Are we ever justified in believing p without sufficient evidence for p?

[Kylie]

I thought the scientific spirit was: destroy theory if possible?

The efforts being on finding limits alongside finding facts?

Of course I could just carry on with everyone else and copy. Is that the idea?

I'm not directing at you personally.

I think alongside empirical limits of a idea, there are also philosophical limits to science. Just as an idea can be falsified, a whole epistemic system (i.e. scientific realism itself) can be exchanged for another e.g. subjective idealism...

Its no big deal.

It seems to go like this tho. "Science is so virtuous, so humble. Atheists embrace science. Therefore they share the same virtue. Humility. "

Then:

"This tactic wins so many arguments. 'Theists are bigoted', for instance, is a winner.Therefore. Any criticism of science must be wrong..."

Seems more like ego defence.

Which actually is a rejection of the virtue of humility, as it would be making a necessary fact (it can NEVER be wrong as a method) out of a contingent one, as science methodology is not tautology therefore it can err.*

If its correct science could be wrong (cf modal logic, if a statement like "E+MC^2is contingent, it could be wrong), then this apparently has two aspects:

the a posteriori limits (ideas are falsifiable, e.g. the concept of ether, which is a very common theme) and the
a priori limits of science (there is at least one alternative possible philosophy of reality, like 'Its all just a sophisticated dream', which is in principle untestable, tho, but this seems to be an if not THE taboo to confess).

What's to lose?

Medicine, technology etc. I know. Science has utility. But such utility doesn't falsify "I'm only dreaming" as an a priori perspective. You'll already know that I imagine.

So, its only a matter of pride.


*Or, maybe scientific methodology is tautologically valid? IDK... Seems like as fractals approach infinity with each iteration (AFAIK), science approaches truth with each adjustment. So we have method, feedback from reality, self correction, further advance, but never THE truth absolutely.

So if 1 2 3 4 5.....100, 101, 102 etc. are taken as measures of epistemic warrant, with more advances science having a higher number, then science's warrant can approach infinity, and grow over time, but never "get there".

Einstein improved upon Newton. Its not like Newton was totally wrong, relativity was incrementally better. Science improves by matter of degree not matter of kind. Science is "similar" to reality, and the history of science is like a fractal zoom in on truth, but science is never absolute reality itself.

Again, I get the feeling you are just trying to muddy the waters.

Let me ask you this...

If I hand you a piece of wood, can you measure how long it is?

 

[Jok]

So, the sufficiency of evidence is wholly subjective? I might have misunderstood what you mean. Do you mean so long as I am convinced of p, then I have sufficient evidence for p?

Yes subjective, that is what I find to be the case with inductive reasoning for historical events (gospels). Even people who believe what I believe, I will ask them sometimes why they came to believe, and the reasons that they give me for believing did absolutely nothing for me years ago when I was trying to figure out what was true. Then the opposite will happen, again someone with the same beliefs even, I will tell them what convinced me, and I can just tell that it is not something that moves them at all. There is no nod of agreement, or any sort of WOW that's a great point, nothing impressive to them at all. So then it is even subjectively worse between people of different beliefs!

I think inner personal experience is the strongest proof there is! However it's not going to get you anywhere in debate.

 

[public hermit]

Yes subjective, that is what I find to be the case with inductive reasoning for historical events (gospels). Even people who believe what I believe, I will ask them sometimes why they came to believe, and the reasons that they give me for believing did absolutely nothing for me years ago when I was trying to figure out what was true. Then the opposite will happen, again someone with the same beliefs even, I will tell them what convinced me, and I can just tell that it is not something that moves them at all. There is no nod of agreement, or any sort of WOW that's a great point, nothing impressive to them at all. So then it is even subjectively worse between people of different beliefs!

I think inner personal experience is the strongest proof there is! However it's not going to get you anywhere in debate.

Good point. I can't be convinced by anything that is not convincing to me.

