(July 11, 2013 at 10:15 am)genkaus Wrote:
Yep, so that's a pretty spot on analogy for what's happening today. But I still don't see how the krakeners would show the kraken to a skeptic. *whistle* "KRAAAKEN, c'mere boy!"
I don't think you've dodged the issue I raised.
Quote:(July 10, 2013 at 11:52 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Agreed, but what I also want to get across is that we need to be more understanding of *their* position. Whether true or not, they say they have experiential justification for their beliefs. This means that by *default* there will be some arguments that you can present to them which they will outright deny because of their circumstances.
Which is why we also present alternate explanations for their experience. Not only do we argue why the entity they claim is illogical - or atleast unlikely - we also give them alternate reasons for their experience. If they are reasonable, they should realize on the strength of these two points how their experiential justification is invalid.
Agreed, and this is the correct thing to be doing. Sitting back and saying "show me the money" in a literal sense is not.
Quote:(July 10, 2013 at 11:52 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: An example closer to home of this might be that you believe in moral relativism. So a theist could say that action x is morally wrong according to divine command theory. The statement *as is* doesn't affect you in the slightest because whatever *your* justification for moral relativism might be leads you to think that statement is false, according to moral relativism. This means the theist can't simply keep asserting the same thing, because to you it's prima facie false. Therefore they need to find a different strategy to undermine your belief in moral relativity.
The theist here would have other strategies. He can try to show that facts contradict moral relativism - by showing there are universal and absolute morals. He can address my basis for moral relativism. He can give alternate explanations as to why I might feel as if morals are relative without them necessarily being so.
And all the same tools are available to me as well. Ultimately, facts will vindicate the one who is right.
Agreed.
Quote:[/quote](July 10, 2013 at 11:52 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: This is what I'm talking about! Now you're not resorting to the near impossible task of getting them to show their cards. There's other ways which indirectly tell you something about the cards they hold, and if they're honest enough/your argument is sound, then it will undermine their experiential justification from their *own* p.o.v.
The key requirement you are forgetting is if they are being rational.
Leave that with them. As long as you've adequately shown your points to be valid, then that's all you *can* do.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle