If your truly can't prove a negative then....

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

It´s remarkable how those various definitions of "reality" either can´t manage to define reality without using "real" in their definition (whereas, for obvious reasons, it is not permitted for a definition to use the term that´s to be defined as a defining term), or even (#4) defines reality as the subjective experience itself.

I´ll ask again:
How do we get to discern optical illusions?
and, for clarity´s sake I´ll add the question:
Or do you reject those means of discernment right away?

So the term veridicality, is by it´s very definition, impossible.
Ok.
So where do you plan to go from there?

At least when trying to test the veradicality of one sense by using this very sense.
Fine. So where do you plan to go from raising a criterium that, per it´s own definition, can´t be met?





Disagree. Logic and reasoning can be used in a completely abstract way.
Yes, that´s right. When you insist that we have to "test" them, logic and reason aren´t the appropriate means. However, logic and reason can be used to scrutinize certain ideas without "testing" them empirically.
Well, you are changing the horses midstream.
So far, you referred to our senses as being unable to test the veradicality of our senses (which is, for obvious reasons, indeed impossible) - but here you are introducing new criteria: "take us outside ourselves", "processes that (don´t) happen in our brain" - both of which are not the same as "outside our senses".



I have described their tactics, I have tried to explain what´s wrong with those tactics.
Now, is this another instance where you want names?






Because it´s inconsistent. Because it works by double standards.

Theres nothing fishy about that.
Please reread my statements as to what it is that smells fishy to me.

I have stated that we cannot go outside of our senses to test their veridicality, you admit this is true.

Nevertheless, we believe that there is a world of physical objects that we perceive with our senses and we are justified, in the absence of a defeater of these beliefs, in holding that these beliefs are true.

That is my point.

We do not have to be absolutely certain of something in order to hold that it is true. I could illustrate this by asking you:

"How do you know that when you look at a picture, that what you see with your own two eyes is actually what the picture looks like?" You cannot know with 100% certainty. But we believe that our senses accurately tell us what reality is like and are nonetheless reliable unless we have some good reason to believe they are not.

I do not have to be absolutely certain that you are not an android ( I could not be absolutely certain of this anyway) to conclude that you are a real human typing responses to me while sitting at a computer.

 

[Ken-1122]

In order to refute what I am saying, you will have to rely on circular reasoning or a tautology, which would make your argument fallacious.

For if I were to ask you how you know your five senses are completely 100% trustworthy, you would have to say because my five senses tell me they are.

No; I would compare my 5 sences to everyone elses! And if mine are the same as everyone else's (free of medical problems) I would know mine are trustworthy.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, this could be one reason. There are may others - most of them can be found in the definition of the object in question.

You could, however, not disprove the existence of pink elephants - even though the definition doesn´t render their existence unfalsifiable. You have all the information required for looking for them but it is practically impossible because you´d have to have looked everywhere in the universe in order to disprove their existence. Theoretically, it´s possible to empirically test whether they exist, but it´s practically impossible.

Actually it is impossible for me to disprove the existence of pink elephants because I don't have the ability to search the entire untire universe to prove their non-existence. That's why I find it rather foolish when theists often claim that because I am unable to disprove the existence of their God; that is equal to their inability to prove the existence of it; so I should believe in it.

K

 

[Ana the Ist]

In our day to day lives, we do not require that propositions be proven to us with absolute certainty before accepting them as true.

If we did indeed live that way, we would never get anything done. We would not even be able to get out of bed, for before we moved to get out of bed, we would require some sort of empirical proof that when our feet hit the floor that we would actually be able to stand.

We would not be able to brush our teeth, for before we put the toothpaste in our mouth we would require some sort of absolute proof that the toothpaste was in fact toothpaste and not some sort of white toxic poison.

We would not be able to have our morning coffee because before we did, we would require some sort of absolute proof that it was in fact coffee and not some poisonous black liquid that smelled and looked and tasted just like coffee.

We would not be able to drive to work because we would require some sort of empirical, testable proof that when we turned the key in the ignition switch that the car would not malfunction and blow up but would rather simply start the engine to running.

We would not be able to commute, because we would not be absolutely certain that the drivers in on-coming traffic would stay in their lane and not come crashing head on into us.

All of these things we take for granted for various reasons. In other words, we trust that the coffee is coffee, that the toothpaste is toothpaste and that drivers will for the most part not kill us in head on collisions even though we can not be absolutely certain about these things.

It is evident by the way we live our lives that we take much more for granted than what we maintain we do in philosophy forums.

Over time, we recognize certain patterns in reality. We take these patterns for granted i.e that these patterns will continue to hold as they have in the past. This is how our reasoning is carried out in our everyday lives. For the past 10 years I have put keys into the ignition switches of cars and turn them causing the engine to crank. For the past 10 years I drink coffee every morning and it has been coffee for the past 10 years so I assume, take for granted, infer that it will be coffee tomorrow. This does not necessarily mean that it will be coffee tomorrow, but I can be pretty sure beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all I need.

We observe cause and effect without fail in our everyday lives. This is how we reason.