I wonder. How is it that someone might come to the idea that there is such a thing as "objective evidence"? Is it simply a matter of wide intersubjective agreement of what is convincing?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Again, I get the feeling you are just trying to muddy the waters.

Let me ask you this...

If I hand you a piece of wood, can you measure how long it is?

Of course, one can use an "objective measure" but its not necessarily true that objective reality exists. Ok its true that its say 1 foot, in imperial measure. And that is the same for everyone, or at least non idealists. And that is called objective. Yes, I get that.

But the whole construct of "objectivity" is just that, a construct. It is a way of seeing reality, amongst many.

Like I say, an alternative to "objectively independently existing things" is subjective idealism, e.g. its just a dream we're going through.

c.f. Anti-realism - Wikipedia

The fact that we can all agree on a measure for the wood, doesn't formally or logically falsify the idea were in a dream. (if it does, let us know).

So, therefore objectivity is not a necessary idea. Its contingent. If it were necessary, subjective idealism wouldn't even be there to bother us as an option.

Now, I'm trying to be fair. The way I view things, if "objectivity" were logically necessary in our relation to the world, it would be tautologous - and provable a priori - that the objective world exists.

OTOH what we have is a useful system. We posit an objective world, and find it a useful concept. But that usefulness doesn't prove anything absolutely, it only indicates inductively. Therefore, as with all inductive inference, we can say there is probably an objective reality, but not necessarily one.


"Necessarily" would imply a formal proof, which AFAIK one doesn't have. Now, if I can measure a piece of wood with a tape measure, and people agree with this idea, what does that actually prove, not indicate, but prove formally as in deductively.

It shows lots of people agree. It doesn't prove a mind independent reality exists.

c.f. Formal proof - Wikipedia
Immediate inference - Wikipedia
Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia

To get back to the OP - what is "sufficient evidence" for believing in objective reality? Who determined the standard? Is it 100% reliable epistemologically? Is it a pragmatic tool etc?

peace...

 

[Jok]

Good point. I can't be convinced by anything that is not convincing to me.

I wonder. How is it that someone might come to the idea that there is such a thing as "objective evidence"? Is it simply a matter of wide intersubjective agreement of what is convincing?

Well I don't believe what I said in that post for deductive reasoning. I would call deductive reasoning objective evidence, I would also call seeing something with my own eyes objective evidence. I personally would not be able to even go back and forth with someone who disagrees with axioms that I consider to be self evident truths/objective evidence. Which actually has happened to me. I don't think any two people can have a meaningful conversation if they deny each other's foundational axioms (not that they are to be ignored, but maybe the conversation is better suited for someone who thinks like they do). You have to have common solid ground to both stand on together in order to even have a conversation that doesn't drive both of you nuts. There is someone that I know who doesn't believe that the physical world is real! Philosophical idealism. I just freeze lol. I don't know how to reply to him lol. So IMO he is denying objective evidence there! He will actually grab the table in front of us and say that this it is not real lol.

So I think that deductive reasoning, and what I consider to be undeniable axioms are objective evidence. However I do shake my head sometimes at people not seeing what I see with some Biblical arguments, even though they are inductive, however I don't think that they are rejecting objective evidence in those cases, I don't see historical data as being that strong. I do see it as solid evidence, but won't call it objective. Funny thing is that I actually don't think it's supposed to be objective. As Josh McDowell once said apologetics is just a foot in the (intellectual) door in order to stop that door from shutting on a would be Christian who thinks that Christianity is intellectual suicide, yet it's still impossible to intellectually corner a person and purely reason them into belief.

And if you think about how some people actually saw Jesus perform miracles, yet still didn't want to follow him (objective evidence), it makes you think even more so that it's not a purely intellectual game. But again like McDowell said, it still is an intellectual game to get would be Christians to help them realize that the faith is not intellectual suicide.

