Street Epistemology - Practice

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Sure, it is a grammatical nuance that annoys me. Why cannot people figure out that "there", "their" "they're" etc. are different things? 

Precision in language matters. 


The god-botherers are happy to deprecate that, yet somehow also to claim the precision of the bible. Except when they don't like it much.

For example, the bible advocates slavery. It even provides rules for it as to how a master should treat his slaves. Christians try to obfuscate that, but the NT affirms it no matter the apologetics.

So where are you on that issue? Is the bible right or wrong?

---

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

Sure. What exactly is it that I am distracting from?

Can you even state what that is?

[RoadRunner79]

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

Sure, it is a grammatical nuance that annoys me. Why cannot people figure out that "there", "their" "they're" etc. are different things? 

Precision in language matters. 


The god-botherers are happy to deprecate that, yet somehow also to claim the precision of the bible. Except when they don't like it much.

For example, the bible advocates slavery. It even provides rules for it as to how a master should treat his slaves. Christians try to obfuscate that, but the NT affirms it no matter the apologetics.

So where are you on that issue? Is the bible right or wrong?

I'm not following rabbit trails, every time your view becomes inconsistent and incoherent.  Also promised as much to the OP, so if you do not want to talk about epistemology, then goodbye, and good day.

I would encourage you to think through these things though, rather than just bouncing around to non-related things when you get into trouble..  This topic of epistemology is interesting. when you give it some thought.

[Abaddon_ire]

Sure, it is a grammatical nuance that annoys me. Why cannot people figure out that "there", "their" "they're" etc. are different things? 

Precision in language matters. 


The god-botherers are happy to deprecate that, yet somehow also to claim the precision of the bible. Except when they don't like it much.

For example, the bible advocates slavery. It even provides rules for it as to how a master should treat his slaves. Christians try to obfuscate that, but the NT affirms it no matter the apologetics.

So where are you on that issue? Is the bible right or wrong?

I'm not following rabbit trails, every time your view becomes inconsistent and incoherent.  Also promised as much to the OP, so if you do not want to talk about epistemology, then goodbye, and good day.

I would encourage you to think through these things though, rather than just bouncing around to non-related things when you get into trouble..  This topic of epistemology is interesting. when you give it some thought.

Epistemology is fine when it is honest. When it is not, then not so much.

---

Sure, it is a grammatical nuance that annoys me. Why cannot people figure out that "there", "their" "they're" etc. are different things? 

Precision in language matters. 


The god-botherers are happy to deprecate that, yet somehow also to claim the precision of the bible. Except when they don't like it much.

For example, the bible advocates slavery. It even provides rules for it as to how a master should treat his slaves. Christians try to obfuscate that, but the NT affirms it no matter the apologetics.

So where are you on that issue? Is the bible right or wrong?

I'm not following rabbit trails, every time your view becomes inconsistent and incoherent.  Also promised as much to the OP, so if you do not want to talk about epistemology, then goodbye, and good day.

I would encourage you to think through these things though, rather than just bouncing around to non-related things when you get into trouble..  This topic of epistemology is interesting. when you give it some thought.

That Is very odd. The OP is not mine, I did not start this thread, I merely contributed my thoughts to it. Somehow, you saw fit to make a bucket of crap up out of nothing and plant it on my doorstep just because you felt like it.

Guess again. The OP is the member named curiosne. Now I have no idea exactly who that person actually is, but you have conflated me with he/she/it/housecat simply for convenience of argument. This informs me of certain things. You are unable to distinguish you interlocutors. You assume that your interlocutors are all the same person. You assume that all of them are deluded. Epistemology as a concept eludes you and you are functionally illiterate since you did not read what I actually wrote
.  

You are welcome to present a rebuttal.

So work away. What is your understanding of epistemology? I contend that you have no idea and will promptly post whatever the first result you find on Google.

[curiosne]

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

1) When I said no physical evidence, I meant no physical samples of a bigfoot (eg hair samples, stool samples, etc). This is important as the quality of evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists is lower whithout physical samples to support the claim. At this point, let's go down to point three below....

