Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 7:10 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
^Right. This is why I argue that Benny's skepticism doesn't preclude the possibility of knowledge in whatever-context one opts to conduct their inquiry.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 11, 2016 at 2:12 am)Mudhammam Wrote:
(December 11, 2016 at 12:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: So how would you respond to a WLC argument, that the God idea is a rational one?  Not with appeals for evidence that God is real?
I'm glad you asked because that brings me to the next point that I had wished to make.

Atheists who respond to theistic arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of God through rational terms with the statement "Claims demand evidence" are, I think, simply mistaken.  Of course, if the claim about God involves propositions that are evidential or factual (in the common sense usage of the word), such as in claims about miracles or the order of events at creation, then one is not irrational to demand evidence -- and in this way many if not most religious claims fit the bill.  But if the theist makes a claim about one of the many more generic versions of God, as the ultimate source of being or truth or morality, or something that qualifies as a "first principle" or "metaphysical necessity", then the rebuttal will likely need to deal with the argument on its own terms if it is all to be a serious reply; terms which, as I said, are strictly rational (at least in their attempt, not necessarily in their premises or the conclusion they reach).  One should respond to theists such as WLC in precisely this manner, by engaging with the premises and showing where they go wrong, and/or fail to logically validate the conclusion; rather than just assert that the theist has a burden of proof which involves a certain display of evidence, and that nothing they say can be accepted as true (even probabilistically) unless said evidence is produced.  The atheist who engages like this isn't refuting any arguments, but redefining the requirements by which claims ought to be accepted in a way that is essentially question-begging and as equally unsubstantiated as the theist's claim about his or her (generic) God.
Good post
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I meant to respond to this, but forgot about it during the holiday rush.

(December 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: OFC it's a single, indivisible principle.  Evidence is "that which is evident".  
And truth is "that which is true." So is it true that when I play a game, my character can explore a 3D world, interact with other characters and objects, and enjoy gains and suffer losses?

The obvious answer is yes and no-- it's true in the context of that game. For example, if I know there's a statue just around the corner, I can ask other characters if there's a statue there, or I can run around the corner a few thousand times just to reassure myself.

But in the context of human life, that truth isn't so true. We can see that there's no actual physical space in which the characters interact-- there's a virtual space driven by software and expressed through a computer monitor.

So if I ask "Is there really a statue around that corner?" we're in a pickle-- we cannot establish the truth value of that statement unless we give it a context.

Quote:Philosophy does not provide evidence, it's incapable.  It provides proof, truth, which is itself built upon that which is evident.  It's nothing more or less than a system of arranging and exploring claims and relationships regarding that which is evident.   GIGO.
If by "G" you mean "awareness of the limitations of context," then okay.

Quote:Brute fact in context and axiom are, in the ways that you use the terms, interchangeable.  I allow for what is evident to be something other than a fact.  I have to ask, though, what context is it that we can eschew the evident?  What context can we avoid refering to what is evident, and how might we manage doing that, as creatures who define context....as you say above, -by- what is evident?
I think you're asking the wrong kind of questions. Any experience can be called "evidence" if you think it reveals truth. But you're still stuck with the problem of context-- some things' truth values are dependent on the context in which the truth statements are posed.

The error that we see so much in philosophical discussions is that contextual truths are generalized beyond their scope. Evidence is a good example: is anything we can see evidence for or against any philosophical idea about metaphysical truth? No, it's not.

Quote:I get that you're trying to reach for something, but honestly, anytime I see these sorts of comments they strike me as empty deepity.  An attempt to express the in-expressable, for whatever reason, to be generous.
There seems little point to me in attempting to express the easily-expressible. It's the boundaries of understanding and communication at which the interesting stuff happens.

Quote:Minds of gods and matrices and even "your experience", for example, are subjects that rely on elaborate evidentiary underpinnings, whether true or false.  Without those evidentiary underpinnings they are non-referent, empty terms, meaningless.
If you want to take truth-in-context which supports other truths in the same context, you can always call that "evidence," because evidence is just a word talking about that. But it is in our nature to expand our understanding, and that process starts by determining which truths can be extended into which contexts. Evidence-in-this-context cannot be reasonably expected to extend into evidence-in-a-metaphysical-context, and appeals to evidence for metaphysical ideas aren't the slam-dunks that the askers really think they are. It's just evidence that people don't understand how evidence works.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 10, 2017 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: And truth is "that which is true."  So is it true that when I play a game, my character can explore a 3D world, interact with other characters and objects, and enjoy gains and suffer losses?

The obvious answer is yes and no-- it's true in the context of that game.  For example, if I know there's a statue just around the corner, I can ask other characters if there's a statue there, or I can run around the corner a few thousand times just to reassure myself.

But in the context of human life, that truth isn't so true.  We can see that there's no actual physical space in which the characters interact-- there's a virtual space driven by software and expressed through a computer monitor.

