(March 18, 2017 at 12:34 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:There is the field of psychology.(March 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: Except for all the other people acting as though they have consciousness, you mean.
Then with respect to other minds, you allowing a liberal level of inference while with respect to apprehension of the divine using strict foundationalism. Neither belief is based on a self-evident proposition. Neither belief is based on incorrigible experience (in the classical foundationalist sense). Neither belief is based on direct observation of another's first-person experience. If you applied your foundationalist demands consistently then you could not justify belief in other minds. Nevertheless it is a properly basic belief.
(March 17, 2017 at 6:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(March 17, 2017 at 10:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?
For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).
For an example, you seem to want to establish a foundation for a conclusion here, and haven't offered any empirical evidence for said conclusion (really no arguments either unless I missed something). Jehanne recently posted in the William Lane Craig, stating that a singularity contains actual infinities (Perhaps I am making an assumption, but I don't believe this was from any direct observation).
See here
(March 17, 2017 at 9:11 am)Jehanne Wrote:
Now a certain blogger observed this argument for actual infinities mostly comes from Atheist YouTuber experts (which he charitably described as "vibrant to say the least). And as I mentioned before, evidence of absence, is a logical claim. While it does require some observation, it's foundation is logic. As to how to handle non-emperical evidence. I would say that according to the respective category. For the subject in question, that would be the rules of logic.
As to your last paragraph I don't see how that is on topic, I'm not nearly so strict. I think that the evidence only needs to be sufficient, and would normally look for some type of corroborating evidence.
Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk