Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[emjay]

Perhaps you should investigate valid argument structures yourself, and save everyone alot of heartache?  If I tell you "you can't phrase the statement that way, it's fallacy "x" it has nothing to do with my worldview (or whether it's accurate or inaccurate, true or false), or something that I personally disagree with.  That's just how the system is arranged.  

No amount of bickering about my worldview will change the rules of that system.  That, too, is described by the system and given a classification as a fallacy.

I admit I may have misunderstood (what's new? ) but what I figured you were saying earlier was basically that propositional logic was like an equation; all premises and conclusions have to be able to evaluate to true or false not true and false, and thus benny's statement about truths being simultaneously true and false, dependent on what context they occur in, would be malformed... simply would not 'plug in' to the equation if visualised like that... basically 'syntax error... does not compute'. And the way round it was just to reformulate/reword it... correct the syntax error... find another way of saying the same thing that would compute. Is that what you meant?

[bennyboy]

Perhaps you should investigate valid argument structures yourself, and save everyone alot of heartache?  If I tell you "you can't phrase the statement that way, it's fallacy "x" it has nothing to do with my worldview (or whether it's accurate or inaccurate, true or false), or something that I personally disagree with.  That's just how the system is arranged.  

No amount of bickering about my worldview will change the rules of that system.  That, too, is described by the system and given a classification as a fallacy.

This is the response I expected from you.  You claim to have defined, when you have not, the terms of your argument, and instead of bothering to follow through with an actual explanation, you start waving your hand toward the internet and saying "Do my work for me."  Look, if you want to view the OP through the rules of formal logic, go ahead.  Explain how your understanding of the rules of logic arrives at a sensible conclusion about the OP.  But if you are going to say you've defined a word over and over again, the way you've always used it, and I've insistently ignored you-- get real.  Your definition includes qualifiers, and you need to explain by what means you apply them, or your definition is just a fart in the wind.

For a guy with so many words to spend, you seem to have a surprising dearth of ideas of your own to put forward and support.  Why don't you take a position on something other than my semantics for once, and attempt to actually support it with some original thinking?  Because arguing my usage of words without actually putting forth your own is. . . wait for it. . . pretty much the definition of bickering.  What color pot are you, dude?  If you're not sure, ask the kettle.

[The Grand Nudger]

My informing you of invalid arguments isn't, itself, an argument.    Forcing your statements into coherence isn't my work to do.   I've not only told you how I use the term truth and where I get the definition I use, multiple times, I've flat out asked you if we're talking about the same thing.  If we aren't, that's that, problem solved.

Get your shit together.

@emjay.

Pretty much, as I've already suggested, if whatever it is that Benny is attempting to communicate is true, or even accurate, there simply has to be a way to phrase it such that it doesn't run afoul of logical rules or evidentiary assessment.

[bennyboy]

My informing you of invalid arguments isn't, itself, an argument.    Forcing your statements into coherence isn't my work to do.   I've not only told you how I use the term truth and where I get the definition I use, multiple times, I've flat out asked you if we're talking about the same thing.  If we aren't, that's that, problem solved.

I don't care to conform with your view or your terminology. You can read what I said and figure it out yourself. Sound familiar?

 
Get your shit together.

Get some ideas of your own to talk about.


I have a pretty clear position, and I'm perfectly willing to stand by it and defend it. My position is that "claims demand evidence" isn't always true if you are talking about absolutes. This is because 1) many perfectly valid claims cannot be supported with evidence without metaphysical assumptions that are more fundamental than the claims themselves; 2) some things are true in some contexts, but not in others. You picked on an example, which I chose to be entertaining and simple, but I could have picked dozens of other examples-- because it should be obvious to anyone that real-world claims, and those are at least a subset of all possible claims, aren't as black-and-white as you are trying to make them out.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Well, logic is just like, your opinion, man".

You're absolutely right, ofc, you -don't- have to conform to the view I've described or the terminology I use.

[bennyboy]

"Well, logic is just like, your opinion, man".

You're absolutely right, ofc, you -don't- have to conform to the view I've described or the terminology I use.

Quoting strawmen is fun, hey?  

Your definition of truth depends on evidence, which you refuse to concisely define, and I suspect that your view of evidence is based on at least one question-begging assumption.  So whatever you say about a proposition, I believe that any attempt you make to apply it to real-world claims is going to be flawed.  And that's why establishing context matters: when you are making propositions with unprovable axioms that aren't accepted by all parties, you have to resort to conditional statements: "Given Rhythm's particular flavor of what constitutes evidence, which is hidden in a box along with Schrodinger's cat, the OP statement is/isn't true."

But hey, maybe you'll actually generate a position of your own at some point, supported by ideas of your own, and I'll have a first-hand chance to see how the power of sound propositions and great evidence lead to you having an actual idea about the OP.  *begins holding breath*

[The Grand Nudger]

My definition of truth is how truth is defined logically.  A true statement is the conclusion of a valid argument supplied with sound propositions.  Again, you don't have to conform to this view of truth, you do not have to use this terminology. Personally, I find that definition and that terminology sufficient, there's no need for me to formulate my own position on the matter.

If that isn't the kind of truth we're talking about, as I've suggested before...all you have to do is say so and that's that. Endlessly, and...apparently, un-noticingly harping about it being my personal opinion is pointless nonsense.

[bennyboy]

My definition of truth is how truth is defined logically.  A true statement is the conclusion of a valid argument supplied with sound propositions.  Again, you don't have to conform to this view of truth, you do not have to use this terminology.  Personally, I find that definition and that terminology sufficient, there's no need for me to formulate my own position on the matter.

If that isn't the kind of truth we're talking about, as I've suggested before...all you have to do is say so and that's that.

Okay, the OP still hasn't been deleted as far as I know.  Let 'er rip, dude.  Take a position.

[The Grand Nudger]

Already have, ffs...you responded to it.  

The OP asks a question,  leveraging terminology that indicates a request for a logical answer as to the relationship between truth, claims, and evidence.  Truth being the product of valid arguments supplied with sound propositions...the requirement of evidence in generating a sound proposition means that claims demand evidence in order to be assessed for and as truth. As to whether or not this is taken solely by definition..or if in fact there is evidence for -this- claim, it is both taken as a matter of definition -and- well evidenced....as the provision of valid arguments in the absence of sound propositions or with unsound propositions yields conclusions whose truth values cannot be ascertained, or even untrue conclusions. Neither the system nor it;s requirements arose in a vacuum.

Whatevs managed to distill it into a single line of brilliance. Do claims demand evidence? Evidently, yes.

[emjay]

@benny. I'm still having trouble with your (2), maybe because I see it more likely that instead of "truth in context" it's "truth is context". In the sense that the only time you are certain about something is when you have no questions... ie you understand it... all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. But as soon as you have questions... ie there's an unexplained gap in the context... some relationships are unknown... then you feel doubt and uncertainty until they're resolved. So from that perspective I would argue that it's impossible to have an isolated truth in a context and instead the stable context itself is truth, and that's how I see it both phenomenally (as described above) and neurally. So where in (2) you allow for an isolated truth to have different values in different contexts and still be the same thing, I disagree and suggest that the truth includes the context that surrounds your isolated truths and therefore each context is a separate truth.

I will qualify this though to say that the above refers to perceived certainty, understanding, doubt etc. You can have all of those things at different times in a delusion (eg a Mafia game) but still be objectively wrong. So tying it up to objective truth, or whatever you'd call it, is a different matter but the perceptions of doubt, understanding, certainty etc, I hope we can agree, apply regardless... and therefore so should what I've proposed about truth-is-context.