So when it comes to Santa Claus, I simply do not need empirical proof that Santa Claus does not exist to maintain that he probably does not exist.

Of course, he may actually exist somewhere, but the mere logical possibility that he exists in no way can be used to argue that he does indeed actually exist when we have good reason to think he does not.

We have no evidence that a fat old white man who wears a red suit can actually fit down people's chimney's. We have no evidence that he has a special type of craft that can be pulled by special reindeer who can fly that can traverse the entire globe and visit the billions of children in the world in one night.

So, it seems to me, that just because we cannot empirically prove that santa does not exist, that in no way prohibits me from making the statement: "Santa Claus does not exist" and that statement be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since none of us live as complete and total skeptics about reality, but take many things in our everyday lives for granted and feel justified in doing so, we should not pretend to be complete skeptics when it comes to certain philosophical subjects and topics.

We can debate all day and argue back and forth on whether the non-existence of something can or cannot be proven, but the question is:

"How do we live our lives?"

If we all live as if Santa Claus does not actually exist (I hope no grown adult who posts on these forums when it comes Christmas eve is actually out on their rooftop in the cold winter with a video camera hoping to catch a clip of an actual man riding in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer), then why do we discuss his existence or non-existence so much in philosophy forums? It seems that our actions speak louder than our words.

I haven't seen very much discussion of the existence of Santa on these forums. You are correct, however, in saying it would seem foolish to live our lives as though he did without any reasonable evidence. Pretending to be good in the unlikely possibility that he is watching you all the time and you'll one day be rewarded for this behavior isn't even genuine morality is it? Is moral behavior genuine if one is expecting a bribe for it?

 

[Going Merry]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

everyone's version of proof is different

 

[quatona]

I have stated that we cannot go outside of our senses to test their veridicality, you admit this is true.

Well, actually I only agreed that we would have to go out of our senses to test their veridicality.
On top of that, I only agreed that we would have to go out of one of our senses to test its veridicality.

Nevertheless, we believe that there is a world of physical objects that we perceive with our senses and we are justified, in the absence of a defeater of these beliefs, in holding that these beliefs are true.

Is this a royal "we", or whom do you include in this "we"?

We do not have to be absolutely certain of something in order to hold that it is true.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand that you are not one of those (part time) epistemological nihilists.

I could illustrate this by asking you:

"How do you know that when you look at a picture, that what you see with your own two eyes is actually what the picture looks like?" You cannot know with 100% certainty. But we believe that our senses accurately tell us what reality is like and are nonetheless reliable unless we have some good reason to believe they are not.

I don´t think I agree with everything in this paragraph, but since you have written it merely in order to clarify something about your view (which I think I have understood by now), we can move on.

I do not have to be absolutely certain that you are not an android ( I could not be absolutely certain of this anyway) to conclude that you are a real human typing responses to me while sitting at a computer.

No, you don´t have to. Who would I be to tell you what you have to do before believing something, anyway?

 

[quatona]

Actually it is impossible for me to disprove the existence of pink elephants because I don't have the ability to search the entire untire universe to prove their non-existence.

Yes, exactly. That´s not the same as "I can´t disprove it because it´s a negative". The reason why you can´t disprove it is not that it is a negative. As soon as the statement were altered into "There exist no pink elephants in my living room" (which is still a negative), you could prove it, after all.

That's why I find it rather foolish when theists often claim that because I am unable to disprove the existence of their God; that is equal to their inability to prove the existence of it; so I should believe in it.

Of course this is a foolish argument.
However, I thought we were discussing the validity of a certain statement that some people present as though it were an axiom or something.

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course this is a foolish argument.
However, I thought we were discussing the validity of a certain statement that some people present as though it were an axiom or something.

True! It's just that the term "you can't prove a negative" is almost always used in defence of a person trying to shift the burden of proof from the person claiming the positive to the person claiming the negative.

Ken

 

[KCfromNC]

I think you are confused at least in some way regarding every topic you touched on. You misunderstand what the teleological argument is, how the "problem of evil" is viewed by propoents of the argument and what Christianity teaches about God in general.

Now out of respect for the OP , I will refrain from discussing the teleological argument here but if you want I can PM you or you can start a new thread and ask me all the questions you want regarding the argument.

Wait, what's an evasive non-answer again?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

True! It's just that the term "you can't prove a negative" is almost always used in defence of a person trying to shift the burden of proof from the person claiming the positive to the person claiming the negative.

Ken

So what doe we have, agnosticism?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

No; I would compare my 5 sences to everyone elses! And if mine are the same as everyone else's (free of medical problems) I would know mine are trustworthy.

K

You still misunderstand my point. You cannot appeal to the five senses to say that your five senses are reliable. Its arguing in a circle. If I were to ask you how you know everyone else's five senses were reliable, what would you say? You cannot appeal to anyone's five senses, doing so is arguing in a circle.

 

[Ken-1122]

So what doe we have, agnosticism?

