Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I doubt it - I think while you could have a million in your pocket, it would be very hard for you to pull that off.Depends on the statement. I can very easily satisfy the statement "I have a million dollars in my pocket".
I think the reason such claims are rejected as evidence is not because a mere claim itself cannot be evidence (although it cannot be objective evidence), but because the content of the claim is implausible.
I consider, plausibility, sources, and potential access to information, all to be independently objective propositions, and speak nothing of the veracity of the claim in and of itself.Here we disagree: I think that if the content of the claim is inherently plausible, the source of the claim is reliable, and the claimant has access to the information they would need to make the claim, we can say the claim is "evidence" for the factual truthfulness of the claim. Just not objective evidence.
In short, if the Pope turns to me and say "this morning I had an egg for breakfast", I think this indeed adds confidence to the hypothesis that the Pope, in fact, had an egg for breakfast.
Yes, but all you are saying here is "it is an objective fact that such and such a claim has been made".If a claim exists in objective reality it has to be considered as objective evidence. When a claim is made, the person making the claim puts his thoughts out into objective reality for all to see and analyze and either accept or criticize to their hearts desire.
Evidence
Of
What?!
I disagree. Or I agree but would add you are framing things strangely here - the only way I would agree with you is if we are somehow denied this additional information.I consider, plausibility, sources, and potential access to information, all to be independently objective propositions, and speak nothing of the veracity of the claim in and of itself.
Of course they're relevant in ascertaining a veracity of a claim.I disagree. Or I agree but would add you are framing things strangely here - the only way I would agree with you is if we are somehow denied this additional information.
Of course these are all independent propositions, but they certainly "bear" on the veracity of the claim. I suspect there is a misunderstanding - perhaps related to terminology - since I think it is self-evident that these factors - plausibility, sources, and potential access to information - clearly have relevance when assessing the veracity of the claim.
Here we disagree: I think that if the content of the claim is inherently plausible, the source of the claim is reliable, and the claimant has access to the information they would need to make the claim, we can say the claim is "evidence" for the factual truthfulness of the claim. Just not objective evidence.
In short, if the Pope turns to me and say "this morning I had an egg for breakfast", I think this indeed adds confidence to the hypothesis that the Pope, in fact, had an egg for breakfast.
Yes, but all you are saying here is "it is an objective fact that such and such a claim has been made".
No one is disputing this.
I find Chrili's position hard to understand.Of course they're relevant in ascertaining a veracity of a claim.
However, it's Chrili's claim that a statement is evidence in and of itself - no other info. needed.
And I suggest they are right to "scoff" - the only thing we can say is "objective" when someone makes a claim is that it is objectively clue that a claim has been made. I get the impression that you think that the mere fact of the claim being made is objective evidence for the claim being factually true. I think that this clearly not the case, although I have been arguing that a mere claim can be "evidence" - just not objective evidence - in support of what the claim asserts.Sure, but it does matter what the claim is claiming.
Some, if not many scientists would scoff at the idea that claims are objective evidence of knowledge.
I find Chrili's position hard to understand.
Well, of course I agree with you; however I would never think to consider the statement itself "in isolation".So that just leaves the statement itself.
I think we are really on the same page about this.But again, it depends on the statement itself. For example, I currently have a million dollars in my pocket right now. Notice that the statement doesn't include "legal tender" in it...
And I suggest they are right to "scoff" - the only thing we can say is "objective" when someone makes a claim is that it is objectively clue that a claim has been made. I get the impression that you think that the mere fact of the claim being made is objective evidence for the claim being factually true.
I think that this clearly not the case, although I have been arguing that a mere claim can be "evidence" - just not objective evidence - in support of what the claim asserts.
Well, of course I agree with you; however I would never think to consider the statement itself "in isolation".
I think we are really on the same page about this.
I agree. A claim cannot count as objective evidence of what it's asserting, but it is objective evidence of knowledge.
I agree. A claim cannot count as objective evidence of what it's asserting
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?