To what extent is evidence important in philosophy?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by DaveC426913, Jan 7, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Being that this is a science forum, you'll need to present some evidence or a theoretical mechanism (because rulez), otherwise, pretty much yeah, it exists inasmuch as unicorns do.

    There are places here where you can propose solutions and offer what you consider evidence and hypotheses. The Free Thoughts subforum is one.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Uh actually you're in the philosophy forum. Philosophy doesn't rely on scientific evidence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,497
    Perhaps you forgot that you're posting this in the philosophy forum. Do you really think philosophy strictly deals with scientific evidence? If so, I'd refer you to any definition of philosophy.

    Do you think there are no limits to science? If so, I'd refer you to the hard problem of consciousness, or how the finite speed of light keeps us from ever receiving light signals from the Big Bang, etc..

    The philosophy forum is more than an adequate place to discuss matters of existential being. If you somehow want to make the philosophical thought experiment of a brain in a vat a matter of scientific evidence, you're being more than a bit ridiculous.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Not forgotten - counting in it.:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/#post-3236597
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2017
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Philosophy, ethics and politics all in the service of science. That sounds like some soulless scientism of a 1984-ish technocracy. How ghastly.
     
    Yazata and Syne like this.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Opinions and purple prose about the written policies of the site can be posted in the appropriate forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,497

    Okay. Show me how "the scientific method... and evidence-based argument" apply to philosophy, and especially how they specifically apply to the topic of this thread. Otherwise, this just seems to be a red herring. You do realize that philosophy of science is what justifies the scientific method and standards of evidence, not the other way around, right?

    Again, see ANY definition of philosophy. Your apparent willful ignorance definitely amounts to a lack of "critical analysis, clear thinking."
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Feel free to take that up with the appropriate people in the appropriate forum. That would be the mods; in the feedback forum.

    Here, yours is simply to abide.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,497
    Again, Philosophy forum. This is just a lot of hand waving because in the face of my agnosticism toward your evidence-based claim, you're unable to provide said evidence. If I claimed there was evidence for a soul (which I don't), you would certainly demand such evidence. So since you claim evidence that the brain causes all phenomena of the mind, the onus is yours to demonstrate it.

    What, no Nobel forthcoming?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    ...

    phi·los·o·phy
    fəˈläsəfē/
    noun
    1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
      • a particular system of philosophical thought.
        plural noun: philosophies
        "Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
      • the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
        "the philosophy of science"
        synonyms:thinking, thought, reasoning
        "the philosophy of Aristotle"


    Considering you were once a moderator, Syne, you SHOULD know better.

    The philosophy section is not a "fringe" subforum. Thus, evidence is required, per the forum rules. I mean, for Christs sake... a Ph.D is a Doctor of Philosophy Degree...

    The evidence presented to suggest the brain as the center of thought has been presented, and you have yet to adequately support any counterclaim - your entire argument seems focused on your claim that you cannot "prove a negative". Well, I would like to introduce you to Doctor Steven D. Hales, who disagrees with you:

    https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
    So... in effect, in your claim that you "cannot prove a negative", you are attempting to negate a huge swatch of our accumulated scientific knowledge... and that sounds quite "crank"to me.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    The part where you keep insisting that this point you've made furthers the discussion.
    If you agree, then what purpose has the last 80 posts served?

    I do. You've made that point. I've countered by saying youre are misapplying it. It's fun to fantasize, but this is a science forum.

    OK, let's pretend correlation does not imply causation is valid here.

    So we allow for the possibility of pixie dust. It is possible that pixie dust - or unicorns - are responsible for both brain and consciousness. They are correlated, though one does not cause the other.

    Invent whatever fiction you want. However many layers you want. Connect them in whatever order you want. They are all equally valid constructs within your application of c =/= C here, because none of them have any more or less reason for existing.

    So show how that informs the discussion.


    [ EDIT ] Kitt, above, has said it much more eloquently than I. Too bad there's no 'delete post' function; I'd leave Kitt's as final word.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    That doesn't say anything about philosophy having to be evidenced or supported by the scientific method. Where's Yazata? He can set everyone straight on this.
     
    Syne likes this.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Kitt is simply bringing context to the forum rules:

     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    "Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues."

    You do know it is entirely possible to make a logical and sound argument without evidence don't you? See Descartes' "I think, therefore I am."
     
    Syne likes this.
  18. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    No, it isn't. Evidence must exist - be it Empirical, Anecdotal, Logical, et al... it MUST have evidence of some form, otherwise you don't have an argument - you have an opinion.

    Descartes "I think therefore I am" is an example of logical deduction.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Is that claim itself an argument based on evidence? Or is it only your opinion?

    Furthermore, there are true statements which are not evidenced but which are also not just opinions. Example: I had fried fish last Wednesday for lunch. Evidence? None. Opinion? No..
     
  20. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    Red Herring - you having fried fish can be empirically proven (video evidence from the restaurant, grocery store receipt, etc). Your refusal to provide said evidence doesn't preclude that it exists.

    You are desperately attempting to defend argumentum ad ignorant I am – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false. You also seem interested to on onus probandi, which nobody is falling for.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    No restaurant video and the receipt is long gone. No evidence for this true statement. As is the case for just about every experience anyone claims they had while alone. I had a dream last night about my mother. No evidence, but a true statement. I watched Emerald City last night. No evidence but a true statement. I woke up at 7:40 this morning. No evidence but a true statement. And so on and so forth ad infinitum..
     
  22. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,912
    Your inability to present evidence does not mean there is no evidence. For all you k ow, the NSA has you on satellite camera.

    Your attempt at Reductio ad absurdum aside, the original statement stands. Evidence is required, in some form, to substantiate a truth. Otherwise, you have nothing. This is why science has progressed - otherwise, we may very well still be carving holes into peoples heads to cure headaches.

    Provide even a shred of evidence conscious thought can occur without a mind, be it an organic brain or a computational AI.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Yes it does. There is no evidence for the vast majority of things that happen to everyone alone. And yet they're all true. They really happened. Evidence is thus not necessary for a statement to be true,

    Then provide evidence for that above statement. I'll wait..
     

Share This Page