I answered that question already, here: — Metaphysician Undercover

The request was for you to come up with and present a specific scenario. You haven't done that. Nothing in your post was a specific scenario.

Here's what I said:

Can you think of a situation where you have evidence for a claim, but the evidence does not leave you certain that the claim is true? Please describe that situation, the evidence, and why you're not certain the claim is true even after finding that evidence.

I do not see a description, from you, of any of that stuff. Do you understand what I'm asking for?

I just want a simple example. Something like:

I'm a jury member on a murder trial. The prosecution has show me <some piece of evidence> which I rationally consider evidence that the defendant committed the murder, BUT that evidence still doesn't leave me 100% sure the defendant committed the murder. I'm not 100% sure because <...>.

Just a simple example. Doesn't have to be murder, could be evidence that you have milk in your fridge, or that your doctor got their medical degree from Yale, or that your shoes were made in China. Just a simple example of a scenario where you have evidence, but despite seeing that evidence, you're still not sure. Can you come up with an example like this? Please share it if you can.

It is not a burden females should have to bear - deciding whether or not to allow males to take from them. — AmadeusD

Keep in mind that the majority of trans support in society, up to and including the idea that they should be allowed to compete, comes from females.

I agree that it's an unfortunate reality that people would be criticised for "no" votes, and that it would not be fair to female competitors for them to put up with that. On the flip side, a bunch of men deciding for women something that those women don't want seems unfair as well, in case those women DO want to allow trans to compete with them.

Perhaps the majority of women's soccer, for example, want to allow trans athletes. Why should a bunch of men in a board room decide, and not the women themselves for whom the league was created?

quite the opposite

that will become clearer when he answers with an example

sometimes "informal logical fallacies" can still be reasonable arguments

I'm going to ask you to think of a situation again. Last time I tried this you got caught up on some tiny detail so I'm going to ask in a different way:

Can you think of a situation where you have evidence for a claim, but the evidence does not leave you certain that the claim is true? Please describe that situation, the evidence, and why you're not certain the claim is true even after finding that evidence.

If you can't think of a situation like that, let me know.

No, I would not accept that, it's what I insist is illogical. If the object is judged as compatible with not-X it is illogical to judge it as evidence of X. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, you disagree with both me and on that point. Would you like to know why we disagree with you? Would you like to know why Bayesians disagree with you?

Reading the story, it looks like this person is allowed to compete because there's no explicit age restriction to the competition - any 50 year old woman could compete - and so the only contentious point here really is that this person is trans.

Should trans women be allowed to compete as women? This is the big question, and I think it's a fair question to ask. There are studies that show that in some realms of competition, trans women have a lasting, perhaps life long, advantage over non trans women.

I have what I think is a simple low-controversy solution: in whatever realm of competition the question is being asked, "should we allow trans women / trans girls to compete with the other females?", it should be done by anonymous vote, and only the current female competitors should have a vote.

Nobody else should be allowed to vote. Not officials, not parents, not spectators, only competitors.

And the vote should be renewed every 5 years or so, in case they change their minds in the mean time.

The reason only competitors should be allowed to vote it's because it's ostensibly only them who have something to lose. If trans people do have an advantage, it's of course only the female competitors who are losing spots to trans athletes. If they decide, as a group, that they're okay losing spots to trans athletes, then why stop them? And if they come to regret that decision because they find that, WHOOPS, now every event is being won by a trans woman, they can reverse that choice in 5 years.

This is, I think, the fairest option for all female competitions to take. Let the people who are going to be affected most by it choose.

my disagreement with you wasn't about physicalism, it was about evidence and compatibility. Have you corrected yourself on that point yet?

Do you accept the fact that there are situations where when you have evidence of X, that evidence can still be compatible with not-X? And have you learned that "compatible" is not a synonym for "evidence"?

Of course I agree here. Evidence for X can obviously be compatible with not-X unless its totally conclusive. — AmadeusD

Good. That's what meta was disagreeing with me on. He was not correct about that.

the only thing we talked about the whole time I was talking to him was the idea that evidence for X can sometimes be compatible with not-x. I cannot tell if you agree with him on this point or not. He and I didn't talk about anything else other than this. Do you agree with him on that?

I don't think he got anything. The point he was making against me is easily disprovable. I could prove it to you right now. You just have to imagine a scenario which I'll give you some parameters for, and everything else falls into place

I'm still not really sure what you were agreeing with the other guy about earlier in the conversation. The dude was basically saying, there's no such thing as evidence for one statement that can be compatible with a contrary statement. You really agree with that?

I really don't see how you're still maintaining that the evidence isn't even related to the claim of physicalism. If physicalism requires, as you say, that there's a 1:1 perfect correlation, and we have information that AT LEAST there's a weak correlation, that's completely relevant. It's not like someone's saying "physicalism is true because my grammas panties are blue", you know what I mean? You're making it out like the evidence in question has nothing to do with the claim, and that just seems entirely unfair to me. Like, really far off base. Grammas panties have nothing to do with physicalism. The correlation being AT LEAST weak is not like grammas panties, let's get real.

And in just the question of evidence against other things being evidence for some other competing idea, I think the Monty Hall problem is a great example of that. Once you rule out one option, it changes the odds for the remaining options - there's nothing even controversial about stating that.

I don't know what you mean by that. "Evidence isn't incidental".

Well I'm happy that you see that technically, it is. I can't ask for more than that.

because of preclusive evidence in another position, isn't evidence for any of them, imo. — AmadeusD

So you don't think information that raises the probability that a statement is true is evidence for that statement?

