RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
January 13, 2017 at 3:24 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2017 at 3:26 am by bennyboy.)
(January 13, 2017 at 1:06 am)Rhythm Wrote: Does that somehow remove the requirement of evidence in determining whether or not a claim is sound...a requirement for any pursuant conclusion to be considered true?
No, but metaphysical claims would require metaphysical evidence, and I don't believe that you would call it "evidence" at all. It may be that somebody in history has managed to achieve a spiritual state, or to otherwise discover some truth about the nature of existence that cannot be revealed through sensory observations: through insight meditation, perhaps.
We can take as a pretty simple example metaphysical claims that reality is materially monist. These are claims about the underpinnings or framework of reality, but we are trying to use evidence which is a subset of that reality. We cannot make any logical conclusion based on the nature of our "evidence"-- because the contexts don't match. We can't build a bridge from the subset to the whole.
But you've missed the boat in not realizing that I'd end up at subjectivism. Let's say I claim that a particular sunset I saw was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen. If you demanded evidence, then how would I produce it? Would you reject my claim out of hand? I doubt it. I think that even you understand that subjective experiences are in a context for which people cannot provide evidence. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you'll start babbling about fMRIs and such.