I heard a debate once between an atheist and WLC (forget who the atheist was). At one point in the debate the atheist pretty much mockingly said to Craig that none of the arguments make any sense to him, and he asked Craig Do you seriously believe that if I were to except Christ that all the sudden the arguments would magically start to make sense to me!? It's funny because I pretty much did have that exact thing happen to me, that exact thing that he was saying in a mocking tone. Once I was on the fence about the intellectual arguments, and then for no intellectual reasons whatsoever I was pushed into intellectual belief by some switch that got thrown inside of me. And there was nothing fake about it at all, I didn't believe, but then I did.

I didn't magically become sold on all the small details of course, questions still remained. But something happened inside of me that is hard to explain. I was intellectually moved, yet I wasn't even pushed with an intellectual argument, it was pretty strange, it was a movement during an intense prayer. It's similar to C.S. Lewis' conversion story if you've ever heard it, about how he just transitioned from disbelief into belief like a light switch just flipped inside of him, during a drive somewhere. And it had nothing to do with an intellectual argument at all, yet for a long time prior to that moment he had been wrestling with the arguments. So an argument didn't even do him in, something just flipped a switch in him from the inside, and there he was, a believer in 'The evidence'

 

[Kylie]

Of course, one can use an "objective measure" but its not necessarily true that objective reality exists. Ok its true that its say 1 foot, in imperial measure. And that is the same for everyone, or at least non idealists. And that is called objective. Yes, I get that.

But the whole construct of "objectivity" is just that, a construct. It is a way of seeing reality, amongst many.

Like I say, an alternative to "objectively independently existing things" is subjective idealism, e.g. its just a dream we're going through.

c.f. Anti-realism - Wikipedia

The fact that we can all agree on a measure for the wood, doesn't formally or logically falsify the idea were in a dream. (if it does, let us know).

So, therefore objectivity is not a necessary idea. Its contingent. If it were necessary, subjective idealism wouldn't even be there to bother us as an option.

Now, I'm trying to be fair. The way I view things, if "objectivity" were logically necessary in our relation to the world, it would be tautologous - and provable a priori - that the objective world exists.

OTOH what we have is a useful system. We posit an objective world, and find it a useful concept. But that usefulness doesn't prove anything absolutely, it only indicates inductively. Therefore, as with all inductive inference, we can say there is probably an objective reality, but not necessarily one.

"Necessarily" would imply a formal proof, which AFAIK one doesn't have. Now, if I can measure a piece of wood with a tape measure, and people agree with this idea, what does that actually prove, not indicate, but prove formally as in deductively.

It shows lots of people agree. It doesn't prove a mind independent reality exists.

c.f. Formal proof - Wikipedia
Immediate inference - Wikipedia
Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia

To get back to the OP - what is "sufficient evidence" for believing in objective reality? Who determined the standard? Is it 100% reliable epistemologically? Is it a pragmatic tool etc?

peace...

I'm growing tired of your games.

Answer the question.

Can you measure the piece of wood?

Yes or no?

 

[public hermit]

So I think that deductive reasoning, and what I consider to be undeniable axioms are objective evidence. However I do shake my head sometimes at people not seeing what I see with some Biblical arguments, even though they are inductive, however I don't think that they are rejecting objective evidence in those cases, I don't see historical data as being that strong.

Hmm. You have an interesting approach to "objective" and "subjective." I have not generally thought of deduction as objective and inductive as subjective. I'm not saying that is what you hold to, but I did get that impression from your response. If I say "All bachelors are unmarried" I would consider that a tautological truth, such as a = a. It is an a-priori truth, and thus not objective (i.e. not a-posteriori). If I say, "All bachelors are unmarried, Jim is unmarried; therefore, Jim is a bachelor." I would call that deductively true, but not necessarily objectively true. If I saw Jim walking down the street, and didn't know anything about Jim, just by looking at him (as an object not just existing in my head) I would not be able to (a-priori) know he is a bachelor.

Likewise, I have not considered biblical evidence as inductive. If I see that a dropped objective falls towards the earth, and seems to happen in every similar case in which I do so, I would (by way of inductive reasoning) extend that action universally, i.e. all dropped objects (which are dropped in the vicinity of earth) fall towards the earth. So, I am curious how you are using these terms. I have heard the phrase "inductive bible study" but I have never really understood what it meant.

