Gemli explains...

[Rivendale]

I do not understand your point. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that stories need objects to be trustworthy. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that millions of people were fooled because Smith had an object to go with his story.

A pious fraud would want to emulate normal patterns that humans use to discover the true nature of reality. Using a prop that substantiates his claim simply helps convince his followers. That is modus operandi of con men.

[I Have Questions]

I have not served on any juries, but I'm pretty sure that the whole jury doesn't get trained in ballistics, go to the lab with the alleged murder weapon, and conduct all those tests personally. Instead some expert tells the jury a story, about how the weapon was tested—probably after someone else has told the jury a story about how that ballistics expert is a qualified expert.

Someone telling a story and a certified expert talking people through objectively tested and corroborated physical data and analysis, are clearly not one and the same thing. Or do you really think they are?

Let's try it this way.

Are stories of God evidence that God exists? Simple yes or no...

[Res Ipsa]

This argument of Gemli’s is not the knock out punch he seems to think it is. It’s a shallow application of post-modern deconstruction.

His claim is simply wrong. Stories are evidence.

Of what is The Lord of the Rings evidence?

I didn't claim that all stories are evidence. I think in context it is clear that I was responding to the categorical exclusion of stories from evidence.

The murder weapon in a trial, just sitting there in front of the jury, isn’t evidence of anything. It becomes evidence through the stories told by witnesses and experts.

But the murder weapon actually exists, as I believe gemli would say.

Gemli might say it, but it would be more accurate to say that "a gun" exists. It only becomes a "murder weapon" through the telling of stories. Often, multiple stories. Other than use as a prop, showing the gun to the jury really adds nothing to the evidence. What matters is all the stories told about the gun.

What Gemli is functionally doing with this argument is special pleading that religious stories should be treated differently than other stories. But I’m not seeing an attempt to justify the special pleading.

I don't think it's special pleading when pointing out whether actual physical evidence for the stories does or does not exist.

If Gemli were arguing the weight of the evidence, it would not be special pleading. What makes it special pleadings is his categorical rejection of "stories" when they are religious in nature, even though stories are accepted as evidence in daily life, including the courtroom.

[Res Ipsa]

The murder weapon in a trial, just sitting there in front of the jury, isn’t evidence of anything. It becomes evidence through the stories told by witnesses and experts.

I thought a murder weapon became evidence through objective testing and analysis, not “stories”. You know, fingerprints, blood samples, wound to weapon shape comparisons, dna, etc.

If a person, say, tells a story that they were abducted by aliens, that’s not evidence that they were abducted by aliens. That’s not evidence of aliens. That’s not evidence of alien abductions. The story, in and of itself is so remarkable, and so out of the ordinary, it requires more than just a person (or lots of people) claiming it happened for the idea that aliens abducted the person to be generally accepted as “real”.

And that is where, I think, Gemli is coming from.

Having read and paid attention to what Gemli actually posted, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the nature of his argument.

Have you ever watched a trial and paid attention to things get admitted into evidence? The jury isn't just handed a fingerprint taken from the defendant and a fingerprint (or partial fingerprint) taken from the alleged murder weapon. A witness is sworn in and tells a story about the two fingerprints. In fact, fingerprint identification involves a significant amount of subjective judgment. The same is true of wound to wound shapes -- they are subjective judgments that are introduced into evidence through stories told by "experts."

Were the fingerprints on the gun made before or during the shooting? Or were they planted afterward by someone? That evidence is established through a story.

Physical objects very rarely speak for themselves. It is the stories that turn physical objects into evidence.

Your alien example seems to conflate determining whether something is evidence with how much weight to give evidence. The concept that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a guideline to setting the burden of proof for a given claim. It is not a rule for determining what is evidence and what is not. If a murder suspect claims alien abduction as their alibi, their eyewitness testimony would be admissible as evidence. How much weight to give that evidence would be up to the jury. Acknowledging that something is evidence is not an admission that it is persuasive evidence or evidence that satisfies the appropriate burden of proof.

[Res Ipsa]

Of what is The Lord of the Rings evidence?

Res Ipsa's statement was like the sentence, "People drink coffee," said in response to a claim that no-one drinks coffee, to assert that some people do drink coffee. It does not mean that all people drink coffee.

This ^

[drumdude]

. What makes it special pleadings is his categorical rejection of "stories" when they are religious in nature, even though stories are accepted as evidence in daily life, including the courtroom.

Are you not similarly making a categorical rejection of stories which are fantastical in nature?

I also think Gemli would say his rejection of the story is not based solely on them being religious, but that they have similarly fantastical elements that are present in works of fiction like Lord of the Rings.

I doubt he would reject a story about a Buddhist monk eating a sandwich just because it happens to be religious in nature.

[Marcus]

...I also think Gemli would say his rejection of the story is not based solely on them being religious, but that they have similarly fantastical elements that are present in works of fiction like Lord of the Rings.

I doubt he would reject a story about a Buddhist monk eating a sandwich just because it happens to be religious in nature.

