Is evidentialism justified?

[Welsh cake]

The question for this thread is "Is evidentialism justified?"

Pragmatically justified or epistemically justified?

Applying evidentialism to itself, we are only justified in believing that evidentialism is true if our evidence supports evidentialism.

That's logical regression you are proposing here, which is just as absurd as trying to apply the scientific method unto itself.

But do we have any evidence supporting evidentialism?

What you do mean? Emperical evidence? What sort of evidence are you after? We were addressing the justification of propositions and beliefs, regardless of whether they are religious or not, but now you're talking about the theory of justification and that is a large part of epistemology.

[Stempy]

I don't think you really do doubt your skepticism, and that is not an assumption but the observation that you do not apply your skeptical criteria consistently.

And why isn't your observation an assumption?

Err..because I was observing the way you apply criteria in what you have written. If it was an assumption, I wouldn't have gone to all the bother of talking about your application of criteria.

It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.

I don't think you're understanding what I mean by the question being relevant. By 'relevant' I mean, in this context, 'having to do with the possibility of justification". I claim that it isn't always relevant, because it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it* (you confirm this when you talk about self-awareness below). In order for the question to be relevant, you need to show the contrary.

*This view is known as particularism, for those who have not come across it.

I don't require justification for skepticism just as I don't need to know why I'm self-aware, I just know THAT I'm self-aware

If you know that you are self-aware then that rather contradicts your (apparently global and iterative) skepticism. And to say that you "just know" that skepticism is true is beneath someone such as yourself who is well capable of recognising a self-defeating statement.

A tautology means something is what it is.

You have shown me elsewhere that you are a big fan of dictionaries. I'm sure you can find one that gives this definition. The Law of Identity (which applies to all things) is a tautology - but it makes no sense to then say that "all things are tautological". It's a category error - propositions can be tautological, but not "things".

---

Because of course no atheist philosopher has ever made a case against evidentialism or skepticism.

Is that a baseless assumption?

Only dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads would resort to such a pitiful thing as logical argumentation rather than trivial rhetoric, name-calling and straw men.

Is that a baseless assumption?

It's called sarcasm, as made clear by my use of blatantly false statements.

---

The question for this thread is "Is evidentialism justified?"

Pragmatically justified or epistemically justified?

Epistemic.

That's logical regression you are proposing here, which is just as absurd as trying to apply the scientific method unto itself.

Evidentialism is a claim about when beliefs are justified. As evidentialism is itself a belief, it is perfectly reasonable to apply it to itself.

The scientific method is a way of going about studying the physical world. Since the scientific method is not part of the physical world, it is absurd to apply it to itself.

Emperical evidence? What sort of evidence are you after?

Evidence of any sort. The evidentialist thesis leaves open what counts and does not count as evidence.

[theVOID]

In this thread, "evidentialism" is defined to be the view that:

"Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p."[1]

The question for this thread is "Is evidentialism justified?" For if it is not, then it is simply an arbitrary criterion which we are at liberty to reject. Applying evidentialism to itself, we are only justified in believing that evidentialism is true if our evidence supports evidentialism. But do we have any evidence supporting evidentialism? I'm not aware of any (in fact, prima facie it doesn't even seem possible that there could be any), and so by evidentialism's own lights I am free to reject it.

A second question (if you agree that evidentialism is not justified) is this: is it possible to adapt the evidentialist thesis in such away that it doesn't have this self-defeating character?

A final tertiary question for those who say "no" to the second question is "Are there any criterion for epistemic justification that are not self-defeating?"

Stempy.

[1] Evidentialism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Epistemology, for some reason it can pull me out of a bad mood like nothing else.

Your asking whether or not evidentialism is justified is the first problem, it makes your evaluation of evidentialism contingent upon another theory of justification which hasn't been presented. I suppose you mean something more like "Is evidentialism true" - I'll work under that assumption.