2) Ok, good clarification. I also wouldn't say feelings are high quality evidence (if at all).

3) So with the nature of the claims that have been mentioned (Bigfoot existing & Aunt Mary curing her cancer by drinking water), you say that there is insufficient evidence for each of the cases to accept the claims. Can you clarify, how you determine how much (both quality and quantity) evidence (also what types of evidence like heresay, phtotos, etc?) you need for the ordinary / extraordinary nature of a claim?

I mean, do you consciously use a rule to determine how much evidence you need?

1) Ok... so is remaining physical evidence is important to you?  Do you need to examine this evidence for yourself, or do you trust what others say about it?   At best, it would seem to me, that a hair or poop sample, could be determined as of unknown origin (even by an expert opinion).  So this would be only supporting evidence, which doesn't tell us much or have much strength on it's own.  

2) As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence.  I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it. 
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own.  In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer.  A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water.  A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone.  However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.

3) I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too).  However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either.  I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims.  I don't see any justification in making a distinction.  I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.  

4) Concerning epistemology,  do you think that two similar claims with similar evidence / justification for rational belief, will yield different results, because of what the conclusion is?
[/quote]

[/quote]


1) Physical evidence increases both the quantity and quality of evidence. Do you agree with this?

2) Agreed that there needs to be sufficient evidence for what is being claimed.
In relation to bigfoot, are you saying that for me to make you believe in one, you would need a higher amount of evidence (ie sufficient) for you to believe the claim?
Also if more scientific studies were conducted and all were peer reviewed which shows that that drinking water will cure cancer and that there indeed is a positive correlation between the two, would you accept the claim?

3) Please explain your logic here a bit more, I'm still a bit confused.
From reading through your replies, it seems that you can identify what is ordinary and what is extraordinary.
But when I claimed that I have $10 in my pocket you said "I don't think that the nature of the claim gives us any more epistemic burden or reason to believe it".
You also mentioned that when I claimed that I had $20k in my pocket you said "Yes, I would start to question it" as it was "out of the ordinary for one to carry around that kind of cash".
Are you saying here that the more un-ordinary the nature of claim is, the more questions you are to ask on it? I don't want to put words in your mouth but a bit more elaboration on this point will help me understand you better.
4) No, the conclusion should be similar if logically analysed.

[curiosne]

This is an important point.

Hypothetically, if you were to claim you had a pet dog, I would take you at your word. Plenty of people do, it is pretty commonplace.

If you claimed to have a pet zebra, that might prompt a few follow on questions since, while possible, it would be unusual.

OTOH, if you claimed to have a pet unicorn then I would require a much higher evidential bar to be set.

1) How do you justify raising the evidential bar?
2) Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
3) If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?

To answer your questions on this:
1) Would the "evidential" bar not be raised the more out of the ordinary a claim is? Assessing what is ordinary and what is not though is subjective.
2) No, only if the cases are similar. When a case becomes more out of the ordinary (eg a Zebra is not ordinary), then heresay is not sufficient evidence. Would you agree with this?
3) You stop when you are subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for you to verify the claim in question. However, I personally don't stop here as my logic could be impaired so I usually go and ask others whether I am thinking right on analysing the evidence of the claim (obviously this claim should be incredulous for me to ask for someone else's opinion).

[Edwardo Piet]

Earlier in this thread, I made an argument for why evidence is necessarily physical.

Now, some of you may sense that excluding gods like that is kind of cheating . . . but my argument was nevertheless both sound and valid and, furthermore, it is IMO the theist who wants to speak of evidence of something "non-physical" that can both interact with the world and at the same time not be part of the world - and that we can somehow have evidence of the non-physical despite the fact that we are entirely physical beings who can only experience something as being evident to us physically - who is cheating.

[Abaddon_ire]

To answer your questions on this:
1) Would the "evidential" bar not be raised the more out of the ordinary a claim is? Assessing what is ordinary and what is not though is subjective.

Nope. RR79 considers god to be equivalent with my cat at this point

2) No, only if the cases are similar. When a case becomes more out of the ordinary (eg a Zebra is not ordinary), then heresay is not sufficient evidence. Would you agree with this?

Nope. Evidence for gawd is more weighty than anything else so long as it increases bias.

3) You stop when you are subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for you to verify the claim in question. However, I personally don't stop here as my logic could be impaired so I usually go and ask others whether I am thinking right on analysing the evidence of the claim (obviously this claim should be incredulous for me to ask for someone else's opinion).

Nope. The conclusion is determined before any evidence is offered, thus all evidence must retropectively be evidence for gawd.

How one might rationalises such a position I leave to the reader. the god botherers? They care not.

[RoadRunner79]

---

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

[quote pid='1664181' dateline='1511792529']

1) When I said no physical evidence, I meant no physical samples of a bigfoot (eg hair samples, stool samples, etc). This is important as the quality of evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists is lower whithout physical samples to support the claim. At this point, let's go down to point three below....

2) Ok, good clarification. I also wouldn't say feelings are high quality evidence (if at all).

3) So with the nature of the claims that have been mentioned (Bigfoot existing & Aunt Mary curing her cancer by drinking water), you say that there is insufficient evidence for each of the cases to accept the claims. Can you clarify, how you determine how much (both quality and quantity) evidence (also what types of evidence like heresay, phtotos, etc?) you need for the ordinary / extraordinary nature of a claim?

I mean, do you consciously use a rule to determine how much evidence you need?

1) Ok... so is remaining physical evidence is important to you?  Do you need to examine this evidence for yourself, or do you trust what others say about it?   At best, it would seem to me, that a hair or poop sample, could be determined as of unknown origin (even by an expert opinion).  So this would be only supporting evidence, which doesn't tell us much or have much strength on it's own.  

2) As to your question about the quality and quantity of evidence.  I think that the evidence needs to sufficient to make evident what is being claimed, and overcome any evidence against it. 
For example, in your case of bigfoot, while an a hair/poop sample, which cannot be identified, is supportive towards other evidence of bigfoot, I don't think they would be sufficient on their own.  In the case of drinking water, and curing cancer.  A simple observation is good enough to verify that she drank water.  A doctors examination would be required to declare the cancer as gone.  However, for the correlation between the two, I think more of a study needs to be made to show causation.

3) I do think that it is difficult to make an exact rule/ formula, as there can be a number of different things to weigh and consider (I don't see us replacing juries with a computer that you just import the information too).  However I wouldn't describe it as arbitrary either.  I have thought about and made a couple of threads here before, about extraordinary claims.  I don't see any justification in making a distinction.  I find that often those who shout extraordinary claims are subjective, ill defined, and a lazy/ poor justification to not deal with the evidence and facts of the matter.  

4) Concerning epistemology,  do you think that two similar claims with similar evidence / justification for rational belief, will yield different results, because of what the conclusion is?

[/quote]

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope. RR79 considers  god to be equivalent with my cat at this point

Well, except for the fact that he doesn't believe in your cat.......................

[RoadRunner79]

1) How do you justify raising the evidential bar?
2) Shouldn't the reasons in one case, yield a similar result in a similar situation?
3) If you can shift the bar, for what is reasonable, how do you determine where to stop?

To answer your questions on this:
1) Would the "evidential" bar not be raised the more out of the ordinary a claim is? Assessing what is ordinary and what is not though is subjective.
2) No, only if the cases are similar. When a case becomes more out of the ordinary (eg a Zebra is not ordinary), then heresay is not sufficient evidence. Would you agree with this?
3) You stop when you are subjectively satisfied that there is sufficient evidence for you to verify the claim in question. However, I personally don't stop here as my logic could be impaired so I usually go and ask others whether I am thinking right on analysing the evidence of the claim (obviously this claim should be incredulous for me to ask for someone else's opinion).

1.)  Why
2.)  No... and the question is still why wouldn't the conclusion still follow?  Let's say that the only thing different is frequency (extraordinary).  Why and how does this change things?
3.) Would you say then that your epistemology is largely based on feelings, and the opinion of the crowd?   I don't condemn looking to other's for vindiation.  However I do think that is only valid, if they give you reasons.   If it's just that they subjectively agree, I don't think we have gotten very far down the road.