When to "provide evidence" making claims? !

[stvdv]

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

I think you mean with "without feeling they will steal them", that we can fully trust the other and not taken advantage or misuse what we tell, correct?

Recently I was thinking "is there anything that I can call mine?". Start=ZERO. My parents gave birth, my teachers educated.
So, can someone "steal" from me, something that was never mine?

 

[stvdv]

I agree with Vinayaka.

You also agree to his "None of the above", meaning you were also not able to select any of the 10 selections I gave? Just curious, seems impossible

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

I agree, that for a good flow in communication it's handy to provide reliable sources or provide an argument why you believe.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

You also agree to his "None of the above", meaning you were also not able to select any of the 10 selections I gave? Just curious, seems impossible.

Dear stvdv

It probably has to do with wording. I’m picky with words like “refusing”, for instance. It makes the sentence seem loaded, which makes me not want to agree with it. Haha.
Sorry.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[stvdv]

Thanks a lot for sharing in such detail. Today I started thinking about this for the first time. Thanks for all the valuable feedback; I learn a lot.

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.

Usually I think similar. Especially if my claim applies to others then I feel it is even my duty to provide good evidence
When I make a Spiritual claim that only applies to me, though, then I feel no need to "prove myself" by giving evidence. But if the other is genuinely interested (not to just win a debate) then it feels natural to give extra feedback; although I have had evidence, that I felt inappropriate to share, especially on a public forum.

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.

When the other takes the freedom to impose their claim on me, then this gives me the freedom to demand evidence. If it is just a general claim, not applying to me, then no need for demanding evidence. When someone would claim "It's good to kill apostates" then I feel it even my duty to make a huge issue about this, especially if I knew he would actually do it.

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.

Indeed the first thought was unfounded claims. But later on I realized "claim usually are to get reactions/replies", else why make a claim? So my question was not specific enough

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.

Yesterday someone had a problem, and I said "you need help", then contact stopped. Reading your word "stonewalled" shed some light

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...

Aha, I see I was not specific enough. I meant "Being on RF helped me to reduce my irritation when others replied to me in a certain way". I get a handle on my emotions slowly. Long process though.

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.

Yes, usually I have this too. In the beginning on RF though, it was a bit overwhelming, as I was not used to forums or debating

 

[stvdv]

Dear stvdv

It probably has to do with wording. I’m picky with words like “refusing”, for instance. It makes the sentence seem loaded, which makes me not want to agree with it. Haha.
Sorry.

Humbly
Hermit

Thanks for the feedback, I remember for the next time. Rereading the first 4 selections I felt they also they're quite loaded. I best put those last (or not at all)

 

[shunyadragon]

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

This poll is too incoherent to make an intelligent choice.

Simply, 'objective verifiable physical evidence' is the purview of Methodological Naturalism, and the consistent, predictable nature of scientific knowledge in the form of theories and hypothesis.

Philosophical/ Theological arguments are epistemological in nature and the degree evidentialism is a subject of debate, but Theological questions does not include 'objective verifiable physical evidence' and by their nature subjective arguments. Arguments for belief may use subjective and anecdotal based on personal experience, tradition and the claimed force of scripture, but without further evidence and consensus is unlikely if the audience does not accept the assumptions of the believer's argument. I may address this further concerning this subject and the foundation of evidentialism, but the following reference is helpful for those who want to enter the deep end.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Note: I do believe there is an element of evidentialism from the perspective of theism, but it does not meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism.

 

[osgart]

For me I am more interested in what stands to reason moreso than mere fact exchanges.

I suppose we could treat every conversation as a matter of evidence, and/or proof, but that does not reveal anything important about how people reason the things they do.

I love conversations about intuitions, and hypotheticals. Speculations can also be interesting.

I really don't mind much what people wish to share. I do mind when someone makes a claim with important ramifications for humanity without proof or evidence. But even then it's better they share it to responsible ears then to just merrily going along without having to deal with the conviction.

I think that I live in a democracy, or republic so I try to be responsible in the spirit of being helpful to people. That includes people with wild claims of significance without proof, evidence, or reason.

My fault on RF is that I enjoy hypothetical conversations too much. So I engage in that kind of thing. But oh well!

 

[Ponder This]

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

11: IMO, you are only obligated to present a supporting argument when your claim is being debated.

If your claim isn't being questioned, then it may very well be the case that no one cares what your argument is. I suppose you are free to post your argument anyway?

And, of course, once someone presents a supporting argument in a debate, those opposed are obligated to present a counter-argument if they truly wish to continue to debate.

 

[Ancient Soul]

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

I have had a most profound spiritual life that has given ME all the proof "I" need to believe it's rock solid factual. So am secure in my spiritual beliefs/path and could care less if spiritually broken people foolishly ask for "proof" which would be impossible to give them. It therefore comes down to how secure you are in your beliefs or feel you have to "prove" every little thing about your beliefs.

 

[stvdv]

This poll is too incoherent to make an intelligent choice.