No! Agnosticism is about what you know; atheism and theism is about what you believe! Totally different question.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

You still misunderstand my point. You cannot appeal to the five senses to say that your five senses are reliable. Its arguing in a circle. If I were to ask you how you know everyone else's five senses were reliable, what would you say? You cannot appeal to anyone's five senses, doing so is arguing in a circle.

the standared for normal is what every other person experiences. I have no reason to assume nobody on earth experiences what is real

K

 

[quatona]

You still misunderstand my point. You cannot appeal to the five senses to say that your five senses are reliable. Its arguing in a circle. If I were to ask you how you know everyone else's five senses were reliable, what would you say? You cannot appeal to anyone's five senses, doing so is arguing in a circle.

Why would it be important for our senses to be "reliable" in the way you use this word here (i.e. reliable beyond that which we use them for)?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Why would it be important for our senses to be "reliable" in the way you use this word here (i.e. reliable beyond that which we use them for)?

My point is that for those who believe in the existence of an objective physical reality, our senses, which are the means through which we perceive this reality, eventhough their veridicality cannot be tested, are nonetheless justifiably basic and appropriately grounded.

That is my point. Any question that does not address the above is impertinent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Impertinent?

 

[quatona]

My point is that for those who believe in the existence of an objective physical reality, our senses, which are the means through which we perceive this reality, eventhough their veridicality cannot be tested, are nonetheless justifiably basic and appropriately grounded.

That is my point. Any question that does not address the above is impertinent.

Well, I am addressing the point and how you get there.
What I don´t seem to understand is how you distinguish between reliability and veridicality.
I think that their reliability (for all intents and purposes) can be tested; after all, we can and do distinguish between instances where a sense works reliably and where it doesn´t (oftentimes by comparing it to what other senses tell us, or by measurements that can be perceived by another of our senses).
Like, when I see something that I want to touch, move my hand there and feel it, both senses confirm that the other works reliably. Whereas, when I see something, want to touch it but don´t feel anything, my senses do not confirm each others reliability.
Thus, if you question that their "veridicality" can be tested, quite obviously you mean something else than what I have discussed here as their "reliability" - probably something more basic.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Well, I am addressing the point and how you get there.
What I don´t seem to understand is how you distinguish between reliability and veridicality.
I think that their reliability (for all intents and purposes) can be tested; after all, we can and do distinguish between instances where a sense works reliably and where it doesn´t (oftentimes by comparing it to what other senses tell us, or by measurements that can be perceived by another of our senses).
Like, when I see something that I want to touch, move my hand there and feel it, both senses confirm that the other works reliably. Whereas, when I see something, want to touch it but don´t feel anything, my senses do not confirm each others reliability.
Thus, if you question that their "veridicality" can be tested, quite obviously you mean something else than what I have discussed here as their "reliability" - probably something more basic.

Since addressing "you" would be "begging the question" as quatona has once stated, and since quatona does not believe that quatona actually inhabits a world of physical objects but assumes quatona does for purely pragmatic reasons, I cannot find a reason to address quatona any further unless it is to discuss quatona's epistemological constructivist view which I understand to be self-refuting.

If quatona would like to discuss that and can refrain from saying that my effort to address quatona man to man??? is "question begging", then we can dialogue. Until then, I wish quatona well.

 

[quatona]

Since addressing "you" would be "begging the question" as quatona has once stated, and since quatona does not believe that quatona actually inhabits a world of physical objects but assumes quatona does for purely pragmatic reasons, I cannot find a reason to address quatona any further unless it is to discuss quatona's epistemological constructivist view which I understand to be self-refuting.

If quatona would like to discuss that and can refrain from saying that my effort to address quatona man to man??? is "question begging", then we can dialogue. Until then, I wish quatona well.

You are, of course, free to dodge my question. Or you could simply say "I can´t or don´t want to answer this question" (without making it a personal thing). No problem.

If, however, you are interested in understanding rather than dodging or shooting down before you even have understood:
Maybe you are confusing different threads? (Can happen easily, and has happened to me before).

The thread to which you refer here is the other thread: The one in which you wanted to discuss our most basic beliefs and their validity. This goes right to the core of epistemology (meta-epistemology, so to speak). That´s the thread where I told you about some of my most basic convictions. However, in that very thread I pointed out several times that for practical purposes I am willing to pretend there were a world of objects etc.

In every discussion that isn´t supposed to dig deep in meta-epistemology I am pretending that I accept certain widely held core beliefs (e.g. that objects exist), IOW I am not arguing from said convictions as premises. This is one of those threads.

But you are, of course, free to ignore my contributions in the thread where they were made and where they belong, and instead bring them up in a thread where they were not made and where they don´t belong in order to shoot down what I am saying here. However, I am charitably giving you the benefit of the doubt and will assume that you simply confused the threads.

 

[quatona]

Impertinent?

im·per·ti·nent


adjective 1. intrusive or presumptuous, as persons or their actions; insolently rude; uncivil: a brash, impertinent youth.

2. not pertinent or relevant; irrelevant: an impertinent detail.

3. Archaic. inappropriate, incongruous, or absurd.

4. Obsolete . (of persons) trivial, silly, or absurd.
(dictionary.com)

Let´s be charitable and assume he used it in the meaning #2.