Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:07 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: In the end, we play word games, and believe that the words represent something real-- even "spin words" like "justification".  But as soon as we spin a foundation, no matter how plausible it seems to us, we spin an entire universe-- our world view-- out of words and little more, because it all stands on that foundation.
I don't think that's the case.  It's true that our sounds and symbols have largely developed atop of a series of accidents, but where truth is concerned, it's not accidental that the words we have selected represent the concepts that they in fact represent; the particular words are inconsequential. So, when you say:
(December 24, 2016 at 10:47 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is humanity's greatest achievement, I think: to live in a world completely imagined, and to manage not to know so.  For whatever is "out there," it cannot be what is "in here."  And what else do I have?
...I hear you saying something like, "We imagined that the atomic number of gold is 79," but that's not true.  That's an essential property of gold, whether or not we call it such, or change our symbols so that what is currently represented by putting "7" and "9" together is represented by some other lines and squiggles.  Is there an important distinction between "in here" and "out there" to be made here? I'm doubtful.  For, in so far as we have subjective experiences in an objective reality, what's "in here" is often representing what is "out there," and "out there" in an unrepresented sense that is wholly separate from the properties we perceive is either nonexistent or unknowable in terms (as it exists in-itself) that I can't conceive to be of any consequence that isn't trivial.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
The atomic number of gold could be 79 whether the world is an expression only of your forgotten self, of the Mind of God, of the Matrix, or of an existential framework which really includes space. Nevertheless the 79-ness of gold is, so far as you are concerned, imagined; this is because the experience is not dependent on the reality of the object underlying it. If I have a dream in which my mother is consistently either a unicorn or a monkey, and if this experience persists long enough and convincingly enough, I may infer that in that context, it is possible to have a person who is a unicorn-monkey.

So the consistency of experiences, even the convergence from what seem to be multiple sources (a textbook, a professor, direct observation), does not usefully inform us about where those experiences come from, if anywhere. Rather, they set a context in which we can function meaningfully-- apples always, in my experience, fall when dropped-- and I can use that fact in my ongoing exploration of what it is like to be me.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 25, 2016 at 8:04 am)bennyboy Wrote: The atomic number of gold could be 79 whether the world is an expression only of your forgotten self, of the Mind of God, of the Matrix, or of an existential framework which really includes space.
Sure, I'm open to any of those possibilities that are sufficiently interesting or compelling.  
(December 25, 2016 at 8:04 am)bennyboy Wrote: Nevertheless the 79-ness of gold is, so far as you are concerned, imagined; this is because the experience is not dependent on the reality of the object underlying it.  If I have a dream in which my mother is consistently either a unicorn or a monkey, and if this experience persists long enough and convincingly enough, I may infer that in that context, it is possible to have a person who is a unicorn-monkey.

So the consistency of experiences, even the convergence from what seem to be multiple sources (a textbook, a professor, direct observation), does not usefully inform us about where those experiences come from, if anywhere.  Rather, they set a context in which we can function meaningfully-- apples always, in my experience, fall when dropped-- and I can use that fact in my ongoing exploration of what it is like to be me.
I don't know how you can resist what seems to me to be an untenable slide into solipsism, given this view.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 25, 2016 at 12:25 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: I don't know how you can resist what seems to me to be an untenable slide into solipsism, given this view.
Because I'm sensitive to context. In the context of living my daily life, I haven't stumbled on a good reason for a solipsistic outlook-- my goal is to get out of bed in the morning and have an interesting day, and pure solipsism would probably lead me to run down Main Street naked or masturbate on buses just cuz I can. Sounds like fun, I guess, but I like living my days as though they have meaning.