You have 10 options to select. I never claimed the poll to be coherent
It said in the poll, just select the ones that apply to you
Anyone should be able to select at least one

Don't try to read more into it
Not much intelligent needed

 

[stvdv]

Simply, 'objective verifiable physical evidence' is the purview of Methodological Naturalism, and the consistent, predictable nature of scientific knowledge in the form of theories and hypothesis.

Thanks a lot for the precise description; nice one. I could never create that myself, you made it up yourself, or you found it and copy/pasted it?

Philosophical/ Theological arguments are epistemological in nature and the degree evidentialism is a subject of debate, but Theological questions does not include 'objective verifiable physical evidence' and by their nature subjective arguments

That is a good point to take into consideration for the one not believing in Spirituality and still trying to debate with a Theist

I assume you mean: "Theological questions does not include 'objective verifiable physical evidence', and are by their nature subjective arguments"

Arguments for belief may use subjective and anecdotal based on personal experience, tradition and the claimed force of scripture, but without further evidence and consensus is unlikely if the audience does not accept the assumptions of the believer's argument.

I assume you mean: "without further evidence and consensus its likely that the audience does not accept the assumptions of the believer's argument"
Thanks a lot for going into detail about evidence in the case of belief. That is really helpful. I always run into this problem; gets clearer finally
Conversations block, because Atheist can't accept Theist evidence, and Theist naturally can't provide Scientific evidence on Spiritual things

I may address this further concerning this subject and the foundation of evidentialism, but the following reference is helpful for those who want to enter the deep end.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

I appreciate this and probably get back to you later, when questions pop up. I appreciate your given link also. Lots of information, I will read more later. So, I have plenty to study, and need to digest all the info I got in the last 24 hours. I've got a better picture about "Spiritual evidence" now

Note: I do believe there is an element of evidentialism from the perspective of theism, but it does not meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism.

I am sure there is, but logically it does not meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism, as they are meant for Science, not for Spirituality
Having different standards does not mean that Science is the better/higher one though, just to make this clear. Some Scientists might disagree

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

I can't answer any of the poll options because they are all depending on different contexts.

Now for evidence there is an hidden assumption in some debates. You have to be able to give in the end positive evidence, which makes positive sense. The underlying core assumption is that everything must add up with reason, logic AND evidence (strong logic as coherent AND).
But since I am a skeptic, I can give evidence as negative for the limits of that everything must add up with reason, logic AND evidence. So what happens, is in effect psychology. Some people don't accept the possibility that there is a limit to reason, logic AND evidence.

So the moment how ever indirect we hit different versions of the meaning of the universe, life and everything and somebody goes Universal We for all humans, I go skeptic, because that there is no such evidence in practice for all humans. You can subjective believe in it, but then I just believe differently.

So to wrap up, sometimes negative evidence, which does make positive sense, is subjectively valid if you accept it. If it is not subjective valid to you, you end up denying valid evidence, because it doesn't live up to your assumption that all evidence must be positive and make positive sense.

If you want it as a sort of absurd. I love absurd, meaningless, doesn't make sense and all those other variants, because that is the bread and butter of skepticism. I doubt, so I can find the limits of knowledge. The positive practical application of what works as applied science I leave to others. If you want the end purpose of this form of skepticism, it is there. Nobody, how ever it has been tried, has given positive evidence of Objective Authority* for what really matters. To me we always end in morality and ethics as to the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

That also applies to some non-religious people. So I never bother to divide on the line of spiritual or not. It always if wide enough ends with moral relativism or Objective Authority.

 

[stvdv]

11: IMO, you are only obligated to present a supporting argument when your claim is being debated.

Thank you, that makes sense to me, unless of course:
a) You are busy, not in the mood now, sleepy, ...
b) You don't want to accept the invitation to debate (now)
c) You don't care whether the other accepts your claim or not
d) You accept "losing the debate" and ready to congratulate the other
e) ....

But some of these might not be appreciated, then better refrain making claims (if you care)

 

[stvdv]

I can't answer any of the poll options because they are all depending on different contexts.

You seem to have misunderstood the poll

The poll just says "Select the ones that agree with you". They are all questions standing on their own. Treat them as such, and I am sure you can answer some, not that you should of course, but you should be able.

First 2 are kind of opposites, so if you don't agree to 1 you agree to the other. The third is a simple question. Four till 10 are simple questions relating to how you feel. Usually I make quite simple polls to answer. No trick questions, little IQ needed. Unless you overthink, you should be fine. Of course there could be some inconsistency making it impossible to answer. If that's the case, then let me know, so I won't make that error again.

 

[stvdv]

If your claim isn't being questioned, then it may very well be the case that no one cares what your argument is.

Good one to consider, to avoid wasting time on both sides

I suppose you are free to post your argument anyway?

Yes I agree with this. And lucky we live in the West and not in China/NorthKorea/MiddleEast/? Never let Freedom of Speech be taken away

And, of course, once someone presents a supporting argument in a debate, those opposed are obligated to present a counter-argument if they truly wish to continue to debate.

And if they are not yet ready to congratulate the other for winning the debate

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You seem to have misunderstood the poll

The poll just says "Select the ones that agree with you". They are all questions standing on their own. Treat them as such, and I am sure you can answer some, not that you should of course, but you should be able.

