Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here, again, it depends on definitions. If by "faith" we mean "belief without evidence" (and if by "evidence" we mean "verification"), I would say we do take quite a lot on faith!
If 'we' is supposed to mean non theists, an example or two or three of that "lot", please
Generally I disagree. But again, that depends on how we define our terms.
Indeed, and i defined them. Evidence that is unvalidated against evidence that is; sound reasons against unsound.
Quote:
Here, again, it depends on definitions. If by "faith" we mean "belief without evidence" (and if by "evidence" we mean "verification"), I would say we do take quite a lot on faith!
As discussed earlier, we do. This is a recognised human failing of reason. That's why he have logical reasoning and science, to validate these beliefs into beliefs with some valid support and those without, which we call 'faith'.
Here, again, it depends on definitions. If by "faith" we mean "belief without evidence" (and if by "evidence" we mean "verification"), I would say we do take quite a lot on faith!
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
If 'we' is supposed to mean non theists, an example or two or three of that "lot", please
I'm thinking of things such as the reality of the external world or of the past. Or that there are minds other than your own. Belief that this isn't all just a dream or that you're not just a brain in a vat or body in the Matrix, that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Indeed, and i defined them. Evidence that is unvalidated against evidence that is; sound reasons against unsound.
And what definition do you give "evidence" again?
Quote:
As discussed earlier, we do. This is a recognised human failing of reason. That's why he have logical reasoning and science, to validate these beliefs into beliefs with some valid support and those without, which we call 'faith'.
Well, science cannot help us to validate the aforementioned beliefs; we'd have to assume the very things we're supposed to be validating. We could say that reason justifies belief in the external world as perceived, insofar as we acknowledge that our experiences are reason enough to believe. And I certainly reject this definition of "faith" you're saying "we" call belief without valid support altogether. Sounds like begging the question, to me.
It seems that the two aspects above are conflated and seldom dealt with directly.
I agree that often the above two subjects lack clarity. However, I'd like to posit a third variable and that is 'the strength of evidence.'
All people can muddy the water when it comes to these issues, regardless of their allegiances, education, etc. When one is accused of crime, they will question everything, and the strength of evidence posited against them would need to be of the highest caliber. On the other hand, if one is already prejudiced against the accused, and in their heart of hearts feels they are guilty, they may not be as scrupulous when it comes to evidence. In the end, we are all flawed and driven by our emotions and motives that are not always open to scrutiny.
But I think the simplest thing to agree is the definition of evidence. Maybe not the exact wording but what it signifies. Below is a general structure of an argument.
Premises and Conclusions must be statements/propositions.
A statement/proposition is a claim about the world that has a truth value, i.e. it is either true or false. (There are some exceptions but they can be disregarded here.)
It can be said, there is an argument if premises give reasons to support the conclusion.
These reasons/justifications to accept the conclusion is what we call evidence.
When reasons are given, one is still expected to make a jump in thought from premises to conclusion. This is called Inference.
The bigger the jump the stronger evidence that is required.
Compare the following arguments...
Argument 1
Triangle ABC is congruent with triangle KLF. - PREMISE
Triangles are congruent when they have equal sides and angels. - PREMISE
As such, triangle ABC’s sides and angles are equal to that of triangle KLF. – CONCLUSION
Premises (1) & (2) contain within themselves reasons for why conclusion (3) should be accepted. These are strong axiomatic reasons and as such the jump from (1) & (2) to (3) is short and safe.
Argument 2
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, Tod recorded that Fred saw Bob draw a circle. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was a real person. – CONCLUSION
Significant jump and quite weak.
Argument 3
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, an anonymous person recorded several far removed accounts of Bob drawing a shape but these accounts differed in their nature and the shape described. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was Michelangelo. – CONCLUSION
Massive jump. Little to no evidence. Almost a non-argument.
I think where we all differ is in not so much what we call evidence but how big an inference leap we can accept on how little evidence.
Triangle ABC is congruent with triangle KLF. - PREMISE
Triangles are congruent when they have equal sides and angels. - PREMISE
As such, triangle ABC’s sides and angles are equal to that of triangle KLF. – CONCLUSION
Premises (1) & (2) contain within themselves reasons for why conclusion (3) should be accepted. These are strong axiomatic reasons and as such the jump from (1) & (2) to (3) is short and safe.
Argument 2
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, Tod recorded that Fred saw Bob draw a circle. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was a real person. – CONCLUSION
Significant jump and quite weak.
Argument 3
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, an anonymous person recorded several far removed accounts of Bob drawing a shape but these accounts differed in their nature and the shape described. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was Michelangelo. – CONCLUSION
Massive jump. Little to no evidence. Almost a non-argument.
I think where we all differ is in not so much what we call evidence but how big an inference leap we can accept on how little evidence.
Other than the typo (or Freudian slip?) under Argument 1, Step 2.... which has you unwittingly making an appeal to religiosity... these are excellent!
Seriously, I found it very helpful to see these examples laid out in this way, and the progressive iteration toward ever-larger jumps is compelling.
Other than the typo (or Freudian slip?) under Argument 1, Step 2.... which has you unwittingly making an appeal to religiosity... these are excellent!
Ahaha that is awesome! Thank you for spotting this. I've quite a poor attention to detail when writing. My GP suggested I have ADD and learning difficulties but I've not been tested. Takes me ages to spell check and still I miss some whoopers Always grateful to those who point out my errors (grammatical or otherwise) and correct them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster
Seriously, I found it very helpful to see these examples laid out in this way, and the progressive iteration toward ever-larger jumps is compelling.
