Street Epistemology - Practice

[Abaddon_ire]

To you, my garage dragon is as likely as my cat?

No, where do you get that from?

From the fact that you had no problem with my cat and no problem with my garage dragon. At no point have you yet objected to my invisible garage dragon. I can only conclude that you have none. Unless you enumerate them.

Yes. Therefore, if you accept that I have a cat, you should also accept that I have an invisible garage dragon on the basis of consistency. If not, why not?

If given sufficient evidence and reason yes.  But frankly, your acting kind of shifty and squirrely right now.   I'm not inclined to grant you much on the cat.

Nope. I am simply pointing out that you have different criteria for given claims. I gave you two claims.

1. I have a cat.
2. I have an invisible dragon in my garage.

Do you accept both claims? One of those claims? None of those claims? Which?

Why? Or Why not? In each case, if you would be so kind.

[RoadRunner79]

No, where do you get that from?

From the fact that you had no problem with my cat and no problem with my garage dragon. At no point have you yet objected to my invisible garage dragon. I can only conclude that you have none. Unless you enumerate them.

If given sufficient evidence and reason yes.  But frankly, your acting kind of shifty and squirrely right now.   I'm not inclined to grant you much on the cat.

Nope. I am simply pointing out that you have different criteria for given claims. I gave you two claims.

1. I have a cat.
2. I have an invisible dragon in my garage.

Do you accept both claims? One of those claims? None of those claims? Which?

Why? Or Why not? In each case, if you would be so kind.

I think that given the same facts and reasons, that a similar claim, should yield similar results.  I believe that logic should be consistent and coherent.

You are the one asserting that we should move the goal for some claims.  How do you justify that?  How do you determine when to start and when to stop moving the goal (or do you not stop moving it)?  

The subject of the OP is epistemology or the study of how we know.  And as I have said before, if the reasons are the same, I think it is reasonable to come to the same conclusion.  Further, I think that for various reasons, we can grant a measure of faith in which we believe in addition.

Do you think that you have given me enough reason to believe that you have a cat?

[Abaddon_ire]

I think that given the same facts and reasons, that a similar claim, should yield similar results.  I believe that logic should be consistent and coherent.

You are the one asserting that we should move the goal for some claims.  How do you justify that?  How do you determine when to start and when to stop moving the goal (or do you not stop moving it)?  

The subject of the OP is epistemology or the study of how we know.  And as I have said before, if the reasons are the same, I think it is reasonable to come to the same conclusion.  Further, I think that for various reasons, we can grant a measure of faith in which we believe in addition.

Do you think that you have given me enough reason to believe that you have a cat?

Do you accept that I have a cat?

Do you accept that I have an invisible garage dragon?

Why or why not?

[RoadRunner79]

I think that given the same facts and reasons, that a similar claim, should yield similar results.  I believe that logic should be consistent and coherent.

You are the one asserting that we should move the goal for some claims.  How do you justify that?  How do you determine when to start and when to stop moving the goal (or do you not stop moving it)?  

The subject of the OP is epistemology or the study of how we know.  And as I have said before, if the reasons are the same, I think it is reasonable to come to the same conclusion.  Further, I think that for various reasons, we can grant a measure of faith in which we believe in addition.

Do you think that you have given me enough reason to believe that you have a cat?

Do you accept that I have a cat?

Do you accept that I have an invisible garage dragon?

Why or why not?

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

[Abaddon_ire]

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Are you stating that you accept neither cat nor dragon?

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

Sure. Then you must accept that neither cat nor dragon actually exist.

[RoadRunner79]

No;  I accept neither on epistemological grounds.  You haven't provided sufficient evidence.

Are you stating that you accept neither cat nor dragon?

That seems to be what I had said yes.

Do you agree, that between two similar scenarios given the same facts, and given the same reasons, that a coherent and consistent logical foundation should come to the same conclusion?  If not, how do you logically justify the discrepancy.

Sure. Then you must accept that neither cat nor dragon actually exist.

I don't think that follows.   Why do you think that?   

Also, if you don't participate in the conversation, more than ignoring what I say, and asking the same questions over and over, then this isn't going to go to much farther.  If you are trying to make a point, then perhaps you should just state it, and we can look at it.

[Abaddon_ire]

Are you stating that you accept neither cat nor dragon?

That seems to be what I had said yes.

Sure. Then you must accept that neither cat nor dragon actually exist.

I don't think that follows.   Why do you think that?   

Also, if you don't participate in the conversation, more than ignoring what I say, and asking the same questions over and over, then this isn't going to go to much farther.  If you are trying to make a point, then perhaps you should just state it, and we can look at it.

It is quite simple. You accept the claim that I have a cat, but reject the claim that I have a garage dragon. Why is my dragon held to a higher standard of evidence than my cat?

[RoadRunner79]

That seems to be what I had said yes.


I don't think that follows.   Why do you think that?   

Also, if you don't participate in the conversation, more than ignoring what I say, and asking the same questions over and over, then this isn't going to go to much farther.  If you are trying to make a point, then perhaps you should just state it, and we can look at it.

It is quite simple. You accept the claim that I have a cat, but reject the claim that I have a garage dragon. Why is my dragon held to a higher standard of evidence than my cat?

Your the one talking about moving the goal posts and raising the bar.... don't go putting the burden of justifying it on me.   I explained my position and you ignore it, along with my questions for you... I'm not going to keep repeating myself if you are not going to interact with anything I say or ask. 

Do you think it is a problem if you logic is inconsistent, and incoherent?

[Abaddon_ire]

It is quite simple. You accept the claim that I have a cat, but reject the claim that I have a garage dragon. Why is my dragon held to a higher standard of evidence than my cat?

Your the one talking about moving the goal posts and raising the bar.... don't go putting the burden of justifying it on me.   I explained my position and you ignore it, along with my questions for you... I'm not going to keep repeating myself if you are not going to interact with anything I say or ask. 

Do you think it is a problem if you logic is inconsistent, and incoherent?

Do you think it is a fundamental problem if you are unable to spell?

[RoadRunner79]

Your the one talking about moving the goal posts and raising the bar.... don't go putting the burden of justifying it on me.   I explained my position and you ignore it, along with my questions for you... I'm not going to keep repeating myself if you are not going to interact with anything I say or ask. 

Do you think it is a problem if you logic is inconsistent, and incoherent?

Do you think it is a fundamental problem if you are unable to spell?

I don't think that spelling has anything to do with it... you're just trying to distract now.