I agree it seems gemli rejects fantastical elements (I do recall an objection to fairies) but to be fair, gemli did explain why he concentrates on religious claims, at least in his comments on the blog in question. in my opinion, you are correct in your assumption that it is the similarly fantastical elements that have the strongest influence. Here's a quote from page 1:

gemli Seatimer
17 hours ago

I have it on good authority that gemli is not "anti-Mormon." It might be that sticking one's finger into an open flame is a bad idea, whether the flame is from a kitchen stove, a campfire, an electric heater or a hot iron. It's not the specific item that matters as much as it is what they all have in common, which is that they're all dangerously hot. Gemli focuses on religions because they all make essentially the same fundamental claims of supernatural beings and eternal lives for one species of ape. He thinks it's unseemly for intelligent people to adhere to the scores of discrepant theological claims that defy reason and cannot be falsified. It's telling that thousands of different religions exist which are believed in wholeheartedly by millions of people. They can't all be right, but they can certainly all be wrong.

On a separate note, my aunt got a traffic ticket for rolling through a stop sign but she insists that 'the spirit' told her it was safe because she was doing god's work. Based on this thread, I'll advise her to fight her ticket, and to explain to the judge that her story of the spirit's influence is evidence that legally must be taken into account. Her spiritual experience was the same as if an actual policeman was standing there and waving her on!! Well, to her, at least. Getting the spirit to give evidence might be tough, but I'm sure her story will be given the proper credence it deserves and that her fine will be overturned. Surely.

[I Have Questions]

I thought a murder weapon became evidence through objective testing and analysis, not “stories”. You know, fingerprints, blood samples, wound to weapon shape comparisons, dna, etc.

If a person, say, tells a story that they were abducted by aliens, that’s not evidence that they were abducted by aliens. That’s not evidence of aliens. That’s not evidence of alien abductions. The story, in and of itself is so remarkable, and so out of the ordinary, it requires more than just a person (or lots of people) claiming it happened for the idea that aliens abducted the person to be generally accepted as “real”.

And that is where, I think, Gemli is coming from.

Having read and paid attention to what Gemli actually posted, I think I have a pretty good grasp on the nature of his argument.

Have you ever watched a trial and paid attention to things get admitted into evidence? The jury isn't just handed a fingerprint taken from the defendant and a fingerprint (or partial fingerprint) taken from the alleged murder weapon. A witness is sworn in and tells a story about the two fingerprints. In fact, fingerprint identification involves a significant amount of subjective judgment. The same is true of wound to wound shapes -- they are subjective judgments that are introduced into evidence through stories told by "experts."

Were the fingerprints on the gun made before or during the shooting? Or were they planted afterward by someone? That evidence is established through a story.

Physical objects very rarely speak for themselves. It is the stories that turn physical objects into evidence.

Your alien example seems to conflate determining whether something is evidence with how much weight to give evidence. The concept that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a guideline to setting the burden of proof for a given claim. It is not a rule for determining what is evidence and what is not. If a murder suspect claims alien abduction as their alibi, their eyewitness testimony would be admissible as evidence. How much weight to give that evidence would be up to the jury. Acknowledging that something is evidence is not an admission that it is persuasive evidence or evidence that satisfies the appropriate burden of proof.

I’d love to see you in court arguing that the forensic evidence against your client is just a story.

[Bret Ripley]

I haven't read any of Gemli's posts but am persuaded by stories of his exploits.

(What? What?)

[Res Ipsa]

To say that stories about murder weapons can be evidence, but stories about fairies cannot be evidence, is special pleading, unless you can explain, without begging the question, why the subject of the stories makes this big difference.

I'm not planning to write a novel, but you must have missed my argument. I'll highlight the non-begging:

Except, as IHaveQuestions just pointed out, we are talking about stories of supernatural encounters in the context of gemli's statements, not about opinions regarding mundane physical objects.

So, it's really more like the sentence, "I've seen fairies in my garden," said in response to a claim that no-one sees fairies, to assert that some people do see fairies. Of course it does not mean that all people see fairies, but it also isn't sufficient to prove fairies exist, or that anyone at all has seen a fairy. One can bring coffee into the courtroom, but no one has yet produced an actual fairy, tagged exhibit A. Only stories about fairies exist, and stories about fairies are not evidence of fairies.

Stories such as news reports of the verification of the existence of particles at an actual physical location at CERN, where actual people go in and out, and actual verifiable documentation is repeatedly published and commented on by other actual, real scientists, are simply not "stories" in the same category as stories about an angel that brought (and then disappeared off the planet) plates engraved in a language of which there has never been any evidence of its existence, recounting an ancient history of which there is also no evidence of its existence.

...I think I'm being reasonable, but I don't think that my reasonableness is accurately explained by saying that stories about fairies aren't evidence. I think the real explanation is that stories in general are relatively weak evidence...

Which has been stated repeatedly. Glad we agree.

Which one of the two different arguments you have repeated do you think PG agrees with?

1. Stories about fairies aren't evidence; or

2. Stories about fairies are not sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that fairies exist.