I've been following a number of online courses in different subjects and have Adam Rosenfeld from University of North Carolina at Greensboro to thank for his brilliant philosophy lectures on YT. The above I learned from his Critical Thinking series, which I highly recommend.
I'm thinking of things such as the reality of the external world or of the past. Or that there are minds other than your own. Belief that this isn't all just a dream or that you're not just a brain in a vat or body in the Matrix, that sort of thing.
And what definition do you give "evidence" again?
Well, science cannot help us to validate the aforementioned beliefs; we'd have to assume the very things we're supposed to be validating. We could say that reason justifies belief in the external world as perceived, insofar as we acknowledge that our experiences are reason enough to believe. And I certainly reject this definition of "faith" you're saying "we" call belief without valid support altogether. Sounds like begging the question, to me.
Then I don't know how to help you get on the same page as the real world, which (no matter how it may express skepticism about science) relies up it every day to work and provide the better, longer and most healthy life humans have ever enjoyed, and has told us more about the the world, the universe and ourselves trhan we could ever have imagined knowing (and a darn sight more than divine revelation has ever told us). It not only provides a method of solving criminal cases when nobody was there anymore than anyone was watching the dinosaurs, but can solve long cold cases, all because of the methods of science getting nearer to the facts than could have been dreamed in the days of solving a case by combat or ordeal, with god picking the winner.
You still have no inking of the validity of 'evidence?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itzpapalotl
I agree that often the above two subjects lack clarity. However, I'd like to posit a third variable and that is 'the strength of evidence.'
All people can muddy the water when it comes to these issues, regardless of their allegiances, education, etc. When one is accused of crime, they will question everything, and the strength of evidence posited against them would need to be of the highest caliber. On the other hand, if one is already prejudiced against the accused, and in their heart of hearts feels they are guilty, they may not be as scrupulous when it comes to evidence. In the end, we are all flawed and driven by our emotions and motives that are not always open to scrutiny.
But I think the simplest thing to agree is the definition of evidence. Maybe not the exact wording but what it signifies. Below is a general structure of an argument.
Premises and Conclusions must be statements/propositions.
A statement/proposition is a claim about the world that has a truth value, i.e. it is either true or false. (There are some exceptions but they can be disregarded here.)
It can be said, there is an argument if premises give reasons to support the conclusion.
These reasons/justifications to accept the conclusion is what we call evidence.
When reasons are given, one is still expected to make a jump in thought from premises to conclusion. This is called Inference.
The bigger the jump the stronger evidence that is required.
Compare the following arguments...
Argument 1
Triangle ABC is congruent with triangle KLF. - PREMISE
Triangles are congruent when they have equal sides and angels. - PREMISE
As such, triangle ABC’s sides and angles are equal to that of triangle KLF. – CONCLUSION
Premises (1) & (2) contain within themselves reasons for why conclusion (3) should be accepted. These are strong axiomatic reasons and as such the jump from (1) & (2) to (3) is short and safe.
Argument 2
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, Tod recorded that Fred saw Bob draw a circle. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was a real person. – CONCLUSION
Significant jump and quite weak.
Argument 3
In 1506, Bob drew a perfect circle free hand. - PREMISE
In 1606, an anonymous person recorded several far removed accounts of Bob drawing a shape but these accounts differed in their nature and the shape described. - PREMISE
Therefore, Bob was Michelangelo. – CONCLUSION
Massive jump. Little to no evidence. Almost a non-argument.
I think where we all differ is in not so much what we call evidence but how big an inference leap we can accept on how little evidence.
Mystic is going to love this. I'd just say that inference is assisted by verifiable evidence (say, for example, through experiment) and gives us degrees of probability or credibility and not just a "Believe - or not" alternative, which is where theists seem to get stuck.
I'd just say that inference is assisted by verifiable evidence (say, for example, through experiment) and gives us degrees of probability or credibility and not just a "Believe - or not" alternative, which is where theists seem to get stuck.
For now, I just wanted to stick to logical arguments only. Their practical aspects are far too complex, so it helps to just look at the basics to begin with. And you are right, probabilities play a huge role in inductive arguments, as these can't be said to be valid no matter how good the evidence and are generally measured on the basis of their strength. But that's a whole other can of worms...
Mystic is going to love this. I'd just say that inference is assisted by verifiable evidence (say, for example, through experiment) and gives us degrees of probability or credibility and not just a "Believe - or not" alternative, which is where theists seem to get stuck.
I am pleased that you seem to grasp what resonates with my views, Arq. It suggests that you do understand the more subtle objections I present to your concrete materialism and its "leaps from evidence."
Then I don't know how to help you get on the same page as the real world, which (no matter how it may express skepticism about science) relies up it every day to work and provide the better, longer and most healthy life humans have ever enjoyed, and has told us more about the the world, the universe and ourselves trhan we could ever have imagined knowing (and a darn sight more than divine revelation has ever told us).
You seem to think I'm opposed to appealing to science or turning to it for knowledge about the world, when I never implied such a thing. What I did point out is that science cannot help us confirm those primary beliefs about the nature of reality which are properly basic. And this is not a controversial statement, just basic philosophy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Always grateful to those who point out my errors (grammatical or otherwise) and correct them.
Mystic is going to love this. I'd just say that inference is assisted by verifiable evidence (say, for example, through experiment) and gives us degrees of probability or credibility and not just a "Believe - or not" alternative, which is where theists seem to get stuck.
