The unprovable need for proof. Evidentialism.

[Diogenes' Dog]

science is a method. the only "truth" it can have is to be successful as a method. how else would one go about proving the validity of science/evidentialism? the only evidence of validity you can have for such a theory or method is if it works. science/evidentialism works, therefore is valid. I agree that it seems like pragmatism, that is because in this case, it is. see what I am saying? the evidence is its usefulness, therefore it is pragmatic and valid or neither.

Science is not a method based on foundational evidentialism, as BG stated, it is based on empiricism. therefore it cannot be used as evidence to support evidentialism. The difference is that empirical observations are seldom "properly basic". Thus Kuhn and others have described our overall scientific conception of the world as a "paradigm" i.e. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline. Science is not based on solid foundational beliefs, and therefore by the definitions of foundational evidentialism, is "irrational". This is easiest to see in the more speculative areas of science such as brane cosmology, or even string theory, which are elegant beliefs, unsupported by any evidence.

Quote from Wikipedia on Philosophy of Science

Empirical observation is supposedly used to determine the acceptability of some hypothesis within a theory. When someone claims to have made an observation, it is reasonable to ask them to justify their claim. Such a justification must make reference to the theory - operational definitions and hypotheses - in which the observation is embedded. That is, the observation is a component of the theory that also contains the hypothesis it either verifies or falsifies. But this means that the observation cannot serve as a neutral arbiter between competing hypotheses. Observation could only do this "neutrally" if it were independent of the theory.

The objection to evidentialism is it's limitation - what it rejects. There is no evidence to support this rejection, indeed quite the opposite. It excludes as irrational anything for which there is not foundational basis of evidence i.e. proof. A similar (though lesser) objection can be raised to empiricism. So, although the scientific method works well for objective empirical phenomena (and for deriving the technology to make a PC), it is an inadequate tool for examining phenomena that are not reproducable and empirical e.g. transient states of consciousness. As many of our common beliefs (including memories, religious exerience etc.) are precisely this type of evidence, we need a wider epistemology to take them into account. So, the effectiveness of science is good evidence for the effectiveness of empiricism in dealing with repeatable empirical phenomena, but equally good evidence condemning it's limitations.

false, birds dance and sing. and who knows what passes for art in the animal kingdom. maybe termites think their mounds are art. click->

Fair point about birds singing and dancing, Perhaps I should have used art and poetry as examples. Termite mounds might just be cathedrals to the termite God! The point remains though that we may have capacities that animals do not have - spiritual capacities may be one such.

I thought you would nit pick that one. is it rational for me to blindly accept what you say? that depends on the evidence for truthfulness you have provided in the past.

So, would you disbelieve me until you had sufficient evidence I was usually truthful? As an evidentialist you should! As a reformed epistemologist you would believe me until proven otherwise.

we should not discuss things within the mind. there is very likely evidence (stored in your memory) but we simply don't have the technology to get at it.

Very well put - that is the objection made to the limitations of science and evidentialism. In a nut shell, they both say - if we cannot measure it, it's irrational!

 

[cato]

Science is not a method based on foundational evidentialism

how so? where is your evidence?

As many of our common beliefs (including memories, religious experience etc.) are precisely this type of evidence, we need a wider epistemology to take them into account.

what wider epistemology could possibly provide anything more that conjecture regarding memories and religious experiences? is conjecture enough to call something a truth? I don't think it is, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

The point remains though that we may have capacities that animals do not have - spiritual capacities may be one such.

I don't believe it is natural to believe in spirituality. I, like Daniel Dennett, believe that religion has only survived because it serves a purpose to people, and thus, in the battle for survival among other ideas, it is "fit." however, a "fit" idea does not need to be rational, it mealy needs to make its host (people) like it. like beer, religion has survived because of its ability to make people, for a time, feel good.

So, would you disbelieve me until you had sufficient evidence I was usually truthful? As an evidentialism you should! As a reformed epistemologist you would believe me until proven otherwise.

depends, if the matter was of an unimportant nature, it would be less work on my part to simply believe. its easier to be irrational sometimes. however, if I was the president, and you barged into the oval office and said that we have to launch nukes, I would require some solid evidence.

