Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

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.

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.