Street Epistemology - Practice

[RoadRunner79]

---

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

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]

---