Street Epistemology - Practice

[curiosne]

Right, thanks for the clarification. So in the example with the variance of x number of dollars, I understand that there will always be disagreements with the standard of measure between us, for each of us to get a justified belief in the variance. All I wanted to know though, was what your standard of measure is to get a justified belief in a claim.

We can then use your standard between us to talk about other beliefs otherwise we will be arguing on two fronts, both what the standard should be (I am fine to use yours) and also whether a belief is justified (which is what I'm interested in). This is why I'm trying to understand your standard of measure even though you say that it's hard to draw a line.

Are you able to briefly explain your standard of measure even though it might be hard to pinpoint the exact nature of it?

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I realize, that is still not very specific, but as I think on it, and I touched on this briefly before, I don't think that it is all that easy to make a standard rule.   It could be an observation, or perhaps simple observation isn't enough.  It could be a number of circumstantial pieces of evidence, that are  weak individually, but collectively point strongly to a unified conclusion.  Perhaps principles would be a better word, but even then a lot can change in the details.   I am flexible and willing to compromise, perhaps you could start off what you are thinking of as a standard.

Yes, I like the word principles so let's use that instead.

If you would like my principle, here it is:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity and quality of evidence for what I deem to be an out of the ordinary claim.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Does that sound like a good principle? If yes, let's move on otherwise please explain your reasoning.

---

I think that it needs to make the claim evident, beyond a reasonable doubt.  

You accept that? Because it has yet to happen anywhere.

I think RR79 might be talking about a court of law situation. Someone can only be convicted of murder if the evidence points to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know the confidence percentage for reasonable doubt but it does not necessarily mean being 100% sure.