| Author |
|
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 653
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 3:55pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Michael Penn wrote: That's a conversation-killer, Steven. It would hardly be an irrelevant tangent for you, if you disagree with Mark about what defines evidence, to instead of automatically responding "yes" to his "no" actually engaged in a carefully reasoned argument about why you disagree with him.
SB replied: What's to argue? The definition of evidence I've provided - "a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true" - seems to me to be perfectly sufficient. I'm sure there are other definitions, and I'm happy for them to be provided.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12566
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
You don't care that Mark doesn't accept your definition of evidence upon which you premise the points you adduce in this discussion?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 653
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:11pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
@Michael: I really don't think there's much I can do about it. If he has another definition of evidence, he's free to use it, and I'll try as best I can to engage with his arguments.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12566
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:19pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
But why bother engaging at all since you hold in reserve a definition of evidence that is for you ultimately decisive but for Mark unacceptable? Are you trolling Mark?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:22pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
SB replied: Hall's claims can at best be taken as evidence of his doubt that Will of Stratford wrote Venus & Adonis. They wouldn't be accepted as undeniable proof by any court.
**
Your definition of "evidence" is synonymous with "proof".
You switch between the two words in order to use this above statement "they wouldn't be accepted as undeniable proof by any court" to answer my claim that Hall's statements are evidence that some of Shakespeare's contemporaries published statements that "Shakespeare" was a pen name.
If that is the best you can do to engage with arguments, then ...your best is kind of deficient.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 653
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:26pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
@Michael: If I offer a definition, and Mark disagrees with it, then the onus is on him to provide one that he finds acceptable.
I'm not sure why this is being turned into a major issue? I'm happy to make such arguments as I can, and provide evidence - or what I consider to be evidence! - to support them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:32pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
SB: @Michael: If I offer a definition, and Mark disagrees with it, then the onus is on him to provide one that he finds acceptable.
**
I did.
You ignored it.
Here it is again: Evidence is any fact relevant to an investigation.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12566
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:32pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
If I offer a definition [of evidence], and Mark disagrees with it, then the onus is on him to provide one that he finds acceptable.
***
Even if it's unacceptable to you?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12566
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:35pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
But also, again Steven, you hold a definition of evidence that Mark rejects -- and having admitted that, what's the point of debating him? To "beat" him on his own different or perhaps even to you erroneous terms? And he can never "score" any point in this discussion because you have your own definition, anyway. This is like trolling, isn't it?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 653
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: Your definition of "evidence" is synonymous with "proof".
You switch between the two words in order to use this above statement "they wouldn't be accepted as undeniable proof by any court" to answer my claim that Hall's statements are evidence that some of Shakespeare's contemporaries published statements that "Shakespeare" was a pen name.
If that is the best you can do to engage with arguments, then ...your best is kind of deficient.
SB replied: Sigh.
Hall's statement is evidence that he doubted Shakespeare's authorship of Venus & Adonis.
Marston is more elliptical, but seems to share these doubts.
I do not know what the basis for these doubts were, or how strongly they were held, or if they continued to be held by either or both men.
It does not seem to be the case that Shakespeare's contemporaries shared these doubts. If it is indeed the case that Hall and Marston's comments raised further suspicions, I would be very interested in knowing who expressed them, and in what fashion.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Brake
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 January 2016
Posts: 653
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote: Evidence is any fact relevant to an investigation.
SB replied: I'd earlier suggested that a definition of evidence could be " a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true".
Is my definition really so radically opposed to yours?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
|
| Posted: 20 June 2024 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
SB: I'm not sure why this is being turned into a major issue? I'm happy to make such arguments as I can, and provide evidence - or what I consider to be evidence! - to support them.
**
The problem is that your definition of evidence does not nearly match the things which you present as evidence.
But you use your definition to arbitrarily determine that what other people think is evidence is not, indeed, evidence.
Your definition creates a double-standard in your favor and prevents anyone establishing an even playing ground.
Your definition- "a body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true" - includes knowing whether it leads to a true belief or not. That's why you keep saying Hall's testimony is not "proof" whenever I say it is "evidence." These two things are basically the same by your definition.
But in fair argument, evidence is not biased toward truth. It is merely something that must be considered and accounted for in a persuasive argument.
An argument that ignores inconvenient evidence is not as good as one which can account for it.
The reason this is a "major issue" is that no common ground can exist in this discussion without common ground on this concept.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
