Acknowledging Evidence by Type, Value and Relevance

Philosophy has always been concerned with evidence. Physics was originally known as "physical philosophy", until it removed itself under the empirical aegis, leaving philosophy with more non-material issues to resolve. Even so, philosophy remains concerned with evidence. And much of modern philosophy is Materialist anyway, so is hardly distinguishable from empiricism. So the issue of the validity of the evidence being used to support a philosophy (and associated worldviews) is of the highest importance, philosophically.

The types of evidence and their use is of major concern to anyone who is concerned with the accuracy and validity of his worldview. So it is important to understand and acknowledge the different major types of evidence available. Here I will discuss just the material evidence types and ignore the possibility of non-material evidence for the moment. The question will be asked, “How well founded is Philosophical Materialism, in its claim to be based on the fact of Material evidence?”

For this discussion there are three types of Material evidence to be considered:

Type:
1. Speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable;
2. Empirical, based on repeated experimental findings; falsifiable;
3. Witness testimony to experiential instances.

The Material evidence must be given a value. This is generally done probabilistically”

Value:
Likelihood or probability; factuality of the assumptions of probability calculations.

And it is necessary to determine, somehow, whether the evidence applies to the questions at hand:

Relevance:
1. The application to the fundamentals of the search for facts.
2. The application to the fundamentals of the search for truth.
3. The application to the fundamentals of the search for a valid worldview.

Now, the question: “How well founded is Philosophical Materialism, in its claim to be based on the truth of Material evidence?”

Philosophical Materialism is largely based on two "axiomatic" premises, (a) denial of non-material reality based on lack of material evidence (self-refuting) and (b) evolution.

If we ask how evolution fits into the above constraints, we immediately find that it is of Type 1, only: Speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable (the proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit is not a falsifier, it is a theory adjuster).

The likelihood probability calculation is not based on any real numerical values, except the number of inferences being taken. Actual probability calculations that are performed on the known instances of mutations are rejected by Materialists, who increasingly assert Selection Only, without mutation. The conclusion is that the actual probability is either logically zero or is factually unknown.

The relevance factor is that evolution is irrelevant as a search for facts; it has never been the instrument of causing a major breakthrough in biology; it is always retrofit. Evolution can never be an incorrigible truth, because science never produces those. Science produces contingent factoids, not truth. Because of its limited capabilities, science is too weak to provide a truth value that is not actually a contingent factoid; in reality, truth must be sought and found outside of science. For this reason, Philosophical Materialists reject the concept of truth, and therefore are relativistic, only. And this is the logical death of Philosophical Materialism: if there is no truth, then Philosophical Materialism cannot be true. This is on top of the irrational assertion that no non-material reality is found within the material realm, therefore it does not exist.

Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.