When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

[stvdv]

Should have been ' ignore the request for it to be presented '

Yes, I understood that. But thanks, now I could make this wordplay, that such people, by ignoring me, are halfway on my "ignore list"

 

[Vinayaka]

Wow, I am amazed. Then you are almost like a Saint IMO. I still get irritated once in a while, though, while being on RF helped to reduce it.
You have been on RF since 2011, that is more than 3 times as long as I have, so I better stick to RF, because I would love to get rid of irritation

02: IMO one should be free to make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence
I think one should be free to make a spiritual claim (as in Freedom of Speech; I don't say it is smart, wise or friendly, but I like the freedom)
And one should be free to refuse to provide evidence (as in Freedom of Speech, or impossible to provide evidence, or not the right time, etc.)
So, you disagree with these? Or did I phrase it wrongly?

No, the entire 'evidence' idea is just away outside my paradigm. Did Sri Ramana either ask for evidence, or give evidence?

But you may be right. If I shifted my awareness over to the intellectul/debate/circular reasoning/argument area of mind, I could probably check at least a couple of the boxes. It's just not where I prefer awareness to be.

 

[stvdv]

To me, asking for evidence for spirituality does not need to be scientific facts. Even just "I believe 'because'" can help.

Reading this, I get the feeling that you are genuinely interested what the other feels/believes, when you communicate with someone, is that true?

I believe, in my opinion, etc to me is a deeper conversation but people fall back to using their criteria is facts but refuse to give any personal context to the "facts" they present.

I prefer a deeper conversation.
How does it feel to you when people fall back to using their criteria as facts?
Do you feel that the communication-line gets blocked (not open anymore) when others impose their criteria as facts onto you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF

One only need provide evidence and any attendant argument that compellingly makes the case to support the claim (now a conclusion) if one is making an existential claim of fact, cares whether he is believed, and is dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world using evidence and reason, and is both willing and able to evaluate and be convinced by a compelling argument that would convince most people adept at critical thinking.

But under these circumstances, nobody need coax you to provide your evidence and argument, because you are motivated to provide it.

How many theists falsely claim that we atheists are always asking for proof of their god? What we a are saying is that we will not believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence, which angers and frustrates too many of them for reasons unknown to me.

Then they tell us that we can't prove that their god doesn't exist. OK. So what? We don't need to, and most atheists don't make that claim.

giving proof is kind of a definite thing, like 100% sure (not 99.99999%), right?

If one uses that meaning for proof, it's virtually never possible to prove anything involving more than pure reason, like arithmetic and syllogism. The legal definition is more practical - beyond a reasonable doubt. I define proof as that which convinces, which reduces two mutually exclusive and logically possible statements to one. Nothing empirical ever has 100% certainty, as Descartes explained.

For a Science Teacher "1+1=2 is true" and common knowledge. For a Spiritual Teacher "God exists is true" and common knowledge

Those are different definitions of truth, the latter not useful to rational, skeptical empiricists.

Truth, for me, is the quality that all facts and only facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences or paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of reality as judged empirically. If somebody is referring to anything else when they use the word truth, I consider it unfounded claim, however sure they claim to be and whatever evidence they claim to have but haven't produced, and I call that belief faith. Faith is never a path to truth, since any idea or its polar opposite are equally well believed by faith. Since at least one of those ideas is wrong, we can see the problem with thinking this way or claiming that such ideas are true or factual.

Suppose I say that it is a fact (is true) that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. What makes it a fact? Only one thing. If I can go five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door and arrive at the pier, then my claim is a fact. Short of that, it is just a claim.

What separates facts from other statements is that facts are useful in predicting outcomes because they are anchored to observation. I can use that idea above, which was gleaned by finding my way to the pier and noting how I did it (empirically), to reliably get to the pier from home.

As I indicated, if this isn't what another person is referring to when the use words like truth and fact, then we don't really have a basis for discussion what is true since we aren't referring to the same thing, and I have no use for what such a person calls truth, because it won't be useful. If he says, "God exists is true and common knowledge," I am justified in dismissing his claim out of hand.

I am moving away from using the word truth because of the pointless directions it takes some people, who begin referring to objective truth and absolute truth and what we can never know, and undermining their own ability to think decisively, ever lost wondering what's out there beyond the theater of consciousness (noumenal reality, or Kant's ding an sich). This is the first step to intellectual paralysis.

