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: October 19, 2020, 11:41 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I frequently come across the claim that "claims demand evidence."  Is this always true?  Does the claim that "claims demand evidence" itself demand evidence?  And does the claim of the claim that "claims demand evidence" demand evidence that the claim itself demands evidence?  And....

No, I'm just kidding.  But in all earnestness, what evidence do I have that true claims are always accompanied by evidence?  Isn't that a claim that asserts itself to be true by definition?  And if not, then in what sense are claims about our various conceptual relations evident, in a world where seemingly no two people agree on the minutest details?  Are not our reasons, and the very persons whom we believe to be in possession of them, namely, ourselves, in some true sense no more than unique structures of sight and sound produced by (or conducive of?) an inward understanding that forms sets of propositions which we (it?) accept to be true by definition? Hence, minds are creators of meaning, inventors or (discoverers?) of truth, such as the statement that "claims demand evidence."  If this is ultimately question-begging, then what is the non-question-begging point from which to start?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
If you came into the office around noon and said it was a sunshiny day, I'd take the claim at face value and leave my umbrella on the cloak rack when I leave fro lunch hour.

If you instead come into the office around noon and said Elvis Presley was fucking Richard Nixon's ass in the handicap parking space right up by the building, well, I'm gonna need a cell phone picture at least, and a video with sound wouldn't be asking too much, in my opinion.
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 

RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
I was thinking more about claims like, "You should care about evidence," or something of that nature.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Yes if you want to be taken seriously.
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
It's funny you should be thinking about the nature of truth just as I was. Not funny really.. just a coincidence... but still. Anyway I was thinking about it from it from a different perspective... a psychological perspective ...so who knows if it has relevance at all to what you're saying, but I'll say it anyway just because, why not? Wink

That psychologically truth is only what you believe is real. So waking reality is truth to the extent that you believe it is real. But dreams can also be believed to be real as can imagination/hypnosis. So in my considered opinion, truth is a measure of the coherency of a context and nothing more. In waking life you have a lot of 'truths' active in a context... such as where you are, knowledge of gravity, what you see and hear etc... and they 'constrain' any further additions of truth. If you imagine something... say that you're somewhere else... it can't be believed as truth whilst those constraining truths are active/in focus but there comes a point where you can get 'lost in thought' and that is, in my opinion, when the new, imagined context becomes strong and active enough to push the truths in the waking consciousness out of awareness so they no longer constrain it, thus when lost in thought that becomes truth. So in my thinking, the experience of truth... belief... is basically the measure of the activity and coherency of an uncontested/isolated context in mental focus, whether it be waking reality, a dream, hypnosis, or even just a good book.
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(December 10, 2016 at 1:24 am)Stimbo Wrote:

At which point does the relevant part begin?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
First of all, thanks for sharing such a brilliant thought.

Second of all, my opinion on

Quote:Does the claim that "claims demand evidence" itself demand evidence?

is that, the statement "claims demand evidence" is strictly true on paper but not necessarily true in practice. This is because the truth of a statement is interpreted subjectively by a person, meaning, a true statement can be interpreted as a false statement or a false statement can be interpreted as a true statement which is all entirely depended on the person that is doing the interpretation.
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Also depends on the nature of the claim.  Richard Carrier has a whole discussion on it.

The claim, "I have a car" is quite an ordinary claim and most people wouldn't even consider contesting it.  Whereas the claim, "I have a spaceship" in quite extraordinary and no one would accept it without evidence.

Compared to the spaceship....which is at least possible as we know they exist in one form or another...the claim "an angel whispered the words of god into my ear while I was sleeping in a cave" is more than an order of magnitude more unlikely than a spaceship and requires the most precise evidence to demonstrate its truthfulness.
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
This is my take on it:

We must be careful not to confuse proofs with evidence. And yes, any particular claim may well be true but doesn't/can't have evidence provided. True but irrelevant. Dismissing a claim is not, by default, making a counter claim. And people can make whatever stupid claims they want, as much as they like. It's not like I can stop them. There are also the problems of coherency and relevance before you even consider truth.

Generally speaking, proofs apply to abstract systems, and demonstrate a claim to be true. Evidence applies to reality, and adds confidence that a claim is true. Science ultimately deals with the latter, although obviously it utilizes many convenient abstract systems while studying reality.

Personally, if I make such a statement as, "Claims require evidence", I'm employing a shorthand. Attacking the statement itself on semantic grounds, as if it was a claim of proof, is ignoring the shorthand. One of those stupid published apologists called this the "Roadrunner tactic" and was very proud of it. (I'm being serious, I'm not making fun of our member with the same name. I'll see if I can find the video.)

I'm actually suggesting a pragmatic approach, such as, "Experience has shown me that spending time considering claims accompanied by evidence is more likely to produce a useful idea regarding reality than considering claims which do not or cannot have accompanying evidence. This is because the evidence gives a workable method of establishing what is true, by demonstrating something has been learned and applied to reality." My experience, coupled with that of every sensible person who seems to agree with me, is the evidence. I'm always open to counter-evidence, of course. You can consider me to be holding up a pre-amble card with this type of thing most of the time, including for this post.

If I talked in such precise terms all the time, I'd pretty quickly only be talking to myself. I assume, when talking informally, that most people will use common sense to add these implications.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How To Tell What Is True From What Is Untrue. redpill 39 1374 December 28, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Is this Quite by Kenneth Boulding True Rhondazvous 11 451 August 6, 2019 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Alan V
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 1586 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 4995 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 73547 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 7150 May 28, 2017 at 1:53 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 260 12412 March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 27208 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 7161 September 3, 2016 at 11:26 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Afterlife, I'd be happy if it were true..... maestroanth 35 2746 June 12, 2016 at 3:13 am
Last Post: Little lunch

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)