Street Epistemology - Practice

[curiosne]

---

---

It doesn't matter if it's frequency, it's what ever variable you're looking at that you deem to be out of the ordinary. However, maybe out of the ordinary isn't a good word to use in this case. Let's rephrase #1 to:

1. There is a positive correlation between the quantity/quality of evidence for a claim where you have low confidence of it's truth...ie to get from low to high confidence, you would thus need more evidence.
   
2. All the available evidence I can find will get me towards a certain confidence level on how much I believe the claim in question.
   

Do you agree with the rephrased principle?

Curiosne,

First, I do want to thank you, for the enjoyable conversation. 

If I am understanding correctly, I see two ways to interpret your first point.  One would be the inclusion of evidence or reasons against, in weighing the evidence towards a conclusion.  This I would agree with.  If you have a reason to have low confidence in the evidence, then that should be accounted for.

However, from the previous part of the discussion about moving the bar, I suspect that this is not what you are talking about.  I think that what you are talking about is not reasons against it, but some other subjective thing;  could be feelings, personal aversion to the conclusion, or just plain old incredulity.  That while not saying that it is false, because of your incredulity, you are going to stack the deck against it, by "raising the bar".  

Now if it is the first, description, then I would agree.  We need to account for all the evidence, both for and against.  If for some reason you have low confidence some of the evidence, then that should certainly be weighed.  It is also these type of things, that I think it is difficult to come up with some hard and fast rule.  On the other hand, if it is the second interpretation I gave; then I do have issues with it.  For one; what you are basing the conclusion on, largely is the result of the individual, not the external evidence and reasons.  Second, as we touched on before, if you are talking about logic and reason, then I think that similar inputs, should produce a similar result.  The conclusion will follow from the premises and be independent (as much as possible) of the individual. I think that with a good epistemology, that we should be doing are best to avoid such biases.   Would you disagree?

I think in your re-phrasing, it's going to depend what the reason for the low confidence is.  If it is personal bias, incredulity, or something else based on you the individual, then I think we should be trying to avoid that in a good epistemology.  If you provide good reason for the low confidence and support it with objective facts and logic,  then that is fine.   I think that low confidence is something which is arrived at, based on the evidence, not something which is started with, and needs to be overcome.  If this is correctly representing your view, then how do you justify the prominence of the subjective in speaking towards the objective truth of the matter.

I look forward to your response.

Brian

Ok, let's stick to the first description and disregard personal incredulity. I can see where you're coming from in terms of "stacking the deck" when it comes to personal biases so we'll stick to an objective view of all claims and evidences to support it (we can talk about my views later if you like).

So getting back to why I started this thread in the first place, you mentioned that you believe in the Judeo / Christian God.

Can you let me know how confident you are that your belief is true (from 0 to 100% sure) and what evidence has led you to your confidence level?

---

Hopefully, practicing to speed it up so that you don't get hit by a slow moving bus when you try it in the "street".



This is just my opinion..but when it comes to epistemology, an apologist is always going to prefer dragging it out over resolution.  The reason is simple.  "Unresolved" is a more tenable rationalization for holding some absurd belief than "resolved and absurd".  If they can't claim truth, they'll settle for maybe not false.

Non answers, half answers, endless qualifiers and constant reversals, all of these things are better than terse and prompt summaries of ones actual thought process, from that POV.

lol...yes, I hope it'll be a lot faster in real life when I'm talking to people

But you might be right with apologist and other irrational thinkers. I might just be getting constantly frustrated with this.

---

Hey curiousne, what interests you about street epistemology?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-GRjNocLs8

IT Crowd

My favourite show