Instead, I say that an idea is correct, confirmed, or useful if it can be used to accurately predict outcomes, with nary a thought about what's really out there beyond. It doesn't matter even if some version of brain-in-a-vat,Matrix, or last Thursdayism are correct. All that matters is that if I hold belief B that informs action A and reliably results in better predictions of outcomes than competing ideas, that idea is a keeper whatever metaphysical reality underlies that process. If I can get to the pier, what difference does it make if the pier is only a hologram, or we are part of some undescoverable computer simulation?

 

[stvdv]

No, the entire 'evidence' idea is just away outside my paradigm. Did Sri Ramana either ask for evidence, or give evidence?

Hence I love Ramana. So far I have stayed out of debating spiritual matters on RF.
This OP I started to gain some understanding what others (not) expect me to do when I reply in regard to claims/opinion
This "burden of proof" sounded quite extreme, hence I wanted to know how they really see this.
Age 54 I first heard this term on RF (tells you how much I am into debating)

But you may be right. If I shifted my awareness over to the intellectul/debate/circular reasoning/argument area of mind, I could probably check at least a couple of the boxes. It's just not where I prefer awareness to be.

That is a relieve. I already started to highly doubt my level of empathy, reading your first reply. No need of course to check the boxes.

It seems all agree that all are free to make claims and not provide evidence, but they prefer if evidence is provided
Personally I feel okay to make a claim that applies for me. I don't make claims that apply to others
(e.g. I can claim "God is good for me"..."I know God". No need to provide evidence)
(e.g. I do not claim "God is good for you"..."You should invite God in your life"...If I would say that, I should give proof so strong that you accept it)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Reading this, I get the feeling that you are genuinely interested what the other feels/believes, when you communicate with someone, is that true?

Thanks. Yes. The conversation is much more smooth when both parties are interested in what the other believes. I tend to read scriptural references (or other means important to their beliefs) when conversations are reciprocal in nature.

I prefer a deeper conversation.
How does it feel to you when people fall back to using their criteria as facts?

I have also pro/con relationship with it. I've talked with believers about the bible, swapping scriptures, etc. I get less open when their tone changes because I don't want to be christian, bahai, etc. If the intentions were to get to know me and vis versa, I'm all ears. Takes patience and time.

Do you feel that the communication-line gets blocked (not open anymore) when others impose their criteria as facts onto you?

Spoke to soon. Yes. I'm debative in nature in that I learn best when asking why and how rather than take what's said as is. It's a turn off. It also gets frustrating because those religious I do want to know gives "intellectual" info and those that impose throw at me everything but the kitchen sink.

But I think there'd be some success if we were open to trust strangers with our thoughts without feeling they will "steal" them.

 

[stvdv]

When it's necessary to achieve the aims of the claim. Nobody (sane) makes claims for no reason.

Very true I think. Sometimes I am not even aware, why I make a claim, or even what is the real reason I give my opinion. Mind is a mystery

We generally do it to try to influence other people's thoughts and behaviour in some fashion and the nature and extent on the intended changes will be a key factor. If you're just trying to get them to consider some minor additional information, you probably don't need much evidence to support it. If you're telling them they need to make massive changes to their entire lifestyle, they'll probably want a deeper understanding of your reasoning.

That is the moment I would for the first time in my life say "the burden of proof is on you"....proof = 100% true + I accept and want to change now

Another major factor will be the nature of the claim. If it's logical consistent with what we already know, we'd probably accept it with less specific evidence than if it is unusual or apparently contradictory. If I tell you I have a pet dog, you'd probably accept that as read. If I said I have a pet elephant, you might ask questions. If I said I have a pet T-Rex, you'd probably start out assuming I'm not telling the truth.

I had to google for T-Rex. I would say "wow, come, let's go and show me what you've got"

Generally, when someone says "You should provide evidence" in the context of this forum, they're essentially saying that your claim is too significant and/or unusual for them to accept at face value. It isn't really a definitive "should" but more a "need to if you expect me to believe you".

That is a good one to remember

It's nice and useful to see how all the different people accentuate different aspects on this. So far I stayed out of debating, didn't know much about it.

 

[stvdv]

If I make a claim about my life or my experience, it generally is what it is. It is up to others to accept at face value or not. Generally is someone else is making a similar personal claim I usually give them the benefit of the doubt. I feel there is no benefit to lying about these things on a forum.

