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!
August 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm (This post was last modified: August 4, 2010 at 9:33 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(August 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You backed up what I said TheDarkestOfAngels. Yes it (non empirical evidence) doesn't prove anything. It is still non empirical evidence and clearly a form of evidence.
It isn't evidence by it's own definition.
Not-evidence is not a form of evidence.
You may as well be attempting to convince me that a not-language is a language and a not-computer is a computer or some form of language or some form of computer.
It's utter nonsense.
August 4, 2010 at 9:54 pm (This post was last modified: August 4, 2010 at 9:55 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)
(August 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's not "non evidence" it's "non empirical evidence". The 'non' bit applies to the empiricism of the evidence. It's still evidence!
Okay, fine. If you want to play the dictionary.com game of useless semantics, then let's play the dictionary.com game of useless semantics.
Dictionary.com Wrote:EmpiricalEvidence
em·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
So it seems that 'non-epirical evidence' literally means the following:
Prooving something (evidence) without (non -) experience, observation, experimentation, or method (epirical)
Thus, you are telling me that evidence without proof is evidence of somthing.
Once again - utter nonsense. Evidence without proof is evidence of nothing which is not truely evidence. Evidence's very definition depends, quite literally, on proof. It's up there on digital black and white.
If you've managed to prove anything with this semantic dabbling, you've proven that the term 'empirical evidence' is a redundant term.
You realize your 7-page book just expands on the example I gave, right? It doesn't discount or disprove my last post with any statement I've read in the entire section you showed me, nor does it contradict anything I've said.
(August 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
What about that bit?
Your point is invalid. You said that non empirical evidence is not valid, when it clearly is.
My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.
He's certainly using the term in proper context much in same manner I referred to as saying that I listen to a non-computer, talking to a non-human, and eating a non-hamburger.
He's using the term quite pointlessly in virtually every inch of the example you gave.
As to the statement above: "the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.
SleepingDemon Wrote:No, i'm saying there was no concept of god. It isn't the same. Atheism is by definition disbelief in gods,
But you said before that atheism wasn't disbelief in gods. Which was why I criticized you.
When did I say that? I don't remember it :p
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
(August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(August 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
What about that bit?
Your point is invalid. You said that non empirical evidence is not valid, when it clearly is.
My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.
He's certainly using the term in proper context much in same manner I referred to as saying that I listen to a non-computer, talking to a non-human, and eating a non-hamburger.
He's using the term quite pointlessly in virtually every inch of the example you gave.
As to the statement above: "the premises from which a non empirical proof are derived must ultimately be statements whose truth we can be certain of without proof"
"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.
How ridiculous. You're arguing black is white here TDoA. So you can't have non empirical proof except in morality and maths. Haha! ...Plus a few other things I guess you need to add.
(August 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: My point is that non-empirical evidence isn't evidence.
Why not? Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. So basically if your statement is true, no evidence is evidence.
Quote:"Non-empirical proof" is an oxy-moron. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.
Something that is true without necessarily requiring empirical proof are human concepts - such as mathmatics and morality.
True, you cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it, but it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore Non-empirical proof is an oxymoron. It is only an oxymoron in your mind because you think that "non-empirical" cannot possibly be evidence, when it can.
One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am".