First 2 are kind of opposites, so if you don't agree to 1 you agree to the other. The third is a simple question. Four till 10 are simple questions relating to how you feel. Usually I make quite simple polls to answer. No trick questions, little IQ needed. Unless you overthink, you should be fine. Of course there could be some inconsistency making it impossible to answer. If that's the case, then let me know, so I won't make that error again.

Since properly I don't believe in evidence like you do most of the question doesn't make sense to me. But I looked them over and gave them as second chance and have now answered.
But to be honest I am bit irritated with you, because you use a certain POW on evidence that I don't hold. But some of your questions got me thinking. Some of them are good and now I am honest with you. I get turned off by one of the question and didn't react very well.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you mean with "without feeling they will steal them", that we can fully trust the other and not taken advantage or misuse what we tell, correct?

Yes. I took ASL class and Deaf culture with the Deaf and learned about cultural appropriation and the hearing using their cultural languistic cues for their own sake. I was already sensitive to people's religions because of culture but I got it more with the Deaf being the huge trust factor needed between hearing and Deaf.

I understand it in religion but it does bother me about the trust. I don't see myself as untrustworthy and most the time on RF I forget what I'm told only because of my brain issues in addition to. So the convo would be "present time" for understanding and curiousity on RF not taking notes.

Recently I was thinking "is there anything that I can call mine?". Start=ZERO. My parents gave birth, my teachers educated.
So, can someone "steal" from me, something that was never mine?

I like that. Reminds me of a book I read and mentioned in RFs archives. There were native american quotes and interviews with one chief and his friend, the author of the book.

She asked if she can use his words and ideas in his book. He says, "no words are mine for they all came from god."

Makes you think.

Also, though, unless one is rude, how does a stranger on the other side of the world take advantage of ones ideas and experiences from the other?

That and personally, I've never thought strangers don't deserve my attention. In general, I read here when asked if they learned something, it's almost like putting a barrier to only learn from people they know but i.e. saying they don't care about people they don't. "They're just online people" or even treat people online as if we're not real people.

 

[stvdv]

I really don't mind much what people wish to share. I do mind when someone makes a claim with important ramifications for humanity without proof or evidence. But even then it's better they share it to responsible ears then to just merrily going along without having to deal with the conviction.

I think that I live in a democracy, or republic so I try to be responsible in the spirit of being helpful to people. That includes people with wild claims of significance without proof, evidence, or reason.

I agree, good point. Good examples are Donald Trump, Governments and WHO, and all their misinformation about Corona this year. Very dangerous to claim facts that are false, and 2 month later claiming the opposite, also with no proper evidence. Maybe they don't know, which I don't believe, but these actions created fear, and distrust, with the result of all kinds of protests (Government have only themselves to blame for that). All this makes me doubt their real agenda. And they still don't use their conscience (and literally play with the corona pandemic), because just a few days ago I heard Trump publicly belittle his opponent for wearing a mask. IF a Government would be Dharmic, then this alone would have been a reason to not allow him to be president again; immediately OUT.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks a lot for the precise description; nice one. I could never create that myself, you made it up yourself, or you found it and copy/pasted it?

Not cut and paste except to refer tor reference. i have a strong academic background in science, philosophy and logic, and I wanted to cut to basics to differentiate between the objective, subjective, and the concept of evidentialism, which I will go into further. I believe that it clearly easily understood how the concept of evidentialism applies in Methodological Naturalism in science, but it is a more difficult subject in theology and philosophy where physical evidence is not the basis for justification. This is the subject I will address further.

I refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, because it is one of the the most reputable, concise and comperhensive sources readily available on line, Though I do detect a bias in some of their work that ups the fog index, but that is a different subject.

That is a good point to take into consideration for the one not believing in Spirituality and still trying to debate with a Theist

I assume you mean: "Theological questions does not include 'objective verifiable physical evidence', and are by their nature subjective arguments"


I assume you mean: "without further evidence and consensus its likely that the audience does not accept the assumptions of the believer's argument"
Thanks a lot for going into detail about evidence in the case of belief. That is really helpful. I always run into this problem; gets clearer finally
Conversations block, because Atheist can't accept Theist evidence, and Theist naturally can't provide Scientific evidence on Spiritual things.

OK with corrections to my typos, but again it needs clarification how evidentialism applies to the justification of theistic beliefs.

I appreciate this and probably get back to you later, when questions pop up. I appreciate your given link also. Lots of information, I will read more later. So, I have plenty to study, and need to digest all the info I got in the last 24 hours. I've got a better picture about "Spiritual evidence" now


I am sure there is, but logically it does not meet the standards of Methodological Naturalism, as they are meant for Science, not for Spirituality
Having different standards does not mean that Science is the better/higher one though, just to make this clear. Some Scientists might disagree

OK

 

[shunyadragon]

You have 10 options to select. I never claimed the poll to be coherent
It said in the poll, just select the ones that apply to you
Anyone should be able to select at least one

Don't try to read more into it
Not much intelligent needed

I prefer to deal with the specific issues of evidentialism in theology and philosophy, since in the Methodological Naturalism the bounds are more clearly defined.