If however, I make a claim of some fact, I do my best to provide a reference to support it. Otherwise, if I can't I will usually admit so.

What others do is up to them. If they don't provide evidence I reserve judgement on my acceptance of the claim. Though if it sounds reasonable according to something that can be verified or according to my own experiences, I'm likely to give it any benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for sharing. I recognize this. When I have experienced something similar, it's easier to believe. Lying indeed has no benefit, well said.

 

[stvdv]

For me, each claim is situational so hard to accept any of the above as an all-encompassing rule.

I don't understand what you mean with this. You try to say that my 10 points were difficult to answer with select or not?
(04-10 are just simple questions about how you feel, emotions etc)
(01-03 have to do with Freedom of Speech)

 

[stvdv]

Have you evidence for that?

Yes

 

[stvdv]

Ignore request = "request to be Ignored"

Should have been ' ignore the request for it to be presented '

FYI: The I used was not meant for your quote, but for the person who "ignores your request". Just to rule out confusion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

The only time a person should provide evidence for their claims is if they have any expectations that anyone else will take their claims seriously. If a person just wants to spew words and doesn't care if anyone takes what they say seriously, then providing evidence isn't needed.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't understand what you mean with this. You try to say that my 10 points were difficult to answer with select or not?
(04-10 are just simple questions about how you feel, emotions etc)
(01-03 have to do with Freedom of Speech)

Well, let's see
01: IMO one should not make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence -
I'm not bothered enough by people who do this to say this.
02: IMO one should be free to make a spiritual claim refusing to provide evidence
I don't think people should refuse to provide evidence if asked.

03: IMO demanding evidence for (unfounded) claims is my right and/or my duty
I don't see this necessarily as a right or duty.

04: Refusing to provide evidence enhances the chance to make it to my ignore list
I don't put people on ignore because of this.

05: I made claims to see reactions
I assume you to mean unfounded claims. While I make claims to see people's reaction I don't unless I can back it up.

06: I made claims having no evidence
If I make a claim it is either based on personal experience or I verify I will be able to support it.
*
07: I never felt irritated when people made claims
So I did go back and answer yes to this as it is usually true, every once in awhile I do get irritated. So it is not always true

08: Occasionally I felt some irritation when certain claims were made
I don't feel irritated when claims are made. I do get a bit irritated when I'm interested in a discussion, ask questions for clarification and get stonewalled.

09: Being on RF helped me to reduce irritation caused by replies of others
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If your asking if I've helped to reduce someone else's irritation in a discussion with someone else... I think I try on occasion but IDK if that is ever successful. I have never had anyone get back to me a say "Hey, thanks for reducing my irritation.

10: It did happen that I thought "oops, I can't prove this one"...I wish I had not written it
No, I figure I learn more when I make mistakes. So I'd rather put them out there so I can be corrected.

 

[stvdv]

Thanks a lot for your clear descriptions and examples. I appreciate it.

One only need provide evidence and any attendant argument that compellingly makes the case to support the claim (now a conclusion) if one is making an existential claim of fact, cares whether he is believed, and is dealing with a person who decides what is true about the world using evidence and reason, and is both willing and able to evaluate and be convinced by a compelling argument that would convince most people adept at critical thinking.

But under these circumstances, nobody need coax you to provide your evidence and argument, because you are motivated to provide it.

Lovely, a very accurate description. Indeed how you described it, sounds as a good start for a good communication

How many theists falsely claim that we atheists are always asking for proof of their god? What we a are saying is that we will not believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence, which angers and frustrates too many of them for reasons unknown to me.

Then they tell us that we can't prove that their god doesn't exist. OK. So what? We don't need to, and most atheists don't make that claim.

Yes, there seems to be some issues between Atheists and Theists when "God" enters. I will get to that later.

If one uses that meaning for proof, it's virtually never possible to prove anything involving more than pure reason, like arithmetic and syllogism. The legal definition is more practical - beyond a reasonable doubt. I define proof as that which convinces, which reduces two mutually exclusive and logically possible statements to one. Nothing empirical ever has 100% certainty, as Descartes explained.

Thanks for putting "proof" into perspective, beyond reasonable doubt is easier, although I feel sad when seeing someone released after 30 years having been locked up innocent. But alas, sometimes we just can't "provide proof", and have to be satisfied with "beyond reasonable doubt"

Those are different definitions of truth, the latter not useful to rational, skeptical empiricists.

