(May 13, 2016 at 9:37 am)Rhythm Wrote: Wholeheartedly, emphatically, unconditionally agree with you on this one RR. We don't seem to need to understand something in order to believe it. We might, however, need to understand the thing we believe to accurately communicate it to others or form a logical predicate for it's truth or existence. Hi-five?
I think that it depends on what is being claimed. I think that the existence of something, can be shown from simple observation, or inductive reasoning (without understanding exactly why). For instance virtual particles have not been directly observed, but there is reasons to believe that they exist. I haven't experienced these reasons, but I can rely on the testimony of multiple independent people to convey their experiences. I can also look at those who contest it, and their reasons. I can look at the assumptions and reasons, and see if the conclusion follows. I don't think, that we needed to understand gravity, before we said that gravity existed. We had reason to believe it, before understanding it. However if the claim is why x occurs, then this is a claim of understanding, and we need to explain why that or give reason for that claim.