RE: Street Epistemology - Practice
November 27, 2017 at 6:37 pm
(This post was last modified: November 27, 2017 at 6:43 pm by curiosne.)
[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']
[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']
1) Ok... so is remaining physical evidence is important to you? Do you need to examine this evidence for yourself, or do you trust what others say about it? At best, it would seem to me, that a hair or poop sample, could be determined as of unknown origin (even by an expert opinion). So this would be only supporting evidence, which doesn't tell us much or have much strength on it's own.
2) As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
3) I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
4) Concerning epistemology, do you think that two similar claims with similar evidence / justification for rational belief, will yield different results, because of what the conclusion is?
[/quote]
[/quote]
1) Physical evidence increases both the quantity and quality of evidence. Do you agree with this?
2) Agreed that there needs to be sufficient evidence for what is being claimed.
In relation to bigfoot, are you saying that for me to make you believe in one, you would need a higher amount of evidence (ie sufficient) for you to believe the claim?
Also if more scientific studies were conducted and all were peer reviewed which shows that that drinking water will cure cancer and that there indeed is a positive correlation between the two, would you accept the claim?
3) Please explain your logic here a bit more, I'm still a bit confused.
From reading through your replies, it seems that you can identify what is ordinary and what is extraordinary.
But when I claimed that I have $10 in my pocket you said "I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it".
You also mentioned that when I claimed that I had $20k in my pocket you said "Yes, I would start to question it" as it was "out of the ordinary for one to carry around that kind of cash".
Are you saying here that the more un-ordinary the nature of claim is, the more questions you are to ask on it? I don't want to put words in your mouth but a bit more elaboration on this point will help me understand you better.
4) No, the conclusion should be similar if logically analysed.
[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']
(November 26, 2017 at 6:34 pm)curiosne Wrote: 1) When I said no physical evidence, I meant no physical samples of a bigfoot (eg hair samples, stool samples, etc). This is important as the quality of evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists is lower whithout physical samples to support the claim. At this point, let's go down to point three below....
2) Ok, good clarification. I also wouldn't say feelings are high quality evidence (if at all).
3) So with the nature of the claims that have been mentioned (Bigfoot existing & Aunt Mary curing her cancer by drinking water), you say that there is insufficient evidence for each of the cases to accept the claims. Can you clarify, how you determine how much (both quality and quantity) evidence (also what types of evidence like heresay, phtotos, etc?) you need for the ordinary / extraordinary nature of a claim?
I mean, do you consciously use a rule to determine how much evidence you need?
1) Ok... so is remaining physical evidence is important to you? Do you need to examine this evidence for yourself, or do you trust what others say about it? At best, it would seem to me, that a hair or poop sample, could be determined as of unknown origin (even by an expert opinion). So this would be only supporting evidence, which doesn't tell us much or have much strength on it's own.
2) As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence. I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it.
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own. In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer. A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water. A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone. However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.
3) I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too). However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either. I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims. I don't see any justification in making a distinction. I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.
4) Concerning epistemology, do you think that two similar claims with similar evidence / justification for rational belief, will yield different results, because of what the conclusion is?
[/quote]
[/quote]
1) Physical evidence increases both the quantity and quality of evidence. Do you agree with this?
2) Agreed that there needs to be sufficient evidence for what is being claimed.
In relation to bigfoot, are you saying that for me to make you believe in one, you would need a higher amount of evidence (ie sufficient) for you to believe the claim?
Also if more scientific studies were conducted and all were peer reviewed which shows that that drinking water will cure cancer and that there indeed is a positive correlation between the two, would you accept the claim?
3) Please explain your logic here a bit more, I'm still a bit confused.
From reading through your replies, it seems that you can identify what is ordinary and what is extraordinary.
But when I claimed that I have $10 in my pocket you said "I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it".
You also mentioned that when I claimed that I had $20k in my pocket you said "Yes, I would start to question it" as it was "out of the ordinary for one to carry around that kind of cash".
Are you saying here that the more un-ordinary the nature of claim is, the more questions you are to ask on it? I don't want to put words in your mouth but a bit more elaboration on this point will help me understand you better.
4) No, the conclusion should be similar if logically analysed.