Very well put - that is the objection made to the limitations of science and evidentialism. In a nut shell, they both say - if we cannot measure it, it's irrational

what I am saying is that it is irrational to accept a theory about something for which we have no evidence. if we start discussing memories and such, it would be mealy conjecture at this point because we have no methods for proving them yet.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

how so? where is your evidence?

I'm not the one promoting evidentialism! However, my evidence is most of the evidence used to support beliefs in science are not "properly basic", hence so many published research results contradict each other. Look at the divergence of views on any controversial issue in science e.g. global warming, mechanism(s) of evolution, HRT and breast cancer, religion and happiness.

what wider epistemology could possibly provide anything more that conjecture regarding memories and religious experiences? is conjecture enough to call something a truth? I don't think it is, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

People's experiences of literature, art, poetry, music, humour, love and religion do not count as foundational or even empirical evidence. So, any beliefs based on them (e.g. The "Unmade Bed" is an inspired work of art) are rejected as "irrational" by an evidentialist. Yet, these things are much more real to most of us than scientific theories (cogito ergo sum). I'm not suggesting we rely more on conjecture in science (though we do), but that we recognise a whole area of beliefs exist which it is NOT irrational to hold, but the evidence for which is not in the public arena but in our subjective experience. So, for these beliefs, based on subjective experience, we need a "wider epistemology".

I don't believe it is natural to believe in spirituality. I, like Daniel Dennett, believe that religion has only survived because it serves a purpose to people, and thus, in the battle for survival among other ideas, it is "fit." however, a "fit" idea does not need to be rational, it mealy needs to make its host (people) like it. like beer, religion has survived because of its ability to make people, for a time, feel good.

I think that is fine as a belief, but realise too that it is only one way out of many of interpreting the "evidence". Science will always look for naturalistic objective explanations based on the existing paradigm. Another plausible explanation however, which may conform to people's experience better is as the mathematician Pascal put it:

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.

what I am saying is that it is irrational to accept a theory about something for which we have no evidence. if we start discussing memories and such, it would be mealy conjecture at this point because we have no methods for proving them yet.

I'm proposing that we accept our and other people's experiences as subjectively valid evidence for our beliefs. We can only judge them as "irrational" when we have contradictory evidence. Such beliefs may not transfer to others or help build an "objective" picture of the world, but may aknowledge our lived reality. As a question "Is there a God" is probably more like "Is that picture beautiful" than "is there a planet beyond Sedna".

 

[cato]

lets drop all of the other arguments for the moment, I didn't really believe 90% of the crap I said, I was just being contrary =].


let me get this straight, basically, you are saying that we should accept every half baked idea, about anything, as valid until we can prove otherwise with some objective evidence? that is obviously a flawed theory.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

lets drop all of the other arguments for the moment, I didn't really believe 90% of the crap I said, I was just being contrary =].

That's very honest of you cato! I have enjoyed your responses.

let me get this straight, basically, you are saying that we should accept every half baked idea, about anything, as valid until we can prove otherwise with some objective evidence? that is obviously a flawed theory.

No, no, no... If I was saying that you would certainly be right. I'll try to summarise what I'm saying:

1) There is such a thing as subjective experience which is a form of private information or evidence.
2) Evidentialism (and science) are not easily able to evaluate such subjective experiences as they are not in the "public arena". It therefore declares them void as evidence and classifies beliefs based on them as IRRATIONAL.
3) Our subjective experience is the evidential basis for many of our common beliefs, including those involving e.g. our existence, memories, artistic appreciation, religion etc.
4) This means that a significant proportion of our legitimate beliefs are declared "irrational", because science (or evidentialism) cannot properly evaluate them.

Conclusion: We need a "wider" epistemology that can evaluate subjective experiences, and beliefs based on our experiences rather than declaring them all as "irrational".

Possible candidates are:

a) "Reformed epistemology" which evaluates a belief's coherence both internally and with other held beliefs.
b) "Pragmatism" which evaluates the "usefulness" of a belief (e.g. the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions).
c) Some other epistemological method.

 

[SkinWalker]

It looks like post-modernist poppycock. There is no need nor is there a reason to evalutate "subjective experiences" to which empirical data cannot be obtained.

