Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[bennyboy]

Right, then, responding to some statement I make about truth with an objection about "truth" in some other sense or meaning is........ what....?  Whats the term for using a single term...with two or more meanings.....as we attempt to have a rational discussion, by shifting between those meanings or not explicitly describing, somehow, that we're not speaking of the same thing?  You objecting to "truth" is no objection to truth.  It's an equivocation.

-and just to head you off...it doesn't matter...-it doesn't matter- which one of us is using the "right" truth, or if either of us are, or if "tuth is dependant on context"...it will still be what it is, it will still be an equivocation, and so no possible basis for us to determine anything about what were discussing...rationally.  You have fucking, torpedoed, us, my friend.

?

Where have I ever objected to truth or "truth"? Truth means a claim is in accord with reality. Does that definition work for you? I have to be honest, I may have comprehension problems or something, because I don't really know what you're trying to say right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh Benny, this is tedious.  Either you're a complete moron or you're trolling me - any other possibility has been eliminated.  Which do you think I'd prefer to believe? Obviously that definition doesn't work for me, since it's not the one I've been using, the one I've described four or five times in the thread just so there wasn't any confusion. I've even given you the word I'd use to refer to what you're calling truth, up above, just as many times. An accurate claim.

\If you don;t know what I;m trying to say now, you couldn;t possibly have known what I was trying to say at any previous time...because I just keep repeating that definition, and using that term in the same way..and yet you objected...and objected...and objected......holy, fucking, christ, lol?

[emjay]

See, that's a plausible theory-- but how would you demonstrate it to represent truth?

Hi Benny. I'm sorry I didn't reply to this but at the time I wanted a break, but things have changed now since I've just enrolled on an open study A Level in Philosophy. I haven't been sent the course materials yet but I have started avidly reading the recommended textbook for the first year of the course and the first section of the course is about epistemology and seems to deal with the sorts of questions being raised in this thread.

So far it's up to direct realism vs indirect realism vs idealism, but I haven't yet got onto the definition of knowledge. I'm not entirely certain of my position... because there are a lot more arguments on all sides than I was previously aware of (which is fascinating in itself, and why I can hardly put this book down... how often can you say that about a textbook? ) but I lean towards indirect realism... direct realism seems to have an answer for everything but it just looks like wordplay to me; I'm having trouble conceptualising that position; which is (I think) ultimately the same problem I had ealier in the thread; whether my views on the mind re neuroscience were compatible with an 'objective' view of the world. But my position could change on that as I understand the arguments more over the course of the next few months. But from the three main philosophers so far discussed relating to this, I find myself agreeing most with Russell, and to some extent Berkeley, but much less with Locke.

Also, the book starts with a thorough chapter on logic and reasoning to be referred back to throughout the course; how to understand, formulate, and evaluate arguments in terms of premises, claims/conclusions, fallacies etc. Up to this point on this site I haven't done that very much... I present my arguments but without any particular awareness or understanding of their form in that respect, or of the logical methodology that should be used to evaluate them. But that needs to change, both for the sake of my course (which is all about doing that) and for clarity. For instance I know that any arguments I've made thus far will include premises and conclusions by definition, but this course and this methodology will help me identify them and thus allow me to reduce my thoughts/theories into a much more concise and logical form that is less open to (mis)interpretation/semantic difficulties (eg conflation of terms/equivocation (by me or others)) and is more clear to understand and analyse in terms of strengths and weaknesses. So I'm really looking forward to this because I want to put my own theories under proper logical scrutiny, by myself and others, to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and that can only in turn increase my confidence in them if they prove sound. And I think this site will be a great aid for practicing/revising these skills, so expect to see me getting much more involved in that side of things from now on

Another thing I've realised based on this is that since it is my firm conviction that in terms of the mind, phenomenal representations+dynamics and neural representations+dynamics are equivalent... two sides of the same coin... that each informs and predicts the other, it therefore follows that I should be able to use them interchangeably (and if I can't, it suggests a problem with the theory). Therefore in the interests of clarity all round I think it makes more sense to only speak of phenomenal representations/dynamics in any premises/conclusions that rely on them, by finding common sense examples that everyone can agree on of the phenomenal/NN dynamics I have in mind. In other words, I should never need to mention neurons again... which only serve to confuse an issue... because talking about phenomena is talking about the same thing under my view.

Anyway, onto your question; I make no claims (as yet) as to whether it represents truth. Ultimately I agree with you that we can't know if we're in the Matrix (or suchlike) or not so perhaps a good starting point is to refer to the external world as the environment we find ourselves in regardless of what's outside of that, if anything? As such it appears to me that any claims about 'truth' can only be in reference to that environment... anything outside of that has to be a position of 'scepticism' ie we can't know. So if 'absolute' truth is defined as including outside of the environment, then I don't believe it can be known. If it's not defined like that, and only refers to the environment, then I think the question is open to debate, probably coming down to the difference between direct and indirect realism. Does that answer your question, or at least start to? As I said, I'm not entirely sure of my position yet, because I'm essentially just being introduced to the material, but I would expect my stance to develop more strongly over the coming months as I study epistemology.

[LastPoet]

[emjay]

I take it that's for the size of my post... not the content?

[LastPoet]

I take it that's for the size of my post... not the content?

You have big arguments there. Since its Philosophy, I will bow out. Its too big a content for my simple mind. Can you put it in a sentence?

I've read the whole thing.

[LastPoet]

I take it that's for the size of my post... not the content?

Wait, now I get it. How big is your 'post' ? You know Emjay, another time space or dimension that is happening.

[emjay]

I take it that's for the size of my post... not the content?

You have big arguments there. Since its Philosophy, I will bow out. Its too big a content for my simple mind. Can you put it in a sentence?

I've read the whole thing.

It wasn't really an argument, just a progress update really followed by a paragraph to basically say 'I don't know' (but that I hope and expect to learn more about it over the coming months). It didn't look quite so big when I wrote it on my phone

---

I take it that's for the size of my post... not the content?

Wait, now I get it. How big is your 'post' ? You know Emjay, another time space or dimension that is happening.

Sorry, you've completely lost me?

[The Grand Nudger]

We can't know anything about claims explicitly designed to be unknowable, but that doesn't make every claim designed to be so a worthwhile or valid claim.  Even among the set of possible valid "unknowables", there are necessarrily a great many more possible unknowable claims than possible unknowable -true- claims.  

That's why entertaining whatever falls out of someones head is not the rigorous approach to claims that the claimants always demand for their thought droppings. There is no requirement to do so, and failure or refusal to do so does not, logically, justify skepticism towards any contradictory claim the proposer of the "unknowable" wishes to object.....whose validity and soundness can at least be assessed...even if that claim may be, ultimately, untrue.

It amounts to nothing other than "What if you;re wrong" "What if you don't know something". Well no shit, what if I am, that's why we have standards.....as to the latter...there is no requirement of full knowledge to consider a claim to be true, any demand - even in implication, for complete knowledge, is an illogical demand.

As to the specific example, the "what if we're in the matrix" objection is a non-objection. It is, firstly, not a worthwhile claim in a vacuum. Sewcondly, it does not alter or invalidate any claim we make about our evironment simply by virtue of being claimed...or even by virtue of being true. I am Khemikal. I am Khemikal regardless of whether I live in the universe we know, or in the matrix. Water is wet. Water is wet regardless of whether we live in the universe we know, or in the matrix.

[emjay]

Oh, I didn't realise that was you Rhythm. What happened... Mario finally got a headache?