In the context of determining absolute truth, though, all that goes out the window. In context of mundanity, it doesn't MATTER what underlies it all. Frankly, if I found out I was in the Matrix or in a computer simulation, I'd probably still want to get up, enjoy a challenging job, and bang the wife a couple days a week. But by discussing what's outside that context, we are attempting to apply what is experienced to what underlies experience. This seems like a pretty pointless exercise (in a logical sense, not in a pragmatic one).
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 25, 2016 at 1:41 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Because I'm sensitive to context. In the context of living my daily life, I haven't stumbled on a good reason for a solipsistic outlook...
In the context of determining absolute truth, though, all that goes out the window. In context of mundanity, it doesn't MATTER what underlies it all... But by discussing what's outside that context, we are attempting to apply what is experienced to what underlies experience. This seems like a pretty pointless exercise (in a logical sense, not in a pragmatic one).
There are a number of assumptions in here that I find suspect. For example, I'm less inclined to believe that the gulf that separates the two contexts you mention is as great in its disparity or as inconsequential in its impact on action as you imply. This is undoubtedly true to some extent, such as the activities that you would continue to engage in regardless of what underlies appearances, but it seems undeniable to me that what is in fact true about the world, or even merely that which one believes about it, often does influence outcomes, whether the issue exclusively pertains to one's ethical or theoretical outlook. Of course, there's plenty of room for disagreement, but it remains true that progress is possible, which could not be the case if all was subjective.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 25, 2016 at 6:42 pm)Mudhammam Wrote:
(December 25, 2016 at 1:41 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Because I'm sensitive to context.  In the context of living my daily life, I haven't stumbled on a good reason for a solipsistic outlook...
In the context of determining absolute truth, though, all that goes out the window.  In context of mundanity, it doesn't MATTER what underlies it all... But by discussing what's outside that context, we are attempting to apply what is experienced to what underlies experience.  This seems like a pretty pointless exercise (in a logical sense, not in a pragmatic one).
There are a number of assumptions in here that I find suspect.  For example, I'm less inclined to believe that the gulf that separates the two contexts you mention is as great in its disparity or as inconsequential in its impact on action as you imply.  This is undoubtedly true to some extent, such as the activities that you would continue to engage in regardless of what underlies appearances, but it seems undeniable to me that what is in fact true about the world, or even merely that which one believes about it, often does influence outcomes, whether the issue exclusively pertains to one's ethical or theoretical outlook.  Of course, there's plenty of room for disagreement, but it remains true that progress is possible, which could not be the case if all was subjective.

It seems to me you are conflating reality with ideas about reality.  Reality is what it is, and objectively so.  Even in solipsism, you could say this-- if solipsism is true, it would be objectively true that nothing exists that is not of the self-- i.e. EVEN IF you believed that solipsism weren't true, it still would be.  Conversely, if the Universe is as we see it, and there's nothing else behind it (no invisible idealistic framework organizing QM particles into meaningful forms for example), then that would be objectively true, whatever we thought about it.

It may even be that reality is malleable and intrinsically ambiguous, much like a photon-- that reality is at once both physically monistic, idealistically monistic, and many other things, and a combination and none of them.  But if paradox is after all the prime rule, THAT is objective truth-- nothing we think can change that fact ALTHOUGH how we interact with reality might change the manner in which we are able to experience it.

So yeah, we could perhaps lay out a set of possibilities, and be confident that somewhere under our blanket lies reality.  One of our ideas must be objectively true.  But the question is how can one know which?  I do not believe that you can go from experience to an understanding of the reality that underlies it.  You cannot know that the Matrix is not consistently managing the falling of apples or the resolution of quantum particles.  You cannot know that the Mind of God isn't constantly feeding to us images of things, their properties, and their dynamic relationships.  Nor can I know that there is more than a physical Universe, which perhaps is philosophically complex to be exclusively self-supporting, meaning that there are no other universes and no Creator at all. This is because, hypothetically, all possible frameworks which are capable of providing experiences might possibly contain the organizational principles (all things attract by gravity, certain forces cause particles to interact in certain ways, etc.) with which we are familiar.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 25, 2016 at 7:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote:  But the question is how can one know which?  I do not believe that you can go from experience to an understanding of the reality that underlies it.  You cannot know that the Matrix is not consistently managing the falling of apples or the resolution of quantum particles.  You cannot know that the Mind of God isn't constantly feeding to us images of things, their properties, and their dynamic relationships.  Nor can I know that there is more than a physical Universe, which perhaps is philosophically complex to be exclusively self-supporting, meaning that there are no other universes and no Creator at all.  This is because, hypothetically, all possible frameworks which are capable of providing experiences might possibly contain the organizational principles (all things attract by gravity, certain forces cause particles to interact in certain ways, etc.) with which we are familiar.
As a purely negative or skeptical conclusion, I agree with you.  We cannot know such truths with complete certainty.  But is there a spectrum in which some methods are objectively more likely to be closer to fact in their description of "the reality that underlies" experience?  Absolutely.  Is this a move that can only be made for pragmatic reasons?  I don't think so.  Logic and empirical verification go a long way, or so I think we have most reason to believe.  And either we have reason to be confident in the truths that we establish -- whether these should be conceived as absolute or provisional -- or, au contaire, to be skeptical of them, as you suggest.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
If the matrix or the mind of god is constantly feeding us those things you mentioned, it's constantly feeding us what we call evidence.  That's an objection that objects to nothing in context.    

