Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

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.


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.

1.) In relation to Bigfoot, the only forms of evidence are grainy video footage and a lot of hearsay but no physical evidence. Would these be sufficient reasons (evidence) for you to believe in Bigfoot? If not why?

2.)  Also with your reply on feelings, you're saying that feelings can be on a spectrum of low quality to high quality evidence and depending on the situation can be relied upon. I tentatively accept your reason (again depending on the situation esp with gut instincts) so let's move on to the next point.

3.) Can you explain a bit more on your statement above regarding the "nature of the claim"? How do you connect the nature of the claim to how low/high the epistemic burden?

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.