(November 22, 2017 at 6:01 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 5:53 pm)curiosne Wrote: I think it's all in the wording of it. Going back to one of my examples where I claim that I have $10 in my pocket, you would accept my claim (even without physical proof) that I actually have $10 in my pocket. Reason being that it's a mundane claim and hence you would not go to that extra step of searching me for the $10...ie me telling you that I only have $10 in money is sufficient for you to believe me.

But I would accept your claim for a reason and that reason is itself physical.

Yeah, good point. So to clarify, are you saying that all evidence manifests itself in some physical form?

(November 22, 2017 at 5:13 pm)curiosne Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 7:01 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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?

I don't think that I have found reason, to believe that Sasquatch are wandering around in the forest.  I've never made any type of serious inquiry into the matter, and never had anyone really bring me an account of one, with the expectation that I should believe it.  

As to feeling, I hold them in lesser regard, because they are often sub-conscious and more difficult to say, what they are making evident.  Is that queasy feeling a result of the situation or a bit indigestion from the previous meal?  Is it just paranoia?  On the other hand, I do believe the subconscious can pick up on and relay things that the conscious mind does not notice.  However, because of this, they are not always rational as well. 

I have always been cautious of categorically trying to pin down the evidential value of group.  Even in feelings, I do think that there are circumstances where they can be a strong evidence (trusting your gut).  It is also highly subjective, and may be difficult to convey or expect others to give it the same value.

(November 22, 2017 at 5:53 pm)curiosne Wrote: I think it's all in the wording of it. Going back to one of my examples where I claim that I have $10 in my pocket, you would accept my claim (even without physical proof) that I actually have $10 in my pocket. Reason being that it's a mundane claim and hence you would not go to that extra step of searching me for the $10...ie me telling you that I only have $10 in money is sufficient for you to believe me.

I'm trying not to get tied up in semantics currently as my claim above is not really evidence, it's just a claim but one that you'd ordinarily accept.

If you are interested later, I would enjoy talking more about this concept (I don't want to de-rail your current flow).  I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it (not much anyway).  I think it is more a matter of extending faith, and another is not obliged on any epistemological level to do the same if the burden hasn't been met.

(November 22, 2017 at 6:14 pm)curiosne Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 6:01 pm)Hammy Wrote: But I would accept your claim for a reason and that reason is itself physical.

Yeah, good point. So to clarify, are you saying that all evidence manifests itself in some physical form?

Well, that is what my question was pointing out. Evidence has to be evident to someone, and we are physical beings, and the only way we can detect anything or that anything can be evident to us is physically. Therefore evidence is necessarily physical.

(November 23, 2017 at 4:15 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 6:14 pm)curiosne Wrote: Yeah, good point. So to clarify, are you saying that all evidence manifests itself in some physical form?

Well, that is what my question was pointing out. Evidence has to be evident to someone, and we are physical beings, and the only way we can detect anything or that anything can be evident to us is physically. Therefore evidence is necessarily physical.

Agreed. I can't think of any non-physical forms of evidence.

Well, I'm trying to point out that it's logically impossible as long as you assume we're physical and evidence has to be evident to us

(November 23, 2017 at 8:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 5:13 pm)curiosne Wrote: 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?

I don't think that I have found reason, to believe that Sasquatch are wandering around in the forest.  I've never made any type of serious inquiry into the matter, and never had anyone really bring me an account of one, with the expectation that I should believe it.  

As to feeling, I hold them in lesser regard, because they are often sub-conscious and more difficult to say, what they are making evident.  Is that queasy feeling a result of the situation or a bit indigestion from the previous meal?  Is it just paranoia?  On the other hand, I do believe the subconscious can pick up on and relay things that the conscious mind does not notice.  However, because of this, they are not always rational as well. 

I have always been cautious of categorically trying to pin down the evidential value of group.  Even in feelings, I do think that there are circumstances where they can be a strong evidence (trusting your gut).  It is also highly subjective, and may be difficult to convey or expect others to give it the same value.

(November 22, 2017 at 5:53 pm)curiosne Wrote: I think it's all in the wording of it. Going back to one of my examples where I claim that I have $10 in my pocket, you would accept my claim (even without physical proof) that I actually have $10 in my pocket. Reason being that it's a mundane claim and hence you would not go to that extra step of searching me for the $10...ie me telling you that I only have $10 in money is sufficient for you to believe me.

I'm trying not to get tied up in semantics currently as my claim above is not really evidence, it's just a claim but one that you'd ordinarily accept.

If you are interested later, I would enjoy talking more about this concept (I don't want to de-rail your current flow).  I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it (not much anyway).  I think it is more a matter of extending faith, and another is not obliged on any epistemological level to do the same if the burden hasn't been met.

In relation to Bigfoot, the only forms of evidence are grainy video footage and a lot of hearsay but no physical evidence. Would these be sufficient reasons (evidence) for you to believe in Bigfoot? If not why?

Also with your reply on feelings, you're saying that feelings can be on a spectrum of low quality to high quality evidence and depending on the situation can be relied upon. I tentatively accept your reason (again depending on the situation esp with gut instincts) so let's move on to the next point.

Can you explain a bit more on your statement above regarding the "nature of the claim"? How do you connect the nature of the claim to how low/high the epistemic burden?

Hey curiousne, what interests you about street epistemology?

(November 24, 2017 at 12:00 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Hey curiousne, what interests you about street epistemology?

It seems to be a very approachable way to talk to people on their beliefs.

Also street epistemology promotes more critical thinking into their beliefs and makes them more introspective.