References to what you don't or can't know don't lead to anything you can or do know.  From nothing, nothing follows.   Wink

Long story short, we have limitations...and sure, we've come up with systems to help overcome those limitations but they have limitations as well.  If a person answers the question "can we know x" with yes.....no amount of "but can we really know that we know x" will yield a functionally different answer, and for a person that answers any question in that infinite chain of non-objections with "no" - no further comment can be made about anything without the liberal use of contradictory and stolen concepts.  If a person knows that we can't really know x, then they know something - but how?  If a person points to evidence that they can't trust evidence, how can they trust that evidence?

Ultimately, the evidentiary question is axiomatic. Either you refer to what is evident as the locus of all claims or you do not. Good luck not referring to it, good luck not accepting the evidentiary axiom. I doubt that human beings are capable.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 26, 2016 at 12:30 am)Mudhammam Wrote: As a purely negative or skeptical conclusion, I agree with you.  We cannot know such truths with complete certainty.  But is there a spectrum in which some methods are objectively more likely to be closer to fact in their description of "the reality that underlies" experience?  Absolutely.  Is this a move that can only be made for pragmatic reasons?  I don't think so.  Logic and empirical verification go a long way, or so I think we have most reason to believe.  And either we have reason to be confident in the truths that we establish -- whether these should be conceived as absolute or provisional -- or, au contaire, to be skeptical of them, as you suggest.

This is why I'm so obsessed with the idea of truth-in-context. All the things we know can be called true, even objectively true, in context. In the context of my everyday life, I'm very confident that if I know there's an apple on my desk, and ask my wife to go into my room and tell me what's on the desk, she'll report that fact.

Whether my wife and the apple exist outside my experience of them is a much different context. Whether the Universe and its rules are all that reality consists of is, too. When we start talking about things like that, we have to acknowledge that everything we "know" is limited in context.

To reflect back to the OP, I'd say that evidence can be taken as a brute fact IN CONTEXT: it doesn't need to be validated, and we do not need "evidence for evidence," because we are defining our context BY evidence. Evidence itself is the framework for our mundane world view. In other words, and I suspect Rhythm is getting at this: our world view is as good as our inquiries so far EVEN IF we're in the Matrix or the Mind of God.

(December 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Long story short, we have limitations...and sure, we've come up with systems to help overcome those limitations but they have limitations as well.  If a person answers the question "can we know x" with yes.....no amount of "but can we really know that we know x" will yield a functionally different answer, and for a person that answers any question in that infinite chain of non-objections with "no" - no further comment can be made about anything without the liberal use of contradictory and stolen concepts.  If a person knows that we can't really know x, then they know something - but how?  If a person points to evidence that they can't trust evidence, how can they trust that evidence?
Because evidence isn't a single principle, indivisible. You can refer to my above post to mudhammam. If I'm a detective, and I discover your DNA at a crime scene, that's evidence-in-context: in the context of living out my mundane life, I accept that the DNA demonstrates that you were in that place.

If I want philosophical evidence that you, the crime scene, and the DNA are supported only by a Universe with its properties and rules, and that that universe isn't supported necessarily by something outside it (and which is likely therefore non-physical), then you can't point at the bullet hole in someone's head and take it as evidence in that larger context.

