Stephen Hawking on Discovery's curiosity

[cephron]

Subjective evidence, being unverifiable, is the equivalent of having no evidence.

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits. However, it does have value in the realm of personal choices. If someone has subjective evidence that suggests to them the existence of God or something about his nature, this can have implications for various life decisions.

Of course, it's still unverifiable, which is one of the reasons it's usually called "having faith" in God. Believers can't prove their beliefs to be true, especially not to others (to whom their own subjective evidence is essentially inaccessible). But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits.

Which is fine when you're making a personal decision, so it's no wonder that religions try to cast the idea of choosing a religion as a personal choice. The problem with this idea, however, is that religions make truth claims about the nature of reality. And the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice.

But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

No, it really can't. That is completely and utterly impossible, because our human minds are subject to a tremendous variety of flaws which lead to the wrong conclusions all the time. Because of the errors we make so routinely, it is fundamentally illogical to make a decision about the nature of reality as if it were merely a personal decision.

 

[mehulahir]

if we know all the things about t=0 second that why this explosen begibns every thing about t=0 seconds then can we know about tomorrow or what should we aware with to know for tomorrow

 

[cephron]

@Chalnoth:
Sorry, I didn't present that bit about choice very well. First of all, let me say that I agree with you strongly that "the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice." I was not trying to imply that the nature of reality is changed by or dependent upon personal choice. Personal choice comes into the picture in certain situations, summarized below:

-Some parts or "aspects" of the nature of reality (eg. is there a God, or is there no God?) are not made certain when working with empirical evidence alone. That is, all empirical evidence concerning this aspect, when taken into account, leads to a tie between two or more possible truths (one of which could be the OR's null-hypothesis).
-For some people, subjective evidence informs them further about this aspect. It does this with different degrees of certainty, but let's assume that it doesn't actually prove the truth of the aspect, only gives evidence (we can't be certain that it doesn't ever prove something, because, being subjective, such proof - if it existed - could never be conveyed to us).
-Sometimes, the aspect of reality in question is significant enough that what a person believes its truth to be is important to decide. Because they are only dealing with subjective evidence at this point (empirical evidence leading to a tie between possibilities, so all that's left to judge with is subjective evidence), any potential truth is unverifiable. We know that one answer is correct, but we do not know which. So, belief here is a personal choice, recognizing that it could be wrong. Obviously, people should try to choose the correct possibility...

...but, like you said, our minds our flawed and can lead us to wrong conclusions. So the "personal choice" of what one chooses to believe consists of assessing all the empirical and subjective evidence one has, trying to construct an accurate worldview, and continuously checking model against new input from experiences. To ignore all your subjective evidence is one way of making that choice, but nothing guarantees that will leave you with a correct understanding of reality. Nor does choosing to actively consider subjective evidence mean you can no longer do science; the subjective evidence simply applies to areas of concern outside of science.

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

 

[Chalnoth]

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

This is why it's best to just go for verifiable evidence instead. And if there exists only subjective evidence for some hypothesis regarding the nature of reality, the only rational thing to do is disbelieve it in proportion to the complexity of the proposal.

But what's more, in this case, it isn't even possible for there to be any evidence in favor of the proposal, because the thing being proposed, a god, can potentially explain any evidence whatsoever. So it's not just that the evidence is only subjective, but that evidence itself is a fundamental impossibility.