(May 24, 2009 at 9:20 am)lrh9 Wrote: Say I meet some Joe on the street. He tells me his name is George. I believe him. Am I irrational for believing him without requiring a driver's license, social security card, and birth certificate? I'd say no. I believe him because him saying his name is George is plausible. It's plausible because:
1) George is a name that has been used before. Therefore it is plausible that his name is George.
So if his name is George and this is indeed reason to believe that his name IS George then this IOW counts as SOME FORM of evidence.
Quote:2) He is a person. People generally have names. Therefore it is plausible that he has a name.
See above.
Quote:3) I've just met the guy. Therefore it is more plausible that he is telling me the truth than it is that he is lying.
See above.
Once again: Rational reason(s) to believe (which is what you are suggesting), if indeed his name IS George IOW equate to evidence. Rational reason to believe in something that indeed does hold true=Evidence.
Right? Evidence in it's most basic definition is anything that gives credence to the truth of a belief. Right?
Quote:Therefore, since it is highly plausible that his name is George, me believing him when he says his name is George is rational.
Well if it IS indeed a rational reason to believe him and holds true then it counts as evidence...
If it turns out he was lying you were believing him with no good reason to. You may have THOUGHT you had good reason, but you didn't and you were believing 'on faith' on THAT instance which is irrational whether you are a rational PERSON or not. Right?
Once again, see above responses to these quotes.
(May 24, 2009 at 10:57 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Belief without evidence (and especially in spite of the evidence) is irrational.
Kyu
Exactly. Because that's what evidence is FOR! Lol. It's what it is all about! For giving credence to the TRUTH of a BELIEF :p Right?
EvF
