(May 13, 2016 at 10:33 am)Rhythm Wrote: No? I'll try again. You began by saying that you think something in our conversation regarding belief and understanding depends upon the claim being made...and then failed to describe a situation in which -anything- depended on the claim being made. You described a situation, which, instead...explicitly depended upon the understanding of a great many people of -whatever- claim was being made. Was the one thing supposed to support the other or was that just stream of consciousness type stuff?
Perhaps we are using a different definition of "understanding" here. I'm not really sure where the confusion is. All I am saying, is that we do not need to understand "why?" in order to believe that X exists or that X causes Y. These claims only need be sufficient to show that X exists or that X causes Y. If however you are claiming why X is the way it is, or why X causes Y, then this does require reasons for that claim.