And if you think about how some people actually saw Jesus perform miracles, yet still didn't want to follow him (objective evidence), it makes you think even more so that it's not a purely intellectual game. But again like McDowell said, it still is an intellectual game to get would be Christians to help them realize that the faith is not intellectual suicide.

Good point. I think Kierkegaard makes a similar observation that one could have walked with Jesus every day and that would not somehow guarantee that one would come to faith. I also think that McDowell's observation is on point. Honestly, I am surprised that is his position given the title of his books (Evidence That Demands a Verdict). It's been a good many years since I've perused either volume.

At any rate, I agree. To give a "defense" is not the same as to give a "proof." I can give a reasonable account of why I believe, without assuming that account is going to be persuasive to the skeptic, which kind of goes back to your observation that "evidence" is that by which I am convinced. Not ironically, a good many skeptical folks seem to think "apologetics" is about offering proof, and then complain when it is not given. I think Christians are partly to blame for treating apologetic arguments as a form of evangelism.

It's funny because I pretty much did have that exact thing happen to me, that exact thing that he was saying in a mocking tone. Once I was on the fence about the intellectual arguments, and then for no intellectual reasons whatsoever I was pushed into intellectual belief by some switch that got thrown inside of me. And there was nothing fake about it at all, I didn't believe, but then I did.

I had a somewhat similar experience. Before I came to faith, I would try to liven up slow parties with the logical problem of evil. I got an obscene pleasure watching people's eyes as the logical force of the argument took hold. But, then I came to faith and it wasn't because I finally found answers to my doubts. It wasn't until after I came to faith that I even heard about Plantinga's "free will" defense. I tell people that I tried my best to not become a Christian, and yet here I am. Oh well. I guess worse things can happen.

I didn't magically become sold on all the small details of course, questions still remained. But something happened inside of me that is hard to explain. I was intellectually moved, yet I wasn't even pushed with an intellectual argument, it was pretty strange, it was a movement during an intense prayer. It's similar to C.S. Lewis' conversion story if you've ever heard it

I am familiar with his conversion. Your statement that you didn't magically become sold on all the small details reminds me of Anselm's credo ut intelligam. Faith is a strange bird. I probably have more questions now, than I did when I first came to faith. I understand more. But, as it goes, more understanding just breeds more ignorance and questions. At the first, I foolishly thought the more I understood the less I would not know. Hahaha.

I really appreciate your thoughtful comments and look forward to seeing more of them on CF. Have you surpassed that magic threshold of posts to join the Apologetics Forum, yet?

 

[Jok]

Hmm. You have an interesting approach to "objective" and "subjective." I have not generally thought of deduction as objective and inductive as subjective. I'm not saying that is what you hold to, but I did get that impression from your response. If I say "All bachelors are unmarried" I would consider that a tautological truth, such as a = a. It is an a-priori truth, and thus not objective (i.e. not a-posteriori). If I say, "All bachelors are unmarried, Jim is unmarried; therefore, Jim is a bachelor." I would call that deductively true, but not necessarily objectively true. If I saw Jim walking down the street, and didn't know anything about Jim, just by looking at him (as an object not just existing in my head) I would not be able to (a-priori) know he is a bachelor.

Oh ok, my terminology was probably sloppy. I was not only saying that something is true by definition, but I was also just assuming that both people can then easily take the next step and go verify that it is true by definition. a = a is self evident by way of the reflexive property. And if a = b, and b = c, then a = c by way of substitution property. I was then making the sloppy assumption that two people would then go verify that a = c, something that can’t be done with historical studies.

I was showing a little tunnel vision also because I was just thinking in terms of historical Jesus and the resurrection. If a premise is disputed that would be different from what I was trying to say. I was going by the assumption that both people had Jim being a bachelor as being a non-disputed given, and also easily verifiable, just like
a = c can be easily verified.