But still, even so, if we assume it's equal evidence for everything that isn't pure idealism (which I don't - I don't think it's equal, but let's grant it), it would still be evidence for physicalism, in the sense that it's equal evidence for everything that isn't pure idealism.

You start out with some probability that pure idealism is the case, you get this new information that says pure idealism isn't the case, and you then distribute the probability you gave to pure idealism amongst the other options. Every option is thus more probable than it was before receiving this information, which is exactly what evidence is - information that makes claims more or less probable.

you think we have the resolution to be able to tell if it's 1:1 or not? I don't.

I don't understand how you think that quote is unrelated to physicalism. That quote is surely EXACTLY the prediction physicalism would make. Like, imagine you're in a world where we have no idea if brain states correlate to mental states, but someone's developed a tool to check. If you ask the physicalists what they expect, they'd say exactly your quote. Right?

that's a little too abstract for me. Care to tie it in more explicitly with the evidence that began this conversation?

Even if an individual's pondering can only produce one possible result, it's still the case that this pondering was a necessary part of the causal chain that produced this result. — Relativist

Fully agreed. The process of pondering is, apparently, implemented in physical brains doing physical things. That's not the illusion of pondering, that's what pondering is.

If you accept this, which you may not, I want to then bring it back to our reality and ask this: if such a system is possible, can we know for certain that it is impossible for a system isomorphic to what I described may emerge from the goings on in our universe? So might those axiomatic truths in a possible world be actualized in our world through whatever interactions occur that produce our mind? It isn't clear to me that this is impossible. — Jerry

Or, to put it another way: If you wanted to implement an agent, how might you do it? Perhaps you would... I don't know... make something resembling a brain.

If the object is judged as consistent with S, (supporting S, is evidence of S), then it cannot also be judged as COMPATIBLE (consistent) with not-S without contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

You lack imagination, or you don't know what evidence means.

He has the right enemies. Including the 'bought' legal system which is manipulated by his denigrators. — Tom Storm

Really ironic, that the guy that filled the supreme court, the guy that's being treated by the legal system with kiddie gloves, the guy who has immense legal privilege because of his wealth, is being perceived as being wronged by the "bought legal system".

Your question is simple trickery as I explained, like the old example 'have you stopped beating your wife?' Answering it would be to agree to your terms which demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the nature of "evidence". — Metaphysician Undercover

Literally any other person would be able to answer the question with ease. It's not trickery, you're just weird.

it is incoherent to claim the very same object to be evidence both for and against the truth of a particular statement

Please don't talk to me if you're going to keep being dishonest. I've explained to you before that I did not say this. I've told you explicitly that I did not say this. Don't lie, don't be dishonest. If you think I've said this, find me a quote where I said this. If you keep putting these words in my mouth when I've explained that I didn't say this, don't talk to me at all please, it's dishonest and exhausting. Please grow up.

I'll explain what I did say again one last time and allow you a fair chance to be more honest next time you post to me: what I said was not "it is EVIDENCE for and against a claim", I said you can have something that is evidence for one claim and COMPATIBLE with another claim. If you want to know the difference, feel free to ask.

like that he seems to grok my issue with using unrelated findings to go toward confirming physicalism to some degree or another. — AmadeusD

You think the finding is unrelated? The finding in question seems very very related to me.

even if it does just rule out <one thing that isn't physicalism>, that's still loosely evidence for physicalism. It would be evidence for everything that's not pure idealism, which physicalism isn't.

You're running with MUs line because you and he share a conclusion, or because you like what he has to say about evidence?

Ah, the ol' argument from fiction. You can prove just about anything if we can take fiction as evidence

It seems more relevant to Christians talking amongst themselves — Ludwig V

I've noticed that a lot of what they say in these conversations is like that. They say stuff that's only meaningful to other Christians.

Sure, but one not need delve into the deep jargon of philosophy to think of simple examples where you have evidence for something that's nevertheless incorrect.

You're waffling too much for me. It seems like you're deliberately trying not to understand, but it's possible this is really just all too much for you. Since you can't answer my straight forward question, I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you. I don't see it going further if you cannot give a simple answer to my simple question.

you have a lot of misunderstanding about evidence. Either you're using the word in a way the majority of other people don't use it, or you haven't thought about it very deeply.

Very simply, can you imagine a scenario where you have evidence for X being true, while unbeknownst to you, X is actually false? Can you imagine any scenario at all like that? If yes, what is it?

It cannot be evidence for both without contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't say it was evidence for both. You decided to say that. I said it was evidence for one, and COMPATIBLE with both. I even put compatible in all caps so you would be more likely to take special note of it.

I actually think there could be non conspiratorial, non-dishonest reasons that might happen. I understand the intuition that that seems fishy, but it might not be.

I don't see the logic. If it is compatible with non-physicalist ideas, then it is not evidence for physicalism because it's equally evidence for non-physicalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Finding a murder suspects DNA at a crime scene is often evidence that they committed that crime. However, finding that DNA is still COMPATIBLE with the idea that they did not commit the crime. A bayesian understanding of evidence clears this up quite cleanly.

I still don't know what you mean by "disregard". Does "disregard" just mean "allow a public protest or rally that they don't like"?

I think the idea is, events are allowed to take place that you disagree with because there's a certain amount of freedom of speech. I don't see a problem with allowing rallys for ideas I disagree with, unless the rally is directly involved in violence or promoting violence.

I don't think a rally of nazis is necessarily directly promoting violence (I understand the intuition that it is, but I disagree with that), nor do I think a rally in support of Netanyahu or Israel is directly promoting violence. What reasons would you have to limit their speech in this way?

What do you mean "disregarded the Jewish protesters"? Did the nazis at the event harm the Jewish protesters physically, and the police allowed that to happen?