Standards of Evidence
What would it take for you to be convinced that Floyd Landis is not guilty of using performance enhancing drugs (or other cheating techniques)? Would you have been convinced if the sample B test had come out normal? What about now that his sample B confirmed the results from sample A? This current controversy brings up an important consideration when talking about matters of science and faith (or anything, really). What is your standard of evidence for believing or disbelieving something, or even abandoning belief?
Naturally, we have different standards for different beliefs. Sometimes it doesn't take much, and other times a mound of evidence may be required. For example, it would require a tremendous volume of evidence for my friend Jeff to believe that Barry Bonds didn't cheat. Meanwhile, it doesn't take much to believe that someone is a cheater. How many times do you need to observe someone cheat to know he or she is a cheater? Once.
The above examples are behavioral, but consider deeper belief systems that people hold. I have to ask myself, what would it take for me to abandon my Christian faith? Is there anything that could do it? Such a standard of evidence tends to be exceptionally high for people of dedicated religious conviction, be it Christian or otherwise. Likewise, the standard can be equally high, if not higher, for non-believers to be convinced.
For example, naturalists typically have an exceptionally high standard of evidence for accepting non-natural explanations of phenomena. I suspect that even directly witnessing a miraculous or supernatural event would leave the dedicated naturalist in search of a natural explanation, unwilling to accept a supernatural one. As scientists like to say, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. (By the way, this heuristic generally applies in science across the board, and rightfully so.)
In terms of the intersection between science and faith, standards of evidence become critical when discussing the evolution/creation/ID debate, miracles, the resurrection, etc. I wrote about this issue to set the stage for later posts. In the meantime, think about what beliefs you hold that you would be hard pressed to abandon, and those that you would easily abandon. Is there anything that would require enormous evidence for you to believe? (see Barry Bonds example above.)
Be careful my friend...this case is more complicated than it appears.
-- A Lance fan
First comment is to the Lance fan, if you believe the case is "more complicaed than it appears", please explain the nature and degree of the complications you allude to. Otherwise, it's a throw-away comment.
Speaking of evidence from the Landis case, just as compelling as the multiple test results in my mind were the statements from racing experts concerning his last day performance. Statements referring to that performance as one of the best bicycle performances in any one day. Similar to the quote that Chris used, if something appears too good to be true, it usually is. Multiple failed tests and performance that was inconsistent with his or anyone's past performance should be enough evidence to convince anyone with reasonable standards for evidence and open to objective evidence. The same situation and body of evidence exists for one of the greatest cheaters in the history of baseball. What is so compelling about these cases is the convergent nature of the evidence. In other words, independent or different types of evidence all pointing toward the same conclusion.
What's more interesting than any individual case like the ones above, is the inclusion of religion in this discussion of standards of evidence, which typically exists in the scientific realm, not the spiritual realm. I think that most individuals who have religous convictions do not hold their religous beliefs to the same evidence standards as science demands. Honestly, I'm not sure how they could and maintain their beliefs.
Here's a great quote from Conan O'Brien, "Tour de France winner Floyd Landis is now claiming that he tested positive for steriods because he had 'accidently ingested testosterone from another source.' Apparently, Landis accidently ate Barry Bonds."
hahahaha