Vorkosigan

Since SD is someone I rather admire, I thought I'd look over the anonymous reviewer's "critique" and bd-from-kg's discussion. The thing that stood out for me upon reading them together was how good bd-kg's stuff was, compared to the anonymous reviewer's. In fairness, anonreviewer only posted a short response which naturally could not cover the issues in depth. On the other hand...the only strong point the author made regarded the way that evidentiary arguments marshall evidence that can be used to support contending explanations. I am not sure that it applies to SD's original article.

I will make the following additional objection to Larry's argument. Larry's contention that there could not be an evidential argument for theism is ludicrous. Just what exactly does he think the fine-tuning argument is? No theist presents the fine-tuning argument as a so-called "logical argument," in the sense that the alleged 'fine-tuning' of the universe is logically incompatible with the nonexistence of God. On the contrary, ALL theists who promote the fine-tuning argument admit the alleged fine-tuning is logically compatible with atheism. Instead, they claim that the alleged fine-tuning is vastly more *probable* on the assumption of theism than on the assumption of atheism. Thus, by definition, the fine-tuning argument is an evidential argument. It may be (and I would argue, is) an unsound argument, but it is an evidential argument

If the anonymous reviewer thinks Fine Tuning is an "evidential" or "evidentiary" argument, than s/he has some serious problems with what constitutes "evidence." Fine Tuning does not even exist as a "fact," it is merely a subjective construction/interpretation of a set of provisional understandings ("facts") about how the universe is ordered. The mere phrase "Fine Tuning" presupposes theism; it does not provide evidence for it. Anonreviewer has apparently mistaken an interpretative framework for an actual fact.

Perhaps what we really need here is a discussion of how evidence operates in various interpretative frameworks. And how evidence acquires meaning because it allows us to chose between such frameworks.

Also, while philosophers of religion may use "evidential," "evidentiary" is a common word in many philosophy subfields. Philosophy of religion may not be the right angle to come at SD's essay from. If someone is going to pick a nit of such fantastic insignificance, the least they could do is get a broader understanding of the usage patterns. Here are some cites I found in a two-minute google search:

1983c "Probabilistic reasoning and evidentiary value", pp. 44-57 in Evidentiary Value: Philosophical, Judicial and Psychological Aspects of a Theory, ed. by P. Gärdenfors, B. Hansson and N.-E. Sahlin, Gleerups, Lund. Swedish translation published in Blotta tanken (1992h). (this book uses "evidentiary" many times in article titles within it.)

<a href="http://www.auburn.edu/academic/liberal_arts/philosophy/courses.htm" target="_blank">See the Phil of Law courses</a>

<a href="http://www.fplc.edu/risk/vol4/spring/cranor.htm" target="_blank">Science Courts, Evidentiary Procedures and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions</a>

<a href="http://www.pragmatism.org/library/levi/levi.html" target="_blank">Isaac Levi, the John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia</a> uses "evidentiary" many times in his article titles

And so on. "Evidentiary" is a very common word in the judicial process (which most of us take as the framework for thinking about evidence).

Michael

P.S.
Jones was obviously shot by <a href="http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/missiles/liw/liw4.html" target="_blank">this 35 mm dual purpose weapon</a> or perhaps he was mowed down by <a href="http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gepard/" target="_blank">this Gepard anti-aircraft tank</a>. In fact, 35 mm ammo is standardized throughout NATO.

-DM-

Michael:

Keep in mind that Richard Carrier solicited the opinion of the reviewer. The purpose was to get an opinion as to whether or not SingleDad's article should go into the library, not to provide a point by point review of the article itself in the way that bd-from-kg did.

--Don--

Vorkosigan

I agree (as I believe I said originally), but the reviewer's misunderstanding of the Fine Tuning argument casts doubt on his/her evaluation of SD's article.

Actually, I overstated the "Fine Tuning" claim in my comments above: it is merely an assertion; it is not even an interpretive framework.

Michael

pug846

I'm confused now. If the review wasn't supposed to provide any real critique of SD's article, which I don't think it did, then it's worthless because all we would have to go on then is the authority of the person in question.

NialScorva

Turton, how do you seperate the interpretive framework from the fact?

BobDobbs

I cede the floor to <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evidential" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster</a>:


Dear Mr. Carrier,

Please obtain more competent anonymous reviewers in the future.

Thank you,

Bob Dobbs.

P.S. You may want to be careful in your future correspondence with this individual, as he may without warning, attack you when you are talking about your pet Cat, deriding you for your ignorance of the word ‘feline’.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: BobDobbs ]</p>

NialScorva

*sigh*

And no for Mr "The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy":

There seems to be no entry for any variant of "evidentiary". Mr Carrier's post was talking about the accepted terminology in philosophy:

sentinel00

Isn't this the smallest and least significant quibble from the post? To my layman's eye, SingleDad, bd-from-kg and turtonm have devestated that review leaving nothing other than a semantic argument. SingleDad himself has admitted that you can do a Find&Replace on "evidentiary" and none of his article is changed in any significant way.

Petty. Look that one up in either dictionary.

NialScorva

I think the critical point was that Singledad was addressing a topic that had an accepted name, only he didn't know it. It would be sorta like writing an introductory paper on "celestial bogodymanics", and have someone say that he's just putting a different spin on Copernican mechanics. It's not a problem that he used the wrong word that can be awked out, it's a matter of being ignorant of the field, demonstrated by his ignorance of what the field was even called.

Also keep in mind that Singledad wanted this to be published, so a higher criteria applies. In addition, his reaction to the criticism was less than graceful. He solicited opinions, and Mr Carrier delivered an opinion, not an argument. The opinion itself did contain criticism and errors. I suggest a google search on "evidentialism". Singledad's essay was unique by his combination with Bayesian probability and the use of symbolic logic. A good presentation doesn't cover the lack of research, however.

sentinel00

2 points and an admission:

SingleDad never claimed to be anything other than an uneducated amateur. To expect more from him is to invite disappointment.

SingleDad was asked to write that article by the Secular Web not the other way around. He was invited into the arena, baggage and all. The least those who review his work could give him was benefit of the doubt.

I can't form a conclusion on SD's or bd's work in this thread because it all pretty much goes over my head. However, the critical review Mr. Carrier relayed, and it's subsequent answers from SD, bd, and turtonm I did mostly understand, and I thought the criticism was answered properly. I understand, Nailscorva, that you are much more trained in such things as I, and from reading past posts of yours, I've come to respect and trust your opinion. I'm not going to argue the point with you; and your criticism of SD's article, while not conclusive, does plant enough for this skeptic to not make any conclusion at this point.