If the argument is about the ability to trust whether Jim was really a bachelor or not then that is more on the level of how I see historical Jesus arguments. So if two people 100% agreed upon a list of facts as being true (true is actually a bad word here, it’s more like strength of each premise’ probability), such as the empty tomb, all the disciples’ drastic changes in beliefs, the crucifixion, etc., then conclusions that are drawn by those agreed upon facts (again a bad word) could really make a lot of sense, even more sense than all of the counter explanations/conclusions from those facts, however even if all the premises are true (better to say very strong) the conclusions can still be false.

I’m not very polished in logic so I may still be butchering the terms lol.

I really appreciate your thoughtful comments and look forward to seeing more of them on CF. Have you surpassed that magic threshold of posts to join the Apologetics Forum, yet?

No. It looks pretty intense in there I’m not sure if that would be a common stop for me lol, I have already cringed a few times already thinking that some of my posts were a bit too aggressive, but that section looks very aggressive by nature. I try to remind myself not to talk to people online differently than I would in person. I’m just speaking for myself, I don’t like how I’m more inclined to be rude to people online.

 

[public hermit]

Oh ok, my terminology was probably sloppy. I was not only saying that something is true by definition, but I was also just assuming that both people can then easily take the next step and go verify that it is true by definition. a = a is self evident by way of the reflexive property. And if a = b, and b = c, then a = c by way of substitution property. I was then making the sloppy assumption that two people would then go verify that a = c, something that can’t be done with historical studies.

I was showing a little tunnel vision also because I was just thinking in terms of historical Jesus and the resurrection. If a premise is disputed that would be different from what I was trying to say. I was going by the assumption that both people had Jim being a bachelor as being a non-disputed given, and also easily verifiable, just like
a = c can be easily verified.

If the argument is about the ability to trust whether Jim was really a bachelor or not then that is more on the level of how I see historical Jesus arguments. So if two people 100% agreed upon a list of facts as being true (true is actually a bad word here, it’s more like strength of each premise’ probability), such as the empty tomb, all the disciples’ drastic changes in beliefs, the crucifixion, etc., then conclusions that are drawn by those agreed upon facts (again a bad word) could really make a lot of sense, even more sense than all of the counter explanations/conclusions from those facts, however even if all the premises are true (better to say very strong) the conclusions can still be false.

This all makes sense. I appreciate the clarification. I misunderstood what you were getting at, which is not uncommon for me.

No. It looks pretty intense in there I’m not sure if that would be a common stop for me lol, I have already cringed a few times already thinking that some of my posts were a bit too aggressive, but that section looks very aggressive by nature.

Yeah, I get that. I try to be generous in discourse, but I have posted some things I wish I hadn't. It goes with the territory, I suppose.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm growing tired of your games.

Answer the question.

Can you measure the piece of wood?

Yes or no?

Yes.
I measured a piece of wood.

It costs $12.50 .

 

[Jok]

Yeah, I get that. I try to be generous in discourse, but I have posted some things I wish I hadn't. It goes with the territory, I suppose.

Lol definitely understandable as human nature. When someone take the gloves off with you it could be difficult to keep yours on.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm growing tired of your games.

Answer the question.

Can you measure the piece of wood?

Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And, so what?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So yes we can measure some wood.
Any yes people can agree on it. They can use a standard measure and agree it conforms to a certain measured length. It gives the same reading for all measurers.

I don't see how that deductively entails anything about a mind independent universe. If there is an objective world, isn't that what we are looking to make a case for?

If I'm dreaming, like Descartes argued, couldn't one have just the same type of experience?

1)Wood is measurable.
2)People agree on the measured length.

^this isn't even a basis for any syllogistic conclusion at all. There is no middle term: Middle term - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

If someone else measures the same piece of wood, will they get the same result you get?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

yes.

 

[Kylie]

yes.

So do you think measuring the length of this piece of wood is subjective or objective?