standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

Rational AKD, I addressed the OP [ur=http://atheistforums.org/thread-21163-post-516135.html#pid516135]here[/url], but you didn't reply. I'm curious as to what you think, as I think this is an interesting conversation.

I apologize that I missed your comment. I've been flooded with plenty and it's hard to keep track and reply to everyone.

I agree with Kant in that our understanding and knowledge of the phenomenal world cannot be extended to that of the noumenal one. Metaphysical answers fail because we have no way of knowing if the understanding we gain through our mental faculties is applicable beyond the phenomenal world. Thus, we cannot rely on purely metaphysical reasoning.

this seems to be well thought out, but I don't intend on relying on purely metaphysical reasoning. I may use the concept of possible worlds to help with a deductive argument, but I also rely on empirical evidence supported in the premises. as for metaphysical answers, I disagree. there may be problems that demand metaphysical answers. there may be an occurrence impossible to explain using the universe alone and thus we need to postulate something metaphysical outside the universe to answer the problem. I know i'm not really being too revealing of what i'm referring to but i'm not comfortable straying off topic on a huge tangent so i'm not bringing up specific arguments.

we see that everything in the phenomenal world is preceded by a cause, but that does not allow us to make claims about cause and effect outside of spatial and temporal dimensions.

well I kind of disagree with this as well. we can certainly postulate certain conditions outside of space and time. for example, a material object could not exist outside space and time due to the fact that it requires space as a property of itself being that it's made of matter.

I'm not sure if one simple standard for all claims can be determined, for if this were possible, there wouldn't be so many different conclusions based upon the same evidence.

conclusions people draw from evidence are often based on their own biases and thus are not rational. I think giving every proposition an equal burden of proof is essential to removing biases from our conclusions. math is pretty standard. there's almost no dispute among mathematicians on how to do math. why? because no one really invests emotional attachment in that subject, so they don't have biases to throw them off. logic should be the same. putting emotion in logic only leads to fallacies, the two don't mix when making rational claims.

Firstly, there has to be the consideration of the support behind the positive argument and the support behind the negation of that argument. Then one has to take into account such things like how many assumptions must be made in order for the positive argument to be true, and does the argument appear to make intuitive sense. That latter part is tricky, as much of our knowledge must be taken a priori without actual proof.

that's an interesting process. I didn't really go into detail concerning all variables that can determine weight of a claim. I don't really have much problem with your process though.

I believe that all knowledge human beings attain must be understood in the context that it is discovered, which is that it always must understood that it has been perceived and filtered by the human brain.

true, and that's where solipsism comes from. but putting that epistemological belief aside, it is important to be aware of certain filters concerning your perception. that's why it's always good to cross examine claims with other people. other people may perceive something you didn't that can shape your conclusions.

All in all, I think it comes down to the individual and his/her viewpoints, not some objective standard that can be rigidly used for all claims.

I agree that for different individuals, the manner of interpreting evidence will vary between individuals. but I still think the standard of evidence should be solid. if there is more evidence for a proposition than its negation, it's rational to believe that proposition. you may later realize the evidence for that proposition was false, or misinterpreted. if this is the case, it would be rational to change your view to fit with the evidence. you may believe string theory is the most rational theory of quantum mechanics at one time and then change it when new evidence comes to light. being rational doesn't mean you're always right, it means you're always able to justify your position and you can always justify it by saying there's more evidence supporting the proposition than its negation or alternatives. no one can say you're irrational for believing the proposition with the most evidence.