(April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What you describe would apply to scientific forms of evidence. I believe Popper's falsifiablity test would be a good response, as in "What test could confirm your claim?" Even still, philisophical arguments would fall into a separate class? Paley's watch. Anslem ontological arguement, Godel's proof, etc. Demands for evidence are not appropriate against philisophical proposals and some members start to sound like broken records stubbournly failing to see the distinction.
...provide evidence...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...provide evidence for...
C'mon.
If you read carefully, you'll see that this argument would apply to philosophical statements as well. In philosophy, the physical evidence is not as relevant, but the logical evidence is. If the logical proof for a philosophical statement cannot be constructed and by the nature of the statement such a proof is expected, then the absence of proof proves the invalidity of the statement.