So if I ask "Is there really a statue around that corner?" we're in a pickle-- we cannot establish the truth value of that statement unless we give it a context.
If you find that a statement is simultaneously true and false then you have yourself a surefire indicator that the question is malformed, the answer is malformed, or both.  The moment you say "context" you've identified the misstep.  Equivocation.  

There is no pickle, and there is no spoon...nor..is there a statue around the corner.  That's just shorthand we use to crush the noobs bro.  Now go beast some baddie through the wall, 360 noscope.  

Quote:I think you're asking the wrong kind of questions.  Any experience can be called "evidence" if you think it reveals truth.  But you're still stuck with the problem of context-- some things' truth values are dependent on the context in which the truth statements are posed.
Not every experience is evident, so..no?  

Quote:The error that we see so much in philosophical discussions is that contextual truths are generalized beyond their scope.  Evidence is a good example: is anything we can see evidence for or against any philosophical idea about metaphysical truth?  No, it's not.
Such as when a person imparts some greater meaning into simple equivocation..............?

Quote:There seems little point to me in attempting to express the easily-expressible.  It's the boundaries of understanding and communication at which the interesting stuff happens.
Maybe, but how would we know?   It's not like we can express it.  Wink

Quote:If you want to take truth-in-context which supports other truths in the same context, you can always call that "evidence," because evidence is just a word talking about that.
Again, no?  It's that which is evident.  

Quote:But it is in our nature to expand our understanding, and that process starts by determining which truths can be extended into which contexts.  Evidence-in-this-context cannot be reasonably expected to extend into evidence-in-a-metaphysical-context, and appeals to evidence for metaphysical ideas aren't the slam-dunks that the askers really think they are.  It's just evidence that people don't understand how evidence works.
Sounds like somebody doesn't like being asked for evidence in support of their metaphysical claims.  Unfortunately, there's no way around it.  The "sound" component of "sound and valid" is evidentiary.  Even the requirement that a proposition be sound is evidentiary.  Now we're entertaining a special pleading argument in defense of equivocation. At this point it feels a little bit silly to talk about truth at all. We can't get there from here.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I'm not following the idea that evidence is "that which is evident". I'd say evidence makes things become evident.

For example, dropping a ball is evidence of gravity. It makes gravity evident.

It is important that it's evident I've dropped a ball, but that's just a matter of being able to observe the evidence. I'd say anything that is simply an evident event is data.

Of course, being evident is ultimately subjective anyway.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 11, 2017 at 1:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: If you find that a statement is simultaneously true and false then you have yourself a surefire indicator that the question is malformed, the answer is malformed, or both.
What's a photon?

Quote:  The moment you say "context" you've identified the misstep.  Equivocation.
If you don't think context matters, then stick your finger up your lover's butt in the middle of a restaurant. Tell her that truth is truth, and that if she both does or doesn't like being touched that way, her views are malformed.


Quote:Again, no?  It's that which is evident.
I'm used to spinning in these kinds of circles with religious folk, but I think you could stand to put effort into letting words actually mean . We call evidence that which we believe brings truth into view. However, there are plenty of things that are true in one context but not in another. It is true in our context, for example, that time passes at a certain rate, in whatever way you choose to define it, but that in another context, time does not move at that rate.

In other words, there is evidence that the truth pointed at by evidence is often context-dependent. There is not, however, any evidence that the kind of mundane physical evidence which you go on about can lead us to any improvement in out understanding of the whys of existence.

Quote:Sounds like somebody doesn't like being asked for evidence in support of their metaphysical claims.
Sounds like someone wants to beg the philosophical question, but will not allow rational ideas or philosophical insight to sway him from what he's already decided he knows. Smile
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 11, 2017 at 10:13 am)bennyboy Wrote: What's a photon?
I'm not sure why you think that a photon is an example of a statement being simultaneously true and false?  

Quote:If you don't think context matters, then stick your finger up your lover's butt in the middle of a restaurant.  Tell her that truth is truth, and that if she both does or doesn't like being touched that way, her views are malformed.
Who said anything about context not mattering?  I simply explained to you that if something being simultaneously true and false is a matter of context, then it's been equivocated over....?

Quote:I'm used to spinning in these kinds of circles with religious folk, but I think you could stand to put effort into letting words actually mean .  We call evidence that which we believe brings truth into view.  However, there are plenty of things that are true in one context but not in another.  It is true in our context, for example, that time passes at a certain rate, in whatever way you choose to define it, but that in another context, time does not move at that rate.
Again, if context is the difference, as a single logical statement, equivocation is almost always problem. It's not that something is simultaneously true and false, the proposition is malformed - as a logical statement-...even if it's perfectly workable conversationally.  Two separate meanings of a term in question are being employed interchangeably, and in that case regardless of whether either use of the term is sound, the form is invalid, and so we're not discussing truth, only fallacy.

Quote:In other words, there is evidence that the truth pointed at by evidence is often context-dependent.  There is not, however, any evidence that the kind of mundane physical evidence which you go on about can lead us to any improvement in out understanding of the whys of existence.
Is there some other kind of evidence?  The term evidence specifically refers to the things we are capable of perceiving.

