It seems to me that facts are independent of argument. Science will make arguments mathematical or otherwise but the truth is only established if the external world or other evidence supports the argument.

...

Something can be true but unobserved or unobservable. — Andrew4Handel

See, these very claims are metaphysical issues that need to be argued. Not everyone is a realist.

But if you take your view, wouldn't it then be self-defeating to argue for such a realism? And you can't exactly show an unobserved/unobservable truth.

It seems to me that if realism is to be a justified position then it needs arguments over independent-evidence. So, yes, arguments matter.

Of course, maybe you're right – maybe if the truth is independent then no arguments can ever amount to a justification. But then realism would be an inherently unjustifiable position. Which is quite the paradox; if realism is true then realism is unjustified.

Arguments are important if you want to persuade other people that something is the case, and they can be helpful for (self-)clarifying just what you believe and why you believe it. They're largely irrelevant to what is the case or not.

Science will make arguments mathematical or otherwise but the truth is only established if the external world or other evidence supports the argument. — Andrew4Handel

Truth cannot be established by the method of science. Errors can be detected and corrected with imagination. The purpose of argument is not to support a theory but to criticize it.

Take for example our two most fundamental theories: General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics (in the guise of the Standard Model). Despite all efforts, no evidence has been found that contradicts either one. They have both met with stunning success, predicting novel phenomena and allowing known phenomena to be predicted with extreme accuracy. However, there is an "argument" that each renders the other problematic. That "argument" is clearly a mutual criticism.

I am not advocating realism, I am just looking at the role of arguments in knowledge. My position is more anti-realism. I think that whatever the facts are, they probably can't be captured in theories and arguments.

However, I am also assessing the trend for arguments to be presented as decisive. You could make an argument concerning a fact, but the argument itself could be fallacious. Or you could make a sound argument, but the premises are flawed.

If there are no absolute facts and only perspectives, then arguments would probably be used to promote pragmatism or scepticism, etc. I think the value of philosophy is in testing the assumptions of claims in different theoretical perspectives. Particularly in terms of the ramifications of a finding, methodology or theory.

It is probably important to stress what an argument is doing in a discussion and not to present an argument as a route to a fact. I think a lot of people resent the relentless scepticism and questioning of philosophy. But I think that by challenging assumptions you probably get nearer to some kind of truth.

I am not sure what method could discover the truth. A theory or argument can make predictions and these seem to validate theories. Consciousness seems to present a problem if we can't get outside of our own consciousness and have the metaphorical "God's eye" viewpoint.

The responses in this discussion have actually made me now wonder whether the truth is achievable. It just seems inaccessible. I suppose we should just be wary of absolutist or "final" claims. I think the culture of arguments or media combat is destructive and divisive because of the desire to appear to have won an argument with little nuance among this.

It depends on what you mean by truth. Everyone has a different take on it, so everyone is going to answer differently. Everyone deals with issues differently and big parts of philosophy seek to answer the questions raised in this discussion.

Do arguments matter? — Andrew4Handel

I think they do. Otherwise why would you be arguing that it doesn't matter?

Science will make arguments mathematical or otherwise but the truth is only established if the external world — Andrew4Handel

You mean hypothesis?

That doesn't follow.

Once we decided arguments had limited scope we would rely less on them. I think they do matter in some situations but not in ascertaining the truth.

I have had a lot of arguments online and they don't seem to have had much impact apart from frustrating me.

Not really. Hypotheses are more like suggestions or speculations. Arguments are more a case of claiming what follows. Arguments rely on the truth of the premises.

Once we decided arguments had limited scope we would rely less on them. — Andrew4Handel

And how do you come to that decision? You convince yourself through argument. Am I wrong?

And how do you come to that decision? You convince yourself through argument. Am I wrong? — Madfool

You can come to that conclusion through experience when arguments fail.

You Began With the Wrong Perspective
You are looking at the problem with the wrong perspective. You should be weighing the body 'verified' knowledge ('good' data) against the theory proposed. They are inversely related - the less good data you have, there will be a higher number of theories still viable. The extreme cases are having no good data, where any theory is still viable, to overwhelming good data, where only one theory remains standing.

Concerning God and the Afterlife and 'Arguments'
Now you can see where your 'arguments' fit into the larger scheme of things (the inverse data/theory relationship). With absolutely no data supporting God or an Afterlife, any theory about the two is still viable. Conversely, with the mountains of existing data against God and an Afterlife (exposing all religions as the preposterous imaginings of primitive minds many times over), then your 'arguments' are reduced to twisted exercises in delusion.

A Note on 'The Prudent View' Concerning Broader Survival
Concerning an afterlife, and concerning the survival of life in a harsh and deadly universe, it is 'prudent' to assume that there isn't an afterlife - meaning it is prudent to assume that we have to 'work' for 'eternal life' (which is really 'eternal higher consciousness') (and though 'eternity' itself renders that impossible, rendering it a 'continuous struggle') (what I call 'The Great Struggle'). To 'believe' that you will be 'handed' an afterlife without any effort on your part is, it can be prudently assumed, 'suicide'.

Conclusion
Know 'where' your 'argument' (or 'theory') stands in relation to the amount of good data concerning the issue. If there is sufficient good data (verified knowledge, remember) that has already refuted your proposed argument, and you are not aware of it, then you can expect negative reactions from those that are aware of such data (and its implications toward your proposal) - some will be patient with you, hot heads will not; juveniles will take the cheap shot and ridicule you for your unawareness of existing verified knowledge.

Not really. Hypotheses are more like suggestions or speculations. Arguments are more a case of claiming what follows. Arguments rely on the truth of the premises. — Andrew4Handel

If you know that hypotheses are somewhat similar to arguments in terms of science, and that they can't be completely separate from each other, then wouldn't that mean that arguments matter?

I am talking about arguments and not data. Data is evidence. If there is evidence, then the argument is less relevant. In the case of arguments about evidence, that would be arguments about interpretation of evidence.

Democritus proposed an atomic theory of matter thousands of years before compelling evidence of their existence was found. A theory can exist without evidence for a long time. Atoms aren't simple to detect or model. But atoms always existed despite their inaccessibility. (Although maybe they will turn out not to exist eventually, lol)

Arguments against religion are different to arguments against God or a creator deity. I would agree that religions are fatally contradictory and have limited-to-no evidence. The response by some religious people will be to deny the infallibility of a religion.

I don't see what data there is that you think rules out a creator deity or the afterlife. If data was so unequivocal, there would be no need for arguments. However, interