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!
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?
Ok... so is remaining physical evidence is important to you? Do you need to examine this evidence for yourself, or do you trust what others say about it? At best, it would seem to me, that a hair or poop sample, could be determined as of unknown origin (even by an expert opinion). So this would be only supporting evidence, which doesn't tell us much or have much strength on it's own.
As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
Concerning epistemology, do you think that two similar claims with similar evidence / justification for rational belief, will yield different results, because of what the conclusion is?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 27, 2017 at 10:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
This is an important point.
Hypothetically, if you were to claim you had a pet dog, I would take you at your word. Plenty of people do, it is pretty commonplace.
If you claimed to have a pet zebra, that might prompt a few follow on questions since, while possible, it would be unusual.
OTOH, if you claimed to have a pet unicorn then I would require a much higher evidential bar to be set.
November 27, 2017 at 12:41 pm (This post was last modified: November 27, 2017 at 12:45 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Not for me. The bar has been met. If someone claims to have a pet unicorn I have all the evidence I require to reach the only relevant conclusion. That person is a nutball.
The same holds true for god claims. If a person says they've seen god, or spoken to god, or have a relationship with god, or that god has somehow intervened in their life..the bar has been met. Nutballs. There's no need to ask for further evidence..which they know and I know they don't possess anyway. I really don't see the point in a continued farce of the subject.
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!
(November 27, 2017 at 10:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
This is an important point.
Hypothetically, if you were to claim you had a pet dog, I would take you at your word. Plenty of people do, it is pretty commonplace.
If you claimed to have a pet zebra, that might prompt a few follow on questions since, while possible, it would be unusual.
OTOH, if you claimed to have a pet unicorn then I would require a much higher evidential bar to be set.
How do you justify raising the evidential bar. Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 27, 2017 at 12:38 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: This is an important point.
Hypothetically, if you were to claim you had a pet dog, I would take you at your word. Plenty of people do, it is pretty commonplace.
If you claimed to have a pet zebra, that might prompt a few follow on questions since, while possible, it would be unusual.
OTOH, if you claimed to have a pet unicorn then I would require a much higher evidential bar to be set.
How do you justify raising the evidential bar. Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?
I have a cat (or possibly, my cat owns me). Do you take me at my word or not?
(November 27, 2017 at 1:15 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How do you justify raising the evidential bar. Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?
I have a cat (or possibly, my cat owns me). Do you take me at my word or not?
I have a cat as well.... but I'm am more interested in you answering the questions please.
How do you justify moving the goal posts?
Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 27, 2017 at 1:40 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I have a cat (or possibly, my cat owns me). Do you take me at my word or not?
I have a cat as well.... but I'm am more interested in you answering the questions please.
How do you justify moving the goal posts?
Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?
OK we agree it is a trivial assertion.
What if I were to claim that I had an invisible dragon in my garage? Would you simply accept that as easily? Or would you have some very pointed questions about such an assertion?
"How do you justify moving the goal posts?"
I am not. I am demonstrating the point that the nature of the claim will set the evidential bar required.
"Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?"
No. If that were true, you should give my garage dragon equal credibility with my cat. I bet you do not do so. Or perhaps you do for all I know.
(November 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I have a cat as well.... but I'm am more interested in you answering the questions please.
How do you justify moving the goal posts?
Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?
OK we agree it is a trivial assertion.
What if I were to claim that I had an invisible dragon in my garage? Would you simply accept that as easily? Or would you have some very pointed questions about such an assertion?
"How do you justify moving the goal posts?"
I am not. I am demonstrating the point that the nature of the claim will set the evidential bar required.
Yes, you want to move the goal posts or raise the bar (same thing). What is the nature that you think is different? To me, they are a similar type of claim, that should require similar evidence or reason. Do you just "raise the bar" for claims that you wish not to believe?
Quote:"Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?"
No. If that were true, you should give my garage dragon equal credibility with my cat. I bet you do not do so. Or perhaps you do for all I know.
I don't think that you read what I said. I probably would make assumptions or grant on good faith, that you have a cat, whereas the claim that you have a dragon may raise some more questions. But the point, is, that the reasons are the same for both. Would you agree, that reasons and logic should be held consistently and equally?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(November 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: OK we agree it is a trivial assertion.
What if I were to claim that I had an invisible dragon in my garage? Would you simply accept that as easily? Or would you have some very pointed questions about such an assertion? "How do you justify moving the goal posts?"
I am not. I am demonstrating the point that the nature of the claim will set the evidential bar required.
Yes, you want to move the goal posts or raise the bar (same thing). What is the nature that you think is different? To me, they are a similar type of claim, that should require similar evidence or reason. Do you just "raise the bar" for claims that you wish not to believe?
To you, my garage dragon is as likely as my cat?
(November 27, 2017 at 2:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Quote:"Personally my position is that the difference in belief, comes not because there is more reason to do so (what we are talking about is considering the same reasons); but, because we are more willing to take it on faith (or make assumptions). I believe that reasons and logic should be held consistently, and equally. Would you agree?"
No. If that were true, you should give my garage dragon equal credibility with my cat. I bet you do not do so. Or perhaps you do for all I know.
I don't think that you read what I said. I probably would make assumptions or grant on good faith, that you have a cat, whereas the claim that you have a dragon may raise some more questions. But the point, is, that the reasons are the same for both. Would you agree, that reasons and logic should be held consistently and equally?
Yes. Therefore, if you accept that I have a cat, you should also accept that I have an invisible garage dragon on the basis of consistency. If not, why not?
November 27, 2017 at 2:44 pm (This post was last modified: November 27, 2017 at 2:45 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(November 27, 2017 at 2:34 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:
(November 27, 2017 at 2:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes, you want to move the goal posts or raise the bar (same thing). What is the nature that you think is different? To me, they are a similar type of claim, that should require similar evidence or reason. Do you just "raise the bar" for claims that you wish not to believe?
To you, my garage dragon is as likely as my cat?
No, where do you get that from?
Quote:
(November 27, 2017 at 2:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't think that you read what I said. I probably would make assumptions or grant on good faith, that you have a cat, whereas the claim that you have a dragon may raise some more questions. But the point, is, that the reasons are the same for both. Would you agree, that reasons and logic should be held consistently and equally?
Yes. Therefore, if you accept that I have a cat, you should also accept that I have an invisible garage dragon on the basis of consistency. If not, why not?
If given sufficient evidence and reason yes. But frankly, your acting kind of shifty and squirrely right now. I'm not inclined to grant you much on the cat.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