With this I agree

Truth, for me, is the quality that all facts and only facts possess, facts being linguistic strings (sentences or paragraphs) that accurately map some aspect of reality as judged empirically. If somebody is referring to anything else when they use the word truth, I consider it unfounded claim, however sure they claim to be and whatever evidence they claim to have but haven't produced, and I call that belief faith. Faith is never a path to truth, since any idea or its polar opposite are equally well believed by faith. Since at least one of those ideas is wrong, we can see the problem with thinking this way or claiming that such ideas are true or factual.

I understand your POV only accepting the Scientific Truth. I accept both, so also the Spiritual Truth, but I won't bother you with the latter.

Suppose I say that it is a fact (is true) that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. What makes it a fact? Only one thing. If I can go five blocks south and three blocks west from my front door and arrive at the pier, then my claim is a fact. Short of that, it is just a claim.

What separates facts from other statements is that facts are useful in predicting outcomes because they are anchored to observation. I can use that idea above, which was gleaned by finding my way to the pier and noting how I did it (empirically), to reliably get to the pier from home.

Thanks for the example, a very clear example of Scientific Truth.

As I indicated, if this isn't what another person is referring to when the use words like truth and fact, then we don't really have a basis for discussion what is true since we aren't referring to the same thing, and I have no use for what such a person calls truth, because it won't be useful. If he says, "God exists is true and common knowledge," I am justified in dismissing his claim out of hand.

I am moving away from using the word truth because of the pointless directions it takes some people, who begin referring to objective truth and absolute truth and what we can never know, and undermining their own ability to think decisively, ever lost wondering what's out there beyond the theater of consciousness (noumenal reality, or Kant's ding an sich). This is the first step to intellectual paralysis.

I came to a similar conclusion. First I have to establish if our definition about Truth are in line. IF in line then communication is fruitful. And of course you are justified to dismiss that Spiritual claim, just as I am justified to accept it. And again, I won't bother you with claims that fall outside your definition of Truth.

Instead, I say that an idea is correct, confirmed, or useful if it can be used to accurately predict outcomes, with nary a thought about what's really out there beyond. It doesn't matter even if some version of brain-in-a-vat,Matrix, or last Thursdayism are correct. All that matters is that if I hold belief B that informs action A and reliably results in better predictions of outcomes than competing ideas, that idea is a keeper whatever metaphysical reality underlies that process. If I can get to the pier, what difference does it make if the pier is only a hologram, or we are part of some undescoverable computer simulation?

I like metaphysics, but I hope my mind does not get part of a computer simulation ever. In Holland they started 2 weeks ago to brainwash children with a nice future where they get a chip in their brains; no need to learn languages anymore, just download the language packs. In the same breath they also mentioned that Covid-vaccine will be painless administered in the future. I love computers, but all this is 1 step too much for me. I am glad I am not part of their "computer simulation". And I hope that they wait implementing such Orwell/Huxley ideas till I am gone. (but that will be no problem, I don't think they manage this within the next 10 years).

 

[Samantha Rinne]

When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

Can you prove evidence that those claims are made without evidence? :smirks:

Because it seems like whenever people (especially whenever religious people, as it seems to happen far more often with atheistic types to theistic types than vice versa) provide evidence, it is either rejected as evidence or they claim not to see it.

So what is your evidence that other people don't have evidence for their claims?

(You give evidence)

I see no evidence here!

=============================================================
Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God?

If I want to believe in God, fungi women, or fairies, that is fine. I do not have to provide evidence for my personal spirituality. But if I want to try to persuade you that God is real or not real, the burden of proof always falls on the person making the claim. Want to tell me God doesn't exist? Sorry, prove it. On the other hand, you believing there is no such thing as God is fine. It's when you know it (knowing something implies it is a fact, and that you expect me to get it too), that it becomes a problem.

 

[stvdv]

I get less open when their tone changes because I don't want to be christian, bahai, etc. If the intentions were to get to know me and vis versa, I'm all ears.

I totally get what you say here. I experienced the same, over and over. And finally understood that people usually don't change much, so I better select the people that feel good at my first impression; usually my feeling appears to be correct. Although on RF I have got wrong impressions, just because I associated people with their Avatar picture, and recently someone put his real photo, and I went like 'OMG, never saw that coming". Our mind can easily play tricks on us. Interesting though, now I get more and more aware of this happening.

Yes. I'm debative in nature in that I learn best when asking why and how rather than take what's said as is.

