There are such things as “theorem”, “finding” and “understanding”.
However the word evidence is heavily reserved for theory-distant pieces of data that are not prone to be negotiable. There is the sense that “evidence” is something that shifts beliefs. but this comes from the connection that a brain should be informed by the outside world. We don’t call all persuasive things evidence.
If you are doing theorethical stuff and think in a way where ” evidence” factors heavily you are somewhat likely to do things a bit backwards. Weighting evidence is connected to cogent argumens which are in the realm of inductive reasoning. In the realm of theory we can use proper deductive methods and definitely say stuff about things. A proof either carries or not—there is no “we can kinda say”.
However the word evidence is heavily reserved for theory-distant pieces of data that are not prone to be negotiable. There is the sense that “evidence” is something that shifts beliefs. but this comes from the connection that a brain should be informed by the outside world. We don’t call all persuasive things evidence.
This seems to me like something that is important to change, and a big part of why I am asking this question.
I’ve always been a believer that having a word/phrase for something makes it a lot easier to incorporate it into your thinking. For example, since coming across the term “slack”, I’ve noticed that it is something I incorporate into my thinking a lot more, despite the fact that the concept is something that wasn’t new to me.
I also share the same worry that Eliezer expresses in Blind Empiricism:
I worry, however, that many people end up misusing and overapplying the “outside view” concept very soon after they learn about it, and that a lot of people tie too much of their mental conception of what good reasoning looks like to the stereotype of the humble empiricist fox.
Having an easily accessible term for theoretical evidence would make it easier to combine the ways of the Fox with the ways of the Hedgehog. To say “I shift my beliefs this way according to the empirical evidence X. And then I shift my beliefs that way according to the theoretical evidence Y.” Even if you aren’t as bullish about inside view thinking as me or Eliezer, combining the two seems like an undoubtedly good thing, but one that is currently a little difficult to do given the lack of terminology for “theoretical evidence”.
I understand the need to have a usable word for the concept. However trying to hijack meanings of existing words just seems like recipe to have conflicting meanings.
In a court, for example a medical examiner can be asked what was the cause of death. The act of doing this is “opining” and the result is “an opinion”. Only experts can opine and the standing for a expert to be an expert on the issue can be challenged. Asking a non-expert to opine can be objected to, eye-witnesses can be taken to be credible about their experience but far disconnected conclusions are not allowed (it is a separate job of the lawyer to argue those inferences or the fact finder to think it is suffiently shown).
Like “theory” can in folk language mean guess but in science terms means a very regimented and organised set of hypotheses sometimes a term “expert opinion” is used to distinguish for findings that people are willing to back up even under pressure to distinguish between “mere” “personal opinion”
It is true that expert wittness testimony “are among the evidence”. “word against word” kind of cases might be felt tricky because it is pretty easy to lie, that is to fabricate that kind of evidence.
I understand the need to have a usable word for the concept. However trying to hijack meanings of existing words just seems like recipe to have conflicting meanings.
I agree. However, in the rationality community the term evidence is assumed to refer to Bayesian evidence (ie. as opposed to scientific or legal evidence). And I’ve always figured that this is also the case in various technical domains (AI research, data science). So then, at least within the context of these communities there wouldn’t be any hijacking or conflict. Furthermore, more and more people/domains are adopting Bayesian thinking/techniques, and so the context where it would be appropriate to have a term like “theoretical evidence” is expanding.
I am not worried that evidence is too broad. However on that short definition I have a real hard time identifying what is the “event” that happens or not that alters the probabilities.
I get that for example somebody might be worried that when this and neighbouring galaxy merge whether stars will collide. Understanding of scales means this will essentially not happen, even without knowing any positions of stars. Sure it is cognitively prudent. But I have a hard time phrasing it in terms of taking into account evidence. What is the evidence I am factoring in when I come to the realization that 2+2=4? To me it seems that it is a core property of evidence that it is not theorethical, that is the umph that drives towards truth.
There are such things as “theorem”, “finding” and “understanding”.
However the word evidence is heavily reserved for theory-distant pieces of data that are not prone to be negotiable. There is the sense that “evidence” is something that shifts beliefs. but this comes from the connection that a brain should be informed by the outside world. We don’t call all persuasive things evidence.
If you are doing theorethical stuff and think in a way where ” evidence” factors heavily you are somewhat likely to do things a bit backwards. Weighting evidence is connected to cogent argumens which are in the realm of inductive reasoning. In the realm of theory we can use proper deductive methods and definitely say stuff about things. A proof either carries or not—there is no “we can kinda say”.
This seems to me like something that is important to change, and a big part of why I am asking this question.
I’ve always been a believer that having a word/phrase for something makes it a lot easier to incorporate it into your thinking. For example, since coming across the term “slack”, I’ve noticed that it is something I incorporate into my thinking a lot more, despite the fact that the concept is something that wasn’t new to me.
I also share the same worry that Eliezer expresses in Blind Empiricism:
Having an easily accessible term for theoretical evidence would make it easier to combine the ways of the Fox with the ways of the Hedgehog. To say “I shift my beliefs this way according to the empirical evidence X. And then I shift my beliefs that way according to the theoretical evidence Y.” Even if you aren’t as bullish about inside view thinking as me or Eliezer, combining the two seems like an undoubtedly good thing, but one that is currently a little difficult to do given the lack of terminology for “theoretical evidence”.
I understand the need to have a usable word for the concept. However trying to hijack meanings of existing words just seems like recipe to have conflicting meanings.
In a court, for example a medical examiner can be asked what was the cause of death. The act of doing this is “opining” and the result is “an opinion”. Only experts can opine and the standing for a expert to be an expert on the issue can be challenged. Asking a non-expert to opine can be objected to, eye-witnesses can be taken to be credible about their experience but far disconnected conclusions are not allowed (it is a separate job of the lawyer to argue those inferences or the fact finder to think it is suffiently shown).
Like “theory” can in folk language mean guess but in science terms means a very regimented and organised set of hypotheses sometimes a term “expert opinion” is used to distinguish for findings that people are willing to back up even under pressure to distinguish between “mere” “personal opinion”
It is true that expert wittness testimony “are among the evidence”. “word against word” kind of cases might be felt tricky because it is pretty easy to lie, that is to fabricate that kind of evidence.
I agree. However, in the rationality community the term evidence is assumed to refer to Bayesian evidence (ie. as opposed to scientific or legal evidence). And I’ve always figured that this is also the case in various technical domains (AI research, data science). So then, at least within the context of these communities there wouldn’t be any hijacking or conflict. Furthermore, more and more people/domains are adopting Bayesian thinking/techniques, and so the context where it would be appropriate to have a term like “theoretical evidence” is expanding.
I am not worried that evidence is too broad. However on that short definition I have a real hard time identifying what is the “event” that happens or not that alters the probabilities.
I get that for example somebody might be worried that when this and neighbouring galaxy merge whether stars will collide. Understanding of scales means this will essentially not happen, even without knowing any positions of stars. Sure it is cognitively prudent. But I have a hard time phrasing it in terms of taking into account evidence. What is the evidence I am factoring in when I come to the realization that 2+2=4? To me it seems that it is a core property of evidence that it is not theorethical, that is the umph that drives towards truth.
Check out How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3 :)
The link connection is not evident and even there the association is with the external situation rather than thought-happenings.