When we lack evidence (faith)

[Fluffy]

In this thread I want to make the case for two points. I've made these points on RF recently and they have both been contested. I wish to establish that:

1. It is possible to attain knowledge about the world without any evidence
2. Belief without evidence does not have to be based upon faith

In order to do this I will look at an example which is typical but non-trivial.

El Greco was an artist whose particular style included the drawing of vertically elongated figures. Here is an example of his work.

It has been argued that the reason for this is a sight disorder that caused El Greco to view everything in the world has elongated.

However, if this were true, upon viewing his own paintings, El Greco would have seen them to be elongated to a second degree. In fact, in order to see his paintings with only a single degree of elongation, El Greco would have needed to have drawn his figures so that we would not see them as elongated.

1. Therefore, we can know that El Greco did not paint his elongated figures due to a sight disorder. Despite knowing this, I have not had to study the history of art, nor El Greco's paintings nor sight disorders nor whether or not El Greco had a sight disorder nor whether or not a sight disorder actually did cause El Greco to paint elongated figures. I can know that a sight disorder is not the cause without any evidence.

2. Furthermore, this proposition is true and I have a justified belief in it. I am not utilising faith at any point in my argument in order to arrive at my conclusion and so it is not based upon faith even though it is not based upon evidence.

[Storm]

The problem with your example is that it presents the paintings themselves as evidence.

Just trying to help

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Therefore, we can know that El Greco did not paint his elongated figures due to a sight disorder. Despite knowing this, I have not had to study the history of art, nor El Greco's paintings nor sight disorders nor whether or not El Greco had a sight disorder nor whether or not a sight disorder actually did cause El Greco to paint elongated figures. I can know that a sight disorder is not the cause without any evidence.

You've concluded that from the evidence of the painting utilizing your ability to interpret. (I wouldn't call it knowing, though.)

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Storm

The problem with your example is that it presents the paintings themselves as evidence.

Just trying to help

Thanks, I appreciate it.

If I generalise the conclusion then it might become clear than I do not need any paintings as evidence:

Any painter who paints elongated figures cannot be doing so due to a sight disorder because the sight disorder would cause a second degree of elongation to be seen by them upon viewing their paintings.

Originally Posted by Willamena

You've concluded that from the evidence of the painting utilizing your ability to interpret. (I wouldn't call it knowing, though.)

I've offered a rebuttal to the objection that I am using the paintings as evidence in my reply to Storm so I'll focus on your objection that what I have is not really knowledge.

Knowledge, like any word, can mean whatever you want it to be. If it is a purely semantic issue then we can just focus on the concept and not the word. In this case I am not referring to a belief that I would be warranted in holding as certain (although I do think that I am warranted in holding this belief to be certain, I don't need to make that case in order to make the required points). Knowledge, in this instance, merely means any belief which I would be justified in holding to be true even if there is some degree of uncertain and some probability that I might be wrong.

So whilst you might still feel that should not be called knowledge (and fair enough if you do), the only issue here is whether the concept behind the term can be justified by my argument. I'll start another thread on the topic of what should be termed knowledge.

[angellous_evangellous]

Perhaps the "evidence" needed for a knowledge-less faith-based claim would be "baseless speculation."

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If I generalise the conclusion then it might become clear than I do not need any paintings as evidence:

Any painter who paints elongated figures cannot be doing so due to a sight disorder because the sight disorder would cause a second degree of elongation to be seen by them upon viewing their paintings.

Then "any painter's" paintings and "elongated figures" are your evidence. "Evidence" is what you examine in order to draw the conclusion.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Thanks, I appreciate it.

If I generalise the conclusion then it might become clear than I do not need any paintings as evidence:

Any painter who paints elongated figures cannot be doing so due to a sight disorder because the sight disorder would cause a second degree of elongation to be seen by them upon viewing their paintings.

Now you're using logic to draw your conclusion, so the question becomes "Does logic qualify as evidence?"

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Then "any paintings" and "elongated figures" are your evidence. "Evidence" is what you examine in order to draw the conclusion.

Fair enough. Where I said evidence, I should have said empirical evidence.

If that solves the objection I'll edit the first post accordingly.

Originally Posted by Storm

Now you're using logic to draw your conclusion, so the question becomes "Does logic qualify as evidence?"

I would say no but then I am used to using evidence to mean empirical evidence. If that implication is not univeral then when I say evidence, I mean empirical evidence.