-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are arguments a type of evidence?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Hasn't logic and reasoning always been a form of evidence? It's like the bread and butter for philosophy.
It seems like you're confusing different (but related) concepts:
- Evidence establishes premises.
- Arguments derive conclusions from premises.
An argument only establishes its conclusion given that its premises are true. If you haven't demonstrated your premises, then the argument can be dismissed.
Except for trivial cases and mathematical constructions, establishing that premises are true generally comes down to empirical evidence.
I don't see logic and reason as "evidence" in their own right, but as the means by which we derive conclusions from evidence.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I can see that. It has something to do with trust if talking morally. Many people believe actions are better than words. I believe words are better than actions. If someone told me two and two is four, if I trusted that person I would believe him without needing to prove it myself. So, if there was a good and logical argument based on facts or experiences and how that person presents these arguments are worth taking into consideration, I would.
If someone told me not to jump off the edge of the mountain because it's dangerous and haven't experienced danger before nor put myself in that case, I would still take his or her word for it given appropriate explanation. I don't need to test things or have physical evidence to conclude what is true and what is not. I just think there is a lot of trust factor involved, what you already know of reality, your experiences, and your bias that interprets what is fact and what is fiction. Also, what we consider we need evidence for and what we brush off true regardless.
If someone told me god existed and here is the bible to show me how, I'd look at them funny because those experiences of Paul, John, and Jacob are not the person I am speaking to. Since god isn't defined by physical evidence, I'd ask that person I am speaking to his/her experience and how, in his own words, sees god. That would be evidence to me what he feels is true. I have no right to say he is wrong. Why do I need to have physical proof for a spirit-ual experience. We don't trust a lot of people in this area. So, those we do I hope they don't take that trust for granted.
Are arguments a type of evidence?
I see evidence and argumentation as two different things. When we are forming a belief about things we should consider the evidence and argumentation from all sides. Evidence AND arguments are of central importance.
I see evidence and argumentation as two different things. When we are forming a belief about things we should consider the evidence and argumentation from all sides. Evidence AND arguments are of central importance.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Both. A good argument will invoke the evidence at hand as clearly as possible.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
This is true, but it's not the whole truth. A premise is a foundation on which the whole of the argument is built. While evidence can make the foundation firm, there are esoteric premises which not only lack traditional evidence, but are remarkably immune to evidence or lack of evidence. Faith is such a premise and while it can be evidenced or blind, it often exists in spite of a lack of evidence and often in conflict with evidence.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Which is why faith based premises are worthless in any practical sense.
Are you trying to make a case for why we should accept certain premises as true without reason to believe they're true?
Is this a given? What's the evidence for this argument? If arguments are not evidence, is there any evidence for this sort of normative/value statement?
Arguments are of course evidence for the existence of certain ideas.
When the subject matter itself are ideas or some closely connected entities, I suppose they are in itself evidence.
For more concrete claims, not so much.
When the subject matter itself are ideas or some closely connected entities, I suppose they are in itself evidence.
For more concrete claims, not so much.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I know, right? Thinking about this stuff will endlessly drive one in circles. Reasons why I prefer applied philosophy.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Absolutely not. While arguments and debates may contain evidence, they are not evidence in and of themselves. Claims are just claims and must be supported by evidence to be intellectually valid. Far too many debates are intellectually vapid, relying on wishful thinking and blind faith, and neither of those hold any evidence for anything.
Thinking about this more, I have real problems with "plausible".
Mutually exclusive answers to a question might all be plausible, even if at most one might be true.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
You obviously don't understand faith.
It's the difference between the physical, the meta-physical, the natural and the super-natural. You simply can't quantify everything empirically. Go ahead and quantify love. What? Do you contend that love is 'worthless'? I want to see your empirical values for love.
An "argument" is not evidence. An argument is a statement about what the evidence purportedly demonstrates.
You can win arguments without being correct. Arguments are also a way to swindle people, to corral a group into a group effort, or to establish dominance (whether you are correct or not). Often leadership goes not to the best argument but to the best arguer.
The best reason to force someone to argue is to make sure they have thought through their opinion and are truly informed, not just making things up or repeating what they have heard. Unfortunately this doesn't do any good if you yourself are extremely uninformed.
The worst reason to argue is arguing to defend yourself from learning new information or from thinking about something in a different way.
The best reason to force someone to argue is to make sure they have thought through their opinion and are truly informed, not just making things up or repeating what they have heard. Unfortunately this doesn't do any good if you yourself are extremely uninformed.
The worst reason to argue is arguing to defend yourself from learning new information or from thinking about something in a different way.