strong factual basis for cruxifiction and how it may be done, as a verified fact in history. Multiple sources of evidence in records and archeology are essential in academic history.

Recorded records of the existence of an individual is verified by finds such as coins and statues found as images of that person.

[robertb]

Really? Why doesn't my experience of drinking tea prove that I actually drank tea?

Because you might have dreamed it, for example.

[Paprika]

It's an historical fact that you had the eXperience of drinking tea, not an historical fact that you actually drank tea. A difference and an important one in the context of this conversation.

No, no. Properly, it's a fact that you believed you drank tea.

[Teallaura]

That looks like a contradiction. If there is no case where they are the same thing, then what makes you think they can be the same thing?

And could I trouble you to give me an example of an unempirical fact?

I'll get to this. First though, I'd like to apologize - I got more than a little testy yesterday and without cause. My apologies.


Yes, 'murder is morally wrong'. Statement of fact, non-empirical.

His name is Tom. Same thing - even more so if Tom is an uncooperative cat. Try testing that!

[Carrikature]

That looks like a contradiction. If there is no case where they are the same thing, then what makes you think they can be the same thing?

And could I trouble you to give me an example of an unempirical fact?

It's bad wording on Teal's part, but she's still correct. A better way to put it is this: "In no case is 'fact' identical to 'empirical'. Something can be both empirical and a fact, but one does not necessarily entail the other."

It's trivial to say that facts exist with or without empirical testing. Any empirically-verified fact has always been a fact. It remains a fact without the testing. The use of empirical testing is to provide us with a strong basis for accepting something as fact.

[Teallaura]

It's bad wording on Teal's part, but she's still correct. A better way to put it is this: "In no case is 'fact' identical to 'empirical'. Something can be both empirical and a fact, but one does not necessarily entail the other."

It's trivial to say that facts exist with or without empirical testing. Any empirically-verified fact has always been a fact. It remains a fact without the testing. The use of empirical testing is to provide us with a strong basis for accepting something as fact.

^Yeah, that.

Thanks Carry.

[Carrikature]

^Yeah, that.

Thanks Carry.

No problem.

[robertb]

No, no. Properly, it's a fact that you believed you drank tea.

Yes, correct.

[Doug Shaver]

It's trivial to say that facts exist with or without empirical testing. Any empirically-verified fact has always been a fact. It remains a fact without the testing. The use of empirical testing is to provide us with a strong basis for accepting something as fact.

I'm still not clear on what the problem is. Perhaps you're suggesting that I'm not justified in calling something a fact unless it has been empirically tested. Is that what you're getting at?

[seer]

Because you might have dreamed it, for example.

Sure, how do you know that you haven't dreamt everything you call your life?

[seer]

No, no. Properly, it's a fact that you believed you drank tea.

Then it is fact that you believe that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality.

[Paprika]

Then it is fact that you believe that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality.

In my attempt at facetiousness, I put it wrongly. Memory is this: you believe that you drank tea at a prior time.

[JonathanL]

In my attempt at facetiousness, I put it wrongly. Memory is this: you believe that you drank tea at a prior time.

Nah, memory would be the image/impression of having had a cup of tea, not the belief of having had one. It's entirely possible to "remember" events while at the same time believing they actually never happened. /nitpicking

[Paprika]

Nah, memory would be the image/impression of having had a cup of tea, not the belief of having had one. It's entirely possible to "remember" events while at the same time believing they actually never happened. /nitpicking

No, it's the image/impression which you interpret as having had a cup of tea.

[Carrikature]

I read the last several pages to try to sort out this evidence/fact issue. There's been a lot of miscommunication on both sides, as far as I can tell.


Doug:

I confess to having difficulties sorting out what it is you believe. You make comments like:

For me to count anything as evidence, it has to be an objective fact.

How do you distinguish between objective fact? And are you sure you're holding to this claim strictly? It doesn't look like it when you say things like this:

It reports the state of my mind. That is something I experience. My experience is a fact, and it is the evidence on which I base my statement.

We could say that a state of mind is a fact. We could call it a fact that you experienced something. But to accept that experience as evidence, by your own standard, that experience would have to be an objective fact. How is objectivity established? It would seem you require empirical or logical verification in order to establish objectivity. If so, that puts you firmly in the camp of logical positivism. So be it, but you should know that most people will object to the sheer amount of facts you necessarily ignore because of a (generally) impossible requirement for fact to become evidence.

In answer to your particular question:

I'm still not clear on what the problem is. Perhaps you're suggesting that I'm not justified in calling something a fact unless it has been empirically tested. Is that what you're getting at?

It is my understanding that you only call something evidence if it is a fact that has been empirically tested. Is my understanding correct?


Teal:
I think you've misunderstood a lot of what Doug is claiming, but I admit it's a bit confusing. As far as I can tell, Doug's claim has never been that eyewitness testimony isn't evidence, and he hasn't claimed that eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence are the same thing. Rather, he considers them all to be merely forms of evidence which need no distinction for his purposes. He holds that in contradiction to popular media which would hold eyewitness testimony as stronger evidence than circumstantial. That's what the reference to TV scriptwriters was about. All he's really saying there is that he thinks TV has gotten it wrong.

In attempt to restate his position:
Evidence comes in many forms. Some of it is circumstantial. Some of it is testimonial (including eyewitness testimony). No type of evidence is necessarily stronger than another type.


The only type of evidence that Doug disregards is what he calls 'nonfactual evidence'. However, given his own statement that something has to be an objective fact to be evidence, I don't see how there could ever be such a thing as 'nonfactual evidence'. Doug, can you clarify that?