Do you agree with this statement?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

I might disagree as the wording currently goes.

I can say "Lemons are sour" and refuse to support my claim. Yet for most people, they might not all taste it exactly the same, but if they don't take in mind the lemon is sour when they bite into it - they might be in for a surprise.

We also have to establish who determines what evidence is. We can argue evidence is objective, somehow, but I'm under the impression a lot of folk don't quite want to make that argument.

 

[icehorse]

I think it's true.

That said, I think the bar for "no evidence" would have to be very, very high. Little bits of evidence can slip in easily.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I might disagree as the wording currently goes.

I can say "Lemons are sour" and refuse to support my claim. Yet for most people, they might not all taste it exactly the same, but if they don't take in mind the lemon is sour when they bite into it - they might be in for a surprise.

How about we focus on matters of objective fact?

We also have to establish who determines what evidence is. We can argue evidence is objective, somehow, but I'm under the impression a lot of folk don't quite want to make that argument.

IMO, purported evidence either gives rational support for the claim or it doesn't - i.e. it's objectively evidence or not.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not all black and white. There are degrees of certainty, and that's something scientific because mathematicians study statistics and the mathematical implications of probability.
And that is something the criminal sciences use.
The shades are:

Impossible
Unrealistic
Improbable
Unlikely
Possible
Realistic
Probable
Likely
Certain
Real

 

[Father Heathen]

Plausibility and probability are still factors in the absence of evidence.

 

[Estro Felino]

Plausibility and probability are still factors in the absence of evidence.

There is difference between lack of evidence and insufficient evidence.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How about we focus on matters of objective fact?


IMO, purported evidence either gives rational support for the claim or it doesn't - i.e. it's objectively evidence or not.

Okay. So you are going with the idea that there are at least some objective facts.

Objective facts are useful, but so is factoring the subjective side. For example, picture a very severe illness that ends 1 in 100 lives from those who encounter it. Some might try to say that objectively, it's not dangerous to the human race. But it might also be useful to listen to additional nuances on the matter. For example, being that 1 out of 100 person could be tragic.

So for purpose of pure debate, determining what's an objective fact or evidence and what's not might be useful. But I suspect that on an evolutional level, it doesn't make sense to go purely by objective facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. So you are going with the idea that there are at least some objective facts.

Objective facts are useful, but so is factoring the subjective side. For example, picture a very severe illness that ends 1 in 100 lives from those who encounter it. Some might try to say that objectively, it's not dangerous to the human race. But it might also be useful to listen to additional nuances on the matter. For example, being that 1 out of 100 person could be tragic.

So for purpose of pure debate, determining what's an objective fact or evidence and what's not might be useful. But I suspect that on an evolutional level, it doesn't make sense to go purely by objective facts.

Yeah... you're getting into value judgments, which aren't objective facts.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yeah... you're getting into value judgments, which aren't objective facts.

That might actually be the root of the question - do we want to consider value judgements in debates?

Without it, it's just two sides debating what is correct. One side might win. But without value judgements, how many people are going to convert to that person's side, or even recognize the winner? Sounds like a critical thinker vs. critical thinker echo chamber with limited interest. And it could also potentially run the risk of not being seen as the pursuit of truth or fact, but just ego stroking.

 

[Revoltingest]

A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess....
Other.
The probability of both is undefined.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But as for this current debate, I stand by the value judgement that there may be evolutional advantages to going by more than objective facts. With that out of the way, there's the question of whether value judgements are useful at all in debates, and whether it's something people are interested in reading about - even in their debates.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The problem with the OP is I feel like it frames in a certain context, whether I would value a certain form of literal correctness. And I don't.

 

[Heyo]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

I disagree. While arguments can't replace evidence, they can be supportive for a proposition, making it better than a random guess.
E.g.: we can't see past the CMB but with the assumption that the laws of nature were the same before the CMB as they are now, we can calculate the age of the universe. We have no evidence that the calculation is correct.

 

[dybmh]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

In your view is intuition evidence? Maybe weak evidence?

What I mean is, if a person is intuitive it means they recognize patterns in behavior, cause/effect, etc. then are able to apply them correctly to new situations without consciously realizing the individual elements of the previously observed pattern. So, the evidence exists, but the individual is really aware of the evidence when they take their position ( make their choice ).

In this case, is the individual's intuition considered evidence even though it isn't something they can consistently prove?

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like to ask the OP a question.
Do you believe ETs exist? @9-10ths_Penguin

 

[Orbit]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

An educated guess is better than chance, so I said "No". I wasn't thinking specifically about religious claims, rather in general.

 

[Nakosis]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

I voted disagree.
Funny, I thought I'd be the odd person though I see it is a more popular choice than I thought.

My reason is I think one would be more slightly likely to be right with a random guess than with an unsupported position.
One usually takes an unsupported position because your thinking has been biased.
IMO, one's bias is more likely to lead a person toward a wrong answer because once you start thinking you know something about a subject your thoughts are more likely than not going to lead you down the wrong path.

Usually I am more open to actual evidence when I haven't cemented my position to one proposition or the other.
Actually a reference to my pseudo-name "Nakosis". Means you think you know what your are talking about but are completely delusional.

 

[icehorse]

There is also "expert intuition". That reality is that most experts cannot accurately explain how they do what they do. E.g., if you ask a chess master how they decided on their last move, they might give you an answer, but that answer will not hold up to harsh scrutiny.

So much of what we can do, we cannot verbalize.

As an example for this thread, the chess master might have an "intuition" about a particular position, or a master mechanic might have an "intuition" about a car's problem. But they can't provide "evidence". The evidence is probably there, it's just not describable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"A position unsupported by evidence is no more likely to be true than a random guess."

This ties into the recent discussion about how we should handle a lack of evidence supporting a claim.

Please feel free to post any thoughts or discussion below.

As the question is worded, I have to agree with it. The word "unsupported" was the clincher for me because it suggests that there is NO evidence, rather than insufficient evidence. Insufficient ould usually mean there is some evidence, but not enough that we ought to be certain. But some evidence should still be enough to give us a little push at leaning a little more towards the proposition than against.