First off, I Think evidentialism is flawed for several reasons, namely what constitutes evidence can lead to the potential for parallel refutation on one hand (like a weak definition of evidence where you can use evidentialism to justify two contradictory propositions) and if the definition is tightened too much you run into situations where I am not justified in believing that a person I know is across the street if I was to see them because individual sensory perception is ruled out - I think the main problem with evidentialism is that it needs a distinction between acquisition and examination.

Evidentialism works far better when combined with Reliablism into a two-stage epistemology, it sorts out the issues with what constitutes evidence and sets a difference between the acquisition and examination of the belief. http://philosophy.wisc.edu/comesana/evid...bilism.pdf

As for the evidence for evidentialism you would need to resort to syllogism. I've seen arguments based around an idea like "It is inconsistent to fully believe that P and also believe that you do not have adequate evidence that P." I don't see any real problems here though there may be some, the only real flaw is in how evidence is defined.

For your second and third question, Yes I believe so, see the provided link.

Oh, and you are using Skepticism in a way that I wouldn't agree with, Skepticism is not something that is true or false, it is a methodology that is either pragmatic or not. Most of us apply skepticism routinely, from the claims of knives that never need sharpening on TV to the stalls at the local fair selling healing crystals. You could summarize skepticism as "An approach to claims of fact that sees belief as contingent upon the establishment of evidence in favor". To say that someone is a skeptic is to say they promote the use of and routinely apply skepticism.

Would you like to answer your own 3rd question?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Stemp....for reminding me why I fucking HATE philosophy!!!!!!!!!!

Because it challenges your models, oh dear we can't have that now...

[Edwardo Piet]

Err..because I was observing the way you apply criteria in what you have written. If it was an assumption, I wouldn't have gone to all the bother of talking about your application of criteria.

If your observation is baseless it is an assumption. I am asking if your observation has any basis.

It's a relevant question to ask because it makes me become aware that it commits the begging the question fallacy as it is defined. Because it commits the begging the question fallacy it can't lead to any conclusion. The fact that it can't lead to any conclusion demonstrates its unjustifiability.

I don't think you're understanding what I mean by the question being relevant. By 'relevant' I mean, in this context, 'having to do with the possibility of justification". I claim that it isn't always relevant, because it is possible to know something without knowing how you know it* (you confirm this when you talk about self-awareness below). In order for the question to be relevant, you need to show the contrary.

"Isn't always relevant" isn't the same as "irrelevant."

If you know that you are self-aware then that rather contradicts your (apparently global and iterative) skepticism.

I stated in my first post on this thread that I wasn't skeptical about tautology being absolutely true, nor was I skeptical about my self-awareness.

And to say that you "just know" that skepticism is true is beneath someone such as yourself who is well capable of recognising a self-defeating statement.

I don't know that skepticism is true.

You have shown me elsewhere that you are a big fan of dictionaries. I'm sure you can find one that gives this definition. The Law of Identity (which applies to all things) is a tautology - but it makes no sense to then say that "all things are tautological". It's a category error - propositions can be tautological, but not "things".

All things are themselves and no things are not themselves. That's obeys the Law of Identity, and is tautological.

I define "redness" itself as "The totality of all red things in existence". I define "tautology" itself as "the totality of all tautological things in existence". Something is tautological if it is itself, all things are themselves, all things are tautological. Tautology itself (not the concept of tautology) is the same as "all things that are themselves" because of how I define Universals.

The concept of "tautology" is of course completely different to the existence of tautology itself. To confuse the two is to make a Use/Mention distinction error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%9...istinction

You can dispute the existence of tautology itself (not the concept) but that is just down to how we define Universals.

It's called sarcasm, as made clear by my use of blatantly false statements.

Is the point you are making sarcastically a baseless assumption? Or do you not mean to make a point at all, whether a sarcastic one or a literal one?

[Minimalist]

Because it challenges your models, oh dear we can't have that now...

Because it is mental masturbation.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's one of your models, Minimalist.

[Minimalist]

I want the real thing or nothing!

[Edwardo Piet]

What makes you think your models are real?

[Minimalist]

Pictures.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you don't believe in anything unseen?