(November 27, 2017 at 7:55 pm)curiosne Wrote:(November 27, 2017 at 1:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 1) How do you justify raising the evidential bar?
2) Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
3) If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?
To answer your questions on this:
1) Would the "evidential" bar not be raised the more out of the ordinary a claim is? Assessing what is ordinary and what is not though is subjective.
2) No, only if the cases are similar. When a case becomes more out of the ordinary (eg a Zebra is not ordinary), then heresay is not sufficient evidence. Would you agree with this?
3) You stop when you are subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for you to verify the claim in question. However, I personally don't stop here as my logic could be impaired so I usually go and ask others whether I am thinking right on analysing the evidence of the claim (obviously this claim should be incredulous for me to ask for someone else's opinion).
1.) Why
2.) No... and the question is still why wouldn't the conclusion still follow? Let's say that the only thing different is frequency (extraordinary). Why and how does this change things?
3.) Would you say then that your epistemology is largely based on feelings, and the opinion of the crowd? I don't condemn looking to other's for vindiation. However I do think that is only valid, if they give you reasons. If it's just that they subjectively agree, I don't think we have gotten very far down the road.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther