Street Epistemology - Practice

[curiosne]

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.

1) The exact same reason that you would justify how sufficient evidence needs to be for the nature of the claim. I still do not understand your train of thought. Obviously you also have a spectrum of how much evidence you need (from low epistemic burden to high) for the evidence to be sufficient to justify a particular claim. How do you determine when there is an epistemic burden and also how much evidence you would deem sufficient?
2) Same reason that you gave me when I claimed that I had $10...ie there is no epistemic burden on the $10 claim. So I would not look further into Abbondon_ire's dog claim. But would you not agree that there is an epistemic burden on Abbondon_ire when he claims to have a Zebra?
3) No. I assess other people's opinions for logical sense and to compare whether my reasoning is sound. My feelings aren't considered for any conclusions that I reach for any claims that I consider. When I ask other's opinions, I look for points of disagreements to my view to see whether they are valid point or not.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

1) The exact same reason that you would justify how sufficient evidence needs to be for the nature of the claim. I still do not understand your train of thought. Obviously you also have a spectrum of how much evidence you need (from low epistemic burden to high) for the evidence to be sufficient to justify a particular claim. How do you determine when there is an epistemic burden and also how much evidence you would deem sufficient?
2) Same reason that you gave me when I claimed that I had $10...ie there is no epistemic burden on the $10 claim. So I would not look further into Abbondon_ire's dog claim. But would you not agree that there is an epistemic burden on Abbondon_ire when he claims to have a Zebra?
3) No. I assess other people's opinions for logical sense and to compare whether my reasoning is sound. My feelings aren't considered for any conclusions that I reach for any claims that I consider. When I ask other's opinions, I look for points of disagreements to my view to see whether they are valid point or not.

I agree, that you are not understanding.  What I am trying to say, is that there is no sliding, subjective low to high epistemically burden, based on your or my incredulity, or how common it is.  I would say that it is difficult to pin down exactly where that line  is, and I think we will vary there, and I don’t quibble over an allowance for that.  However as you agreed, that the same reason and logic should produce the same results, the same applies epistemologically.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you imagine that anyone could provide equivalent "reason and logic" for their epistemological claims regarding gods as they can for cats? Do you personally believe that we have more, the same, or less reason to believe in cat knowledge claims or god knowledge claims?

[Edwardo Piet]

I still maintain that evidence is necessarily physical in nature. How can something non-physical be evident to us non-physically if things can only be evident to us physically? It can't.

[RoadRunner79]

I still maintain that evidence is necessarily physical in nature. How can something non-physical be evident to us non-physically if things can only be evident to us physically? It can't.

I think I agree Hammy.

[curiosne]

1) The exact same reason that you would justify how sufficient evidence needs to be for the nature of the claim. I still do not understand your train of thought. Obviously you also have a spectrum of how much evidence you need (from low epistemic burden to high) for the evidence to be sufficient to justify a particular claim. How do you determine when there is an epistemic burden and also how much evidence you would deem sufficient?
2) Same reason that you gave me when I claimed that I had $10...ie there is no epistemic burden on the $10 claim. So I would not look further into Abbondon_ire's dog claim. But would you not agree that there is an epistemic burden on Abbondon_ire when he claims to have a Zebra?
3) No. I assess other people's opinions for logical sense and to compare whether my reasoning is sound. My feelings aren't considered for any conclusions that I reach for any claims that I consider. When I ask other's opinions, I look for points of disagreements to my view to see whether they are valid point or not.

I agree, that you are not understanding.  What I am trying to say, is that there is no sliding, subjective low to high epistemically burden, based on your or my incredulity, or how common it is.  I would say that it is difficult to pin down exactly where that line  is, and I think we will vary there, and I don’t quibble over an allowance for that.  However as you agreed, that the same reason and logic should produce the same results, the same applies epistemologically.

so how do you determine if you have sufficient evidence to believe in a claim or not?

[RoadRunner79]

I agree, that you are not understanding.  What I am trying to say, is that there is no sliding, subjective low to high epistemically burden, based on your or my incredulity, or how common it is.  I would say that it is difficult to pin down exactly where that line  is, and I think we will vary there, and I don’t quibble over an allowance for that.  However as you agreed, that the same reason and logic should produce the same results, the same applies epistemologically.

so how do you determine if you have sufficient evidence to believe in a claim or not?

I don’t understand, it’s not like I am saying that there is no line to be drawn.  Where do you think that there is an issue.

[Edwardo Piet]

I still maintain that evidence is necessarily physical in nature. How can something non-physical be evident to us non-physically if things can only be evident to us physically? It can't.

I think I agree Hammy.

Then isn't debating it utterly futile if is belief in God is therefore by definition irrational?

[RoadRunner79]

I think I agree Hammy.

Then isn't debating it utterly futile if is belief in God is therefore by definition irrational?

Well you still have reason... and also, most of the evidence I see referred to by Christians is physical, so I don’t see where what you said follows.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then isn't debating it utterly futile if is belief in God is therefore by definition irrational?

Well you still have reason... and also, most of the evidence I see referred to by Christians is physical, so I don’t see where what you said follows.

How can you have physical evidence of something non-physical?

And, no, you can't have reason to believe in something without evidence.