Evidence and Truth part Deux

Okay, so this one is going to be really long. So I apologize ahead of time for the length of what I am about to write.

What I hope to do is cover all of your responses in this blog, though not necessarily in order. I hope do to it through the expansion and clarification of the idea that “Evidential Inquiry is not sufficient in ascertaining truth.” So here goes.

I said, “...our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs." To which you responded, “No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.”

Let me expand a little on this point, for I agree with what you said here but do not think it is in conflict with my original point.

Let me begin by saying that I could have said the first sentence much better. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs are based upon our interpretations of the evidence, which cannot be separated from the evidence itself. Even you said, “I’ve changed my beliefs based on the evidence I’ve seen.” You saw the evidence; it was taken in through your senses and then processed by your mind. This is what I would call interpretation: the processing of your sensory data intake into a systematized idea. I would further say that it is our metaphysical framework that is responsible for how the sensory input is processed and understood. It is how we think.

Here is an illustration I thought of that was appropriate to what we are talking about:
When we build a building there is the basic structure of the building with the foundation and the outer walls and support beams. Now within the walls and foundation of the building they build different rooms of different sizes for different purposes, and all of those little rooms can be torn out or changed. We often see this, when a contractor comes in and alters the floor plan. This I liken to what we are talking about. The structure is our metaphysical framework. Within the structure there is much room for change, and the change can occur for any number of reasons, evidence being one of the primary reasons. Yet all of the changes occur within the structure. The structure itself is rarely, if ever, altered. So just as the structure determines the parameters of the changes within the building so the metaphysical framework determines the parameters of the change of beliefs.

So let’s say that I have believed that the speed of light is consistent throughout the universe, and yet scientists come back and say, “We now have evidence that the speed of light is affected by gravity and is different at different parts of the universe.” Well, that data is taken in by my metaphysical framework. I automatically see it in a certain way, I automatically interpret it according to my metaphysic, and I don’t do it consciously. Its not like I am saying, “Now how does this relate to my metaphysic?” No, my metaphysic is how I look at everything, it is how I understand and organize this new data. In other words, it is how I think. So I begin to think about this data and then change my belief about the constancy of the speed of light given the new evidence. Well, the way I think and process things has not changed. Just a small bit of what I think about something within the framework has changed. So, yes, you are correct in saying that we change ideas based upon evidence. And I believe what I am saying is also true. That being: my framework has not changed but my framework has interpreted the data I was given and decided the parameters of what I change and what I don’t.

Now there is a lot more to be said here, so let’s look at it in correlation to your illustration. Is the earth flat or round? In writing this I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Now, here are people who have seen, and even address, all of the evidence that you and I have seen. And yet they still don’t believe as you and I do. They think the earth is flat. Now I imagine you and I would say, “and they do so contrary to the evidence.” But they wouldn’t say that. In fact, they would say that you and I believe the earth to be round “contrary to the evidence.” So what gives? Again, we all have the same evidence. My contention would be that these flat-earthers are distorting the evidence by their pre-evidential beliefs. In other words, their beliefs that they hold going into the evidential inquiry has tainted the outcome of their inquiry. Would you agree? Well, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. I believe evidential inquiry to be subject to the pre-evidential beliefs that we hold while doing that inquiry.

Now the good news is that you and I, and most of humanity, hold many pre-evidential ideas in common. Hence why we can agree that the earth is round, that copper expands when heated and that 2+2=4. Its not that we do not have an interpretive framework, it’s that our interpretive frameworks are in unison or on common ground at this point. The data is still being interpreted by the data intaker (is that a word???), it is still being placed in his or her mental framework, yet the Christian and naturalist can agree upon their conclusions because this section of their frameworks are designed in a similar fashion and work on common assumptions.

But this is only around the ideas that we have in common, for what this has to do with the overall meaning of the universe, the reason why the earth is spherical, and all of the metaphysical ideas that accompany the sphericality (is that a word?) of the earth we diverge upon, yet they are all a part or a different dimension of the truth of the sphericality (if its not a word, I get credit for the new word!!!) of the earth.

This is where I believe that we can vividly see how evidential inquiry begins to fail. It is here, when our pre-evidential beliefs begin to diverge that more than evidential inquiry is needed. The further our beliefs separate the more divergent our interpretations of evidence become. This becomes more obvious the more interpretation that is required. Since evolution and creationism are historical theories, our interpretive structure becomes far more subjective. We still have in common when looking at a fossil that it is a fossil. Yep, we are both looking at something dead, something that was fossilized, something that (for arguments sake) is a bone. This we can agree upon because this is where our beliefs are still on common ground. Yet further interpretation of the fossil begins to bring in our assumptions. This is where our glasses change things. This is where our interpretations become divergent. The evolutionist says its millions of years old, the creationist thousands. The evolutionist says, “half-man, half-ape”, the creationist says, “fully ape”. And so now we have at least two interpretations of the same fossil. We accept one and reject the other based upon what? It’s still a fossil, yet we find one of the interpretations more consistent than the others because of the way we think. In other words, because of our metaphysical framework (our beliefs).

I guess to sum all of this up I would simply ask this question (because you know I love asking questions!!!):

If evidential inquiry is sufficient in acquiring truth then why are there multiple and often antithetical interpretations and conclusions based upon the same evidence?

P.S. - I think I get credit for at least two new words in the English vocabulary! I don’t know if either of them is as cool as BLARG though!!!!