Philosophy of Objective and Subjective Proof and Evidence

I would like to discuss how others feel about what evidence and proof are. Is proof always objective or is proof subjective?

I have the same question concerning what evidence is. Is evidence only that which is objective or can evidence be subjective?

It is my "current" belief that all evidence and proof are subjective. Can any proof or evidence ever be formed without bias?

An interesting note to discuss is instant replay in sports. In baseball for example, an umpire makes a call on a given play of whether a base runner is safe or out. The manager can challenge the call if he disagrees with the umpire. Even when objective video is looked at, there is still often questions as to what really happened. If we can have different opinions on a given play with video zoomed in and slowed down, is anything ever really completely objective?

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I would like to discuss how others feel about what evidence and proof are. Is proof always objective or is proof subjective?

Heh. Reminds me of this:

Well the sun rises in the East and sets in the West and evidence / proof of that is the sunrise and the sunset.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

It is my "current" belief that all evidence and proof are subjective. Can any proof or evidence ever be formed without bias?

Yes, thats what open trial is all about. Submitting evidence to scrutiny by experts for the Prosecution and Defense in an open court of law. Testimony delivered by said experts from both sides, under oath, in front of a jury of 'Peers'.

Only after evidence is submitted and examined openly with sworn testimony and debate by both sides can the jury make their decision.

Everything else is hear-say.

Problem is nowadays only big corporations get that kind of attention, everyones else gets a plea deal or trumped up charges added on.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I would like to discuss how others feel about what evidence and proof are. Is proof always objective or is proof subjective?

Heh. Reminds me of this:

That was a great clip to post, the subject has caused a lot of headaches.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Well the sun rises in the East and sets in the West and evidence / proof of that is the sunrise and the sunset.

I think that still requires subjectivity to determine direction and how to measure it. It also relies on how we perceive the sun and where we are when seeing it.

To say there is no such thing as objective truth is an oxymoron, Because that claim itself is a declaration of an objective truth.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

It is my "current" belief that all evidence and proof are subjective. Can any proof or evidence ever be formed without bias?

Yes, thats what open trial is all about. Submitting evidence to scrutiny by experts for the Prosecution and Defense in an open court of law. Testimony delivered by said experts from both sides, under oath, in front of a jury of 'Peers'.

Only after evidence is submitted and examined openly with sworn testimony and debate by both sides can the jury make their decision.

Everything else is hear-say.

Problem is nowadays only big corporations get that kind of attention, everyones else gets a plea deal or trumped up charges added on.

A lot of what convinces a jury is "how" evidence is presented and argued by the lawyer. I am sure there have been instances where evidence has been argued incorrectly resulting in a jurys biased opinion based on the incorrect presentation of evidence.

originally posted by: cooperton
To say there is no such thing as objective truth is an oxymoron, Because that claim itself is a declaration of an objective truth.

Maybe there are objective truths, but how do we arrive at them without subjectivity or our interpretations of our perceptions?

Even deciding what to investigate objectively is a subjective choice.

"Let's try to objectively study Bigfoot."
"Why?
"Bigfoot is cool."

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Even deciding what to investigate objectively is a subjective choice.

"Let's try to objectively study Bigfoot."
"Why?
"Bigfoot is cool."

You could have an objective Bigfoot print casting subjectively based on opinions of what really made the print or if the print is real.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
You could have an objective Bigfoot print casting subjectively based on opinions of what really made the print or if the print is real.

But your choice to study a Bigfoot cast in the first place is subjective. You could simply not care, or study something else entirely. By choosing to study Bigfoot you've already made the decision that somehow Bigfoot is worthy of study. That's subjective.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
You could have an objective Bigfoot print casting subjectively based on opinions of what really made the print or if the print is real.

But your choice to study a Bigfoot cast in the first place is subjective. You could simply not care, or study something else entirely. By choosing to study Bigfoot you've already made the decision that somehow Bigfoot is worthy of study. That's subjective.

Yes I agree

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Great question. What really is proof?

I don't know. I hear the word thrown around a lot. I guess it is all subjective in the end, even if it is objective. What might be strong enough objectivity for person may not be strong enough for someone else.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Great question. What really is proof?

I don't know. I hear the word thrown around a lot. I guess it is all subjective in the end, even if it is objective. What might be strong enough objectivity for person may not be strong enough for someone else.

I thought this quote is interesting.

We must take positions. Our weakness in the West is born of the fact of so-called 'objectivity.' Objectivity does not exist - it cannot exist!... The word is a hypocrisy which is sustained by the lie that the truth stays in the middle. No, sir: Sometimes truth stays on one side only. Oriana Fallaci

Im not really sure that I understand it completely lol.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

It is my "current" belief that all evidence and proof are subjective. Can any proof or evidence ever be formed without bias?

Yes, thats what open trial is all about. Submitting evidence to scrutiny by experts for the Prosecution and Defense in an open court of law. Testimony delivered by said experts from both sides, under oath, in front of a jury of 'Peers'.

Only after evidence is submitted and examined openly with sworn testimony and debate by both sides can the jury make their decision.

Everything else is hear-say.

Problem is nowadays only big corporations get that kind of attention, everyones else gets a plea deal or trumped up charges added on.

A lot of what convinces a jury is "how" evidence is presented and argued by the lawyer. I am sure there have been instances where evidence has been argued incorrectly resulting in a jurys biased opinion based on the incorrect presentation of evidence.

I think thats called cross examination, misused by counsel to promote drama and deflect away from the evidence. Actual jury trials aren't as based against that as you probably think. Whenever it comes out afterwards what the jury considered most, it was the evidence (or lack thereof).

If the attorneys can get evidence excluded by a judges ruling then the jury will never see it.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Maybe there are objective truths, but how do we arrive at them without subjectivity or our interpretations of our perceptions?

By the 'preponderance' of the evidence submitted at trial.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Subjectivity is an awareness problem.

If you choose one exact space time quanta and have the ability to measure each quanta point in creation/reality including entanglement connections between the quanta points you will get a perfect information slice on what is objectively on that time quanta.

This will include the information state of all beings including all humans body state at that space time quanta. Then if you continue to measure at each quanta you will see the different states that creation go thru.

It does not matter that the number of possible states are to high for some souls to comprehend. It is not infinite. Infinite is an Illusion.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


In the end everyting can be explained through Objectivism.

originally posted by: WakkaFlaka
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


In the end everyting can be explained through Objectivism.

How would that work in the example I used of replay in sports when there is great video and the call is still debatable?