Street Epistemology - Practice

[curiosne]

Good point, I'll try to limit the amount of questions I ask in one go.

So let's get logical question out of the way first....so are you saying that with a logical argument, you'd only accept that it represents reality if it's both sound and also that there's evidence that the argument is true.

Have I summed up your position on this correctly?

Actually I was talking about increasing the questions in one post. If it won’t interrupt the flow of you approach. I can understand wanting to build a flow of logic.

As to your question.
No, while it’s going to be dependent on the particulars of the the claim/argument, I wouldn’t agree that physical evidence is always necessary, to bolster the reasons. Would you say that you have a lower view of logic in this way?

No, it's not a lower view of logic but I think I understand where you're coming from. I'll approach this question in a different way then...

Do you believe that the Sasquatch (ie bigfoot) exists? If you do / not, what are your reasons for / not believing in it's existence?

Also when you say "feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence", are you implying that feelings are a lower quality / form of evidence hence you why you'd only accept it as a support as opposed to it being a stand alone form of evidence?