Here's the rub.  It may be that we have no means of understanding the whys of existence, particularly if what is evident to us, as human beings, is incapable of piercing that veil...since we can't generate a true conclusion in the absence of sound propositions, and we can't determine that a proposition is sound in the absence of evidence.  If that's the case, no amount of lowering the bar will make it less so. We can make metaphysical claims all day long, even contradictory metaphysical claims, but that's all they'll be, claims. Noise. Which one is true, if any of them are true? No way to tell. Hence, claims demand evidence.

Quote:Sounds like someone wants to beg the philosophical question, but will not allow rational ideas or philosophical insight to sway him from what he's already decided he knows. Smile

What I know?  Here's what I know, in context, lol.  If we don't follow the rules, we may still possess insight, but it isn't philosophical or rational insight.  If we want to discuss truth, in a rational or philosophical context, we are discussing that which follows when valid form is applied to sound proposition.  One without the other doesn't cut it, not even for metaphysics. If a person cannot provide what is required to entertain their metaphysical claim as truth, that;s not a failure of any party other than the person making the metaphysical claim. Personally, I have a commitment to a modified sort of logical positivism. The number of possible claims necessarily outweighs the number of true claims, and, IMO, the only meaningful claims (again with regards to truth- just to head off the inevitable equivocation-as-objection) are those which can be solved by logical analysis. The rest is chimpsong.

@Rob. That;s just the etymology of evidence. The word evidence is derived as a noun from the adjective evident. That which is evident is evidence, evidence is that which is evident. To wit:
Quote:plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.
"she ate the cookies with evident enjoyment"
synonyms: obvious, apparent, noticeable, conspicuous, perceptible, visible, discernible, clear, clear-cut, plain, manifest, patent;

-As to it being subjective, not so. Again, that it is objective is also bound up in the root term, which is why I mentioned earlier that not every experience is evidence, or evident. Experience is subjective, evidence is not. That which we experience is not always evident, and even that which is evident is not necessarily true. A person may see a ghost (experience), but that does not mean that the ghost is evident (evidence), or that there is a ghost(truth). Three terms referring to distinct concepts...granted, we often use the terms interchangeably in conversation.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 11, 2017 at 11:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: Who said anything about context not mattering?  I simply explained to you that if something being simultaneously true and false is a matter of context, then it's been equivocated over....?
Is it true that dragons are real, and that if you try to take their gold, they'll kill you? In some games, yes. In real life, no. Can I say, "In the only experience with dragons we have, they'll kill you if you steal your gold. . . therefore until better evidence is presented, I must conclude that dragons are real, and that they care about gold"? No. I'm attempting to take evidence-in-context out of its context.


A good example would be your metaphysical views on material monism, which you cannot actually found based on evidence, except in context: "In the context of my mundane experiences, reality consists of things with particular properties arranged in a 3-dimensional space."
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 11, 2017 at 1:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: There is no pickle, and there is no spoon...nor..is there a statue around the corner.

In the context of the video game example, there's no corner either. Making the question of whether there is a statue around it equally meaningless.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 11, 2017 at 6:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Is it true that dragons are real, and that if you try to take their gold, they'll kill you?
Nope.  Next.

Quote:In some games, yes.  In real life, no.  Can I say, "In the only experience with dragons we have, they'll kill you if you steal your gold. . . therefore until better evidence is presented, I must conclude that dragons are real, and that they care about gold"?  No.  I'm attempting to take evidence-in-context out of its context.
If you're going to respond to my describing to you why this evidence in context business is a properly fundamental logical faux pas with another example of it, I don't think that we're going to make much progress on the issue of rational or philosophical insights.  

Quote:A good example would be your metaphysical views on material monism, which you cannot actually found based on evidence, except in context: "In the context of my mundane experiences, reality consists of things with particular properties arranged in a 3-dimensional space."
I'm not sure what the problem is, nor would the comments above salvage evidence in context from the manner in which you;ve been employing the terms in any case, so....? If you, or anyone else has some "non-mundane" experience (whatever that;s supposed to be) to present for consideration as evidence, then have at it. It needs to be proffered in order for us to determine whether or not some proposition is sound, and we can;t know whether or not a conclusion is true even if a valid argument is present (and I want to repeat that you;ve been having problems on that count anyway, so soundness may, indeed, be moot for whatever metaphysical claim you're flirting with) if we can't determine that.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek philosophers always knew about the causeless universe Interaktive 10 1265 September 25, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? FlatAssembler 52 3739 August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How To Tell What Is True From What Is Untrue. redpill 39 3474 December 28, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Is this Quite by Kenneth Boulding True Rhondazvous 11 1478 August 6, 2019 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Alan V
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 4177 June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11544 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 115137 September 13, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Astonished
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Angrboda 36 11287 May 28, 2017 at 1:53 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 259 24372 March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 50591 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)