RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
December 14, 2016 at 9:29 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2016 at 9:31 pm by Chas.)
(December 11, 2016 at 11:43 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:(December 11, 2016 at 6:54 pm)Chas Wrote: No, I would not. Any claim about the nature of a thing is meaningless without evidence of the existence of that thing.Is your claim outside of the domain of these "things"? Because your claim, that I should only accept its truth after conceding the validity of the evidence provided about the meaningfulness of its nature -- apparently (though paradoxically?) involving the property that it is a properly basic belief and does not require such evidence -- seemed to be conveniently lacking said evidence.
I have made no claim other than requiring evidence, your word salad notwithstanding.
(December 14, 2016 at 1:20 am)Mudhammam Wrote: This possibly, as you said, begs a further question, which is whether or not any description can be objectively better or worse, or if that is a fundamentally subjective determination. But given that I think such a route probably tends towards self-defeating conclusions, or at the very least, extremely awkward ones, I would be inclined to defend the objectivity of rational value judgments.
Value judgments are subjective by definition.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.