I remember this very well. You fired quite a few questions at me, some month ago. Was the first time this happened to me. My first thought now is "makes sense what you say, our mouth is the first entrance in the body to digest things well, hence you asking questions makes helps to understand/digest the other; if I see food, I also want to taste it, not just looking"

It also gets frustrating because those religious I do want to know gives "intellectual" info and those that impose throw at me everything but the kitchen sink.

Giving "intellectual" info I understand why this happens. And the other I also understand, and I understand that won't change most of the time

Thank you for sharing, and sharing your view on evidence/proof, and how you like to communicate. Communication is a very special thing in this universe. All creatures communicate in their own specific ways. Intriguing to observe humans as well as animals. Probably plants and trees also communicate, but I have not yet been able to decipher their language

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

None of the above. For most, if not all, religious belief, there is no evidence. It's belief, like "What's your favorite colour?" or in other terms that lend to thinking that everyone should believe it: "What is the best colour?" There is no evidence for presenting that blue is the best colour, and if the person says their favourite colour is blue, who can argue with it?

I agree with Vinayaka.

However, I’d add that it’s useful to include arguments for why you believe something. Gives others a chance to understand you better (if they wish to); to see through your “glasses” for a moment...

Humbly
Hermit

 

[leroy]

When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

On RF when I make a claim "I can hold my breath" till someone imposes "you should provide evidence"
Is this correct? Are there examples of claims which can be made without having to provide evidence?

I could think of a few claims, where the smart ones will think twice before asking evidence
So, what determines if imposing "you should provide evidence" is correct
Where lies the line between "to prove or not to prove"?
Please create examples (with/without evidence)

Notes [also apply to the poll]:
1) This thread is to get clarity on whether or not one is obliged to give evidence when making a claim on RF
2) This thread is not about whether it's called evidence or proof or other semantics
3) To keep it simple let's start with "Spiritual claims" (pros/cons) (*)
4) To keep it simple let's stick to claims made on RF
*) Any info giving better understanding is welcome

If someone claims that you are wrong or disagrees with you, he most provide good reasons for why he disagrees…. You shoundt simply repeat like a parrot “there is no evidence, there is no evidence …

For example if you claim that the best explanation for the fine tunning of the universe is God, and someone disagrees he is expected to provide an alternative explanation and explain wh is that explanation better than God……….. then the theist is expected to provide counterarguments etc etc etc

 

[stvdv]

Can you prove evidence that those claims are made without evidence? :smirks:
Because it seems like whenever people (especially whenever religious people, as it seems to happen far more often with atheistic types to theistic types than vice versa) provide evidence, it is either rejected as evidence or they claim not to see it.

So what is your evidence that other people don't have evidence for their claims?

(You give evidence)

I see no evidence here!

Aha, I had to read it a few times. You give an example here, that sometimes there is evidence, but people claim they don't see it
Good point. Very important issue IMO, and very interesting. I get to it later

Who Has the Burden of Proof When Discussing God?

Thanks a lot for sharing this link. This is the best I ever saw. So simple. Would be good to have it on RF, under "Introduction" to get newbies started

If I want to believe in God, fungi women, or fairies, that is fine. I do not have to provide evidence for my personal spirituality. But if I want to try to persuade you that God is real or not real, the burden of proof always falls on the person making the claim. Want to tell me God doesn't exist? Sorry, prove it. On the other hand, you believing there is no such thing as God is fine. It's when you know it (knowing something implies it is a fact, and that you expect me to get it too), that it becomes a problem.

This seems exactly the same conclusion I came to. I can make any personal claim as to what I believe/feel. I need not provide any evidence, as long as my claim does not apply to them (e.g. "I have been in Australia" or "I have seen Jesus" or "I am Jesus"). Others are free to not believe, they are also free to claim that my claim is false, but then the "burden of proof" is on them, because they impose on me. But the moment I impose my "truth" on them, then the "burden of proof" is on me (e.g. "I am Jesus and you must believe (in) me")

Thanks a lot for your reply. Your link was the best I have seen, and nice examples from you.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I agree with Vinayaka.

However, I’d add that it’s useful to include arguments for why you believe something. Gives others a chance to understand you better (if they wish to); to see through your “glasses” for a moment...

Humbly
Hermit

Except for when what one is claiming is not a belief but a statement of some sort, perhaps. Like, that so and so said/did something. Then, a reliable source is probably useful.

Humbly
Hermit