Quote:Ultimately, the evidentiary question is axiomatic.  Either you refer to what is evident as the locus of all claims or you do not.  Good luck not referring to it, good luck not accepting the evidentiary axiom.  I doubt that human beings are capable.
You call it axiomatic. I call it brute fact in context. I don't think in the context of daily life that we can even attempt to discard evidence as a useful tool. But daily life is not the only context we attempt to think or communicate about, and we have to be more sensitive to what we take as given when we try to broaden the context of discussion.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 26, 2016 at 8:17 pm)bennyboy Wrote: This is why I'm so obsessed with the idea of truth-in-context.  All the things we know can be called true, even objectively true, in context.  In the context of my everyday life, I'm very confident that if I know there's an apple on my desk, and ask my wife to go into my room and tell me what's on the desk, she'll report that fact.
Maybe, if there actually is an apple on your desk.  Would she humor you if there weren't?  

Quote:Whether my wife and the apple exist outside my experience of them is a much different context.  Whether the Universe and its rules are all that reality consists of is, too.  When we start talking about things like that, we have to acknowledge that everything we "know" is limited in context.
Limited in an irrelevant way that leads to no functional correction of any term or principle.  If, as before with the matrix or mind of god, it's all happening inside your experience and there alone, that's just what all the referent terms refer to..and there may or may not be an apple on the desk of your experience, your wife, who may or may not exist solely in the theater of your experience, may or may not report the experience apple......depending on whether or not it's there, in your experience, or she'll humor you if it isn't...again...in your experience....your level of confidence in any of the above, as in any other formulation, would be variable, as it is now....and all of the things would be precisely the same as before for all of the same reasons, as always.

Quote:To reflect back to the OP, I'd say that evidence can be taken as a brute fact IN CONTEXT: it doesn't need to be validated, and we do not need "evidence for evidence," because we are defining our context BY evidence.  Evidence itself is the framework for our mundane world view.
Pretty much, but it makes all of the wonderings above moot.


Quote:Because evidence isn't a single principle, indivisible.  You can refer to my above post to mudhammam.  If I'm a detective, and I discover your DNA at a crime scene, that's evidence-in-context: in the context of living out my mundane life, I accept that the DNA demonstrates that you were in that place.
OFC it's a single, indivisible principle.  Evidence is "that which is evident".  

Quote:If I want philosophical evidence that you, the crime scene, and the DNA are supported only by a Universe with its properties and rules, and that that universe isn't supported necessarily by something outside it and therefore non-physical, then you can't point at the bullet hole in someone's head and take it as evidence in that larger context.
Philosophy does not provide evidence, it's incapable.  It provides proof, truth, which is itself built upon that which is evident. It's nothing more or less than a system of arranging and exploring claims and relationships regarding that which is evident.  GIGO.

Quote:You call it axiomatic.  I call it brute fact in context.  I don't think in the context of daily life that we can even attempt to discard evidence as a useful tool.  But daily life is not the only context we attempt to think or communicate about, and we have to be more sensitive to what we take as given when we try to broaden the context of discussion.
Brute fact in context and axiom are, in the ways that you use the terms, interchangeable.  I allow for what is evident to be something other than a fact.  I have to ask, though, what context is it that we can eschew the evident?  What context can we avoid refering to what is evident, and how might we manage doing that, as creatures who define context....as you say above, -by- what is evident?

I get that you're trying to reach for something, but honestly, anytime I see these sorts of comments they strike me as empty deepity. An attempt to express the in-expressable, for whatever reason, to be generous. Minds of gods and matrices and even "your experience", for example, are subjects that rely on elaborate evidentiary underpinnings, whether true or false. Without those evidentiary underpinnings they are non-referent, empty terms, meaningless.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek philosophers always knew about the causeless universe Interaktive 10 1265 September 25, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? FlatAssembler 52 3739 August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How To Tell What Is True From What Is Untrue. redpill 39 3473 December 28, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Is this Quite by Kenneth Boulding True Rhondazvous 11 1477 August 6, 2019 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Alan V
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 4176 June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11542 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 115135 September 13, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Astonished
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Angrboda 36 11285 May 28, 2017 at 1:53 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 259 24365 March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 50589 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)