My opinion is that critical thinking is a teachable skill and throughout my life, with my interactions with people, many don't seem to have a good framework to work with to employ good critical thinking skills.

So by assessing a person's critical thinking skills first and (if their critical thinking skills need work) nudging them towards a more robust critical thinking framework to use (ie makes logical sense and is evidence based), i believe more rational conversations will follow...?

Not sure if this will work but I'll give it a go.

The problem is that there are many smart people out there who sometimes have cognitive dissonance. If they employed their critical thinking skills consistently in all areas of their life there wouldn't be cognitive dissonance. So street epistemology should hopefully flesh out these irrational beliefs (like belief in ghosts for example).

I think this to be a better approach than debating head on with people's beliefs.

(November 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm)curiosne Wrote:

(November 23, 2017 at 8:34 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that I have found reason, to believe that Sasquatch are wandering around in the forest.  I've never made any type of serious inquiry into the matter, and never had anyone really bring me an account of one, with the expectation that I should believe it.  

As to feeling, I hold them in lesser regard, because they are often sub-conscious and more difficult to say, what they are making evident.  Is that queasy feeling a result of the situation or a bit indigestion from the previous meal?  Is it just paranoia?  On the other hand, I do believe the subconscious can pick up on and relay things that the conscious mind does not notice.  However, because of this, they are not always rational as well. 

I have always been cautious of categorically trying to pin down the evidential value of group.  Even in feelings, I do think that there are circumstances where they can be a strong evidence (trusting your gut).  It is also highly subjective, and may be difficult to convey or expect others to give it the same value.


If you are interested later, I would enjoy talking more about this concept (I don't want to de-rail your current flow).  I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it (not much anyway).  I think it is more a matter of extending faith, and another is not obliged on any epistemological level to do the same if the burden hasn't been met.

1.) In relation to Bigfoot, the only forms of evidence are grainy video footage and a lot of hearsay but no physical evidence. Would these be sufficient reasons (evidence) for you to believe in Bigfoot? If not why?

2.)  Also with your reply on feelings, you're saying that feelings can be on a spectrum of low quality to high quality evidence and depending on the situation can be relied upon. I tentatively accept your reason (again depending on the situation esp with gut instincts) so let's move on to the next point.

3.) Can you explain a bit more on your statement above regarding the "nature of the claim"? How do you connect the nature of the claim to how low/high the epistemic burden?

1.) In regards to bigfoot, your descriptions are fairly vague.  If that is a reflection of the evidence then I suppose that it would not be sufficient.  You make a point of no physical evidence;  what do you mean by this?  Is this important to your questioning?

2.) Just for clarification, I don't know that I would ever say that feelings are high in quality of evidence (by nature I think they would be difficult to pin down towards specifics).  I may have misspoke here and I apologize.  Although I don't think that it is always irrational, to act on a feeling either. 

3.)  I don't believe that ones subjective incredulity, or prior knowledge, or personal bias increases the epistemic burden on someone.  For instance, in your example, I think that the same knowledge that tells me, that you have $5 in your pocket, is sufficient to tell me, that you have $20k (forgoing the issue of dimensions with actual cash that I bough up earlier).  Any incredulity on my part, doesn't effect the information and facts available; nor effect what is actually in your possession.  In this way, I don't think that the nature of the claim effects the strength of the epistemic burden.

On the other hand, I do think that the nature of the claim, can effect what is sufficient for it.  Not by moving the goal posts, but because of what the claim is attempting to represent.  For example claiming that Aunt Mary drank water eight times a day, and her cancer went into remission.  Showing that the above are facts, would be quite different, than making the claim, that drinking water eight times a day, gets rid of cancer.

(November 24, 2017 at 6:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 1.) In regards to bigfoot, your descriptions are fairly vague.  If that is a reflection of the evidence then I suppose that it would not be sufficient.  You make a point of no physical evidence;  what do you mean by this?  Is this important to your questioning?

2.) Just for clarification, I don't know that I would ever say that feelings are high in quality of evidence (by nature I think they would be difficult to pin down towards specifics).  I may have misspoke here and I apologize.  Although I don't think that it is always irrational, to act on a feeling either. 

3.)  I don't believe that ones subjective incredulity, or prior knowledge, or personal bias increases the epistemic burden on someone.  For instance, in your example, I think that the same knowledge that tells me, that you have $5 in your pocket, is sufficient to tell me, that you have $20k (forgoing the issue of dimensions with actual cash that I bough up earlier).  Any incredulity on my part, doesn't effect the information and facts available; nor effect what is actually in your possession.  In this way, I don't think that the nature of the claim effects the strength of the epistemic burden.

On the other hand, I do think that the nature of the claim, can effect what is sufficient for it.  Not by moving the goal posts, but because of what the claim is attempting to represent.  For example claiming that Aunt Mary drank water eight times a day, and her cancer went into remission.  Showing that the above are facts, would be quite different, than making the claim, that drinking water eight times a day, gets rid of cancer.

1) When I said no physical evidence, I meant no physical samples of a bigfoot (eg hair samples, stool samples, etc). This is important as the quality of evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists is lower whithout physical samples to support the claim. At this point, let's go down to point three below....

2) Ok, good clarification. I also wouldn't say feelings are high quality evidence (if at all).

3) So with the nature of the claims that have been mentioned (Bigfoot existing & Aunt Mary curing her cancer by drinking water), you say that there is insufficient evidence for each of the cases to accept the claims. Can you clarify, how you determine how much (both quality and quantity) evidence (also what types of evidence like heresay, phtotos, etc?) you need for the ordinary / extraordinary nature of a claim?

I mean, do you consciously use a rule to determine how much evidence you need?