One must assume that this call for a "wider epistemology" is in response to the repeated failure of those that believe in supernatural mumbo-jumbo like religion to show that their beliefs are valid and not simply the result of blind trust. This would be intellectual dishonesty and there's no one here that seems interested in changing how science views the universe as there is no need. The current "paradigms" work.

 

[Sarkus]

1) There is such a thing as subjective experience which is a form of private information or evidence.
2) Evidentialism (and science) are not easily able to evaluate such subjective experiences as they are not in the "public arena". It therefore declares them void as evidence and classifies beliefs based on them as IRRATIONAL.
3) Our subjective experience is the evidential basis for many of our common beliefs, including those involving e.g. our existence, memories, artistic appreciation, religion etc.
4) This means that a significant proportion of our legitimate beliefs are declared "irrational", because science (or evidentialism) cannot properly evaluate them.

It is quite simple - if you can not provide valid reason for something - it is irrational.
The reasoning provided might be valid according to other internally held beliefs, but then the "irrationality" of that belief is merely within the supporting beliefs - and the belief as a whole is still "irrational".

The belief might still have extant benefits (e.g. the community spirit of a religion is often beneficial to an individual) - but the belief would still be irrational.
The benefits do not make a belief rational.

And there is no valid reason that I am aware of for the belief that God definitely exists - or, for that matter, that God definitely doesn't exist.

Conclusion: We need a "wider" epistemology that can evaluate subjective experiences, and beliefs based on our experiences rather than declaring them all as "irrational".

No, we don't.
But if it helps you feel better, feel free to do so.

 

[Cyperium]

It looks like post-modernist poppycock. There is no need nor is there a reason to evalutate "subjective experiences" to which empirical data cannot be obtained.

One must assume that this call for a "wider epistemology" is in response to the repeated failure of those that believe in supernatural mumbo-jumbo like religion to show that their beliefs are valid and not simply the result of blind trust. This would be intellectual dishonesty and there's no one here that seems interested in changing how science views the universe as there is no need. The current "paradigms" work.

Diogenes' Dog is right. Even for you he is right. You probably go against yourself trying to defeat what he said. Cause it's right.

 

[SkinWalker]

Nope. He's dead wrong. He hasn't demonstrated a single valid instance where a change in "how we know" is needed. Current scientific method works fine.

 

[Confutatis]

He hasn't demonstrated a single valid instance where a change in "how we know" is needed. Current scientific method works fine.

Current scientific method works fine even when it fails! And that leaves a hint of dishonesty about the whole affair. The prime example of course is evolution theory, which explains life by explaining it away, and when about 85% of the American people reject it, they are charged with irrationality, which is just the modern word for heresy.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Diogenes' Dog is right. Even for you he is right. You probably go against yourself trying to defeat what he said. Cause it's right.

Thank you Cyperium, it's so refreshing to hear from someone with intelligence and the ability to think!

Nope. He's dead wrong. He hasn't demonstrated a single valid instance where a change in "how we know" is needed. Current scientific method works fine.

I realise that a new idea takes some getting used to. OK, a single valid instance.

Decarte showed by skeptical enquiry that the only thing we can really know is "Cogito ergo sum" - I think therefore I am. So, how can you prove to me using "current scientific method" that you "are" - i.e. that you exist as a self-aware being and not just a complex collection of reflex-responses. What part of the brain for instance is "you" according to science?

I think you may struggle. Which means that the only belief we can truly "know" is "irrational" according to science.
QED.

Think it through for yourself SW - it isn't rocket science!

1) Do you have subjective experiences?
2) Are your experiences known to you?
3) Would it be reasonable to support a personal belief on them?
4) Would such a belief always be provable to others using "current scientific method"?
5) Is "current scientific method" adequate for all our beliefs?

QED again

 

[(Q)]

Current scientific method works fine even when it fails! And that leaves a hint of dishonesty about the whole affair. The prime example of course is evolution theory, which explains life by explaining it away, and when about 85% of the American people reject it, they are charged with irrationality, which is just the modern word for heresy.

You should, at the very least, get your numbers right - only about half of all Americans reject evolution. Some in that half who don't reject evolution are theists. Those theists clearly have more brains than you.

And it is becoming more evident that you posts here are specious at best and that your tactics are disengenuous.

You have become the quintessential religious fanatical fundamentalist.

 

[baumgarten]

Current scientific method works fine even when it fails! And that leaves a hint of dishonesty about the whole affair. The prime example of course is evolution theory, which explains life by explaining it away, and when about 85% of the American people reject it, they are charged with irrationality, which is just the modern word for heresy.

The scientific method is beautiful because it allows anyone at all to verify any conclusion made through it. It makes no claims to "truth" per se, only to useful results. Nature usually corroborates the findings of science, and when it does not, science adapts to the new data.

If the scientific method fails you, it is because you are trying to apply it to something outside the scope of science -- religion, for example. If you try to use a nominally functional desktop computer as a football, it will fail you even if it does work fine.

 

[SkinWalker]

I realise that a new idea takes some getting used to. OK, a single valid instance.

I've yet to see a "new idea" that you've suggested that would actually work. Science is the only way of knowing. Your "QED's" notwithstanding, you've not shown any other way of knowing that is viable. Your rhetoric amounts to poorly thought out, postmodernist drivel.

5) Is "current scientific method" adequate for all our beliefs?

Beliefs are worthless without corroborating evidence that is testable in some quantitative or qualitative way.

QED again

Hardly. Wishful thinking and mindless speculation do not result in Quod erat demonstrandum. Ironically, your inclusion of the abbreviation is evidence of under-education and ignorance.

 

[geeser]

Hardly. Wishful thinking and mindless speculation do not result in Quod erat demonstrandum. Ironically, your inclusion of the abbreviation is evidence of under-education and ignorance.

I think dog's QED, actually meant "Question Every Deduction".

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I've yet to see a "new idea" that you've suggested that would actually work. Science is the only way of knowing. Your "QED's" notwithstanding, you've not shown any other way of knowing that is viable. Your rhetoric amounts to poorly thought out, postmodernist drivel.

Beliefs are worthless without corroborating evidence that is testable in some quantitative or qualitative way.

Hardly. Wishful thinking and mindless speculation do not result in Quod erat demonstrandum. Ironically, your inclusion of the abbreviation is evidence of under-education and ignorance.

I seem to have rattled you SW! Your tabloid style assertions are a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Perhaps they are convincing to you?!

 

[SkinWalker]

I just annoy easy when pseudoscience and post-modernist types make unfounded assertions.

None of your assertions so far appear founded. Perhaps I overlooked something, could you demonstrate the need for the "new epistemology" you're calling for?

 

[cato]

skinny is right. you haven't shown any reason to give up the tried and true methods of science. you claim that we need to somehow justify things, like religion, as rational. that is ridiculous. nobody is saying that there were not electrical/chemical reactions in your brain, that produced thoughts and experiences, but there is no current way of validating such experiences. if one cannon determine whether or not an experience was valid, then it is obviously irrational to take drastic actions based upon it.

I am sorry to say, you have not shown any instance in which some "wider epistemology" is more useful or more valid than science. to throw out the most effective method ever devised, because of some baseless claims, is... well... irrational =]

how could one even begin to evaluate the world without relying on evidence? everything could be subjective. could you please explain how one is to evaluate a claim without evidence?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

skinny is right. you haven't shown any reason to give up the tried and true methods of science. you claim that we need to somehow justify things, like religion, as rational. that is ridiculous. nobody is saying that there were not electrical/chemical reactions in your brain, that produced thoughts and experiences, but there is no current way of validating such experiences. if one cannon determine whether or not an experience was valid, then it is obviously irrational to take drastic actions based upon it.

I am sorry to say, you have not shown any instance in which some "wider epistemology" is more useful or more valid than science. to throw out the most effective method ever devised, because of some baseless claims, is... well... irrational =]

how could one even begin to evaluate the world without relying on evidence? everything could be subjective. could you please explain how one is to evaluate a claim without evidence?

I think I've given my arguments above.

I'm not suggesting we give up science. The scientific method works well in enabling us to evaluate evidence in, and model the external world. Science is great in that.

However, for the reasons I gave above, we hold many beliefs quite rationally based on the evidence of our own experience (such as our own existence) that are not demonstrable by science. I am saying therefore that to dismiss a belief as irrational, because it cannot be demonstrated scientifically, is to misunderstand science and is itself irrational.

P.S. I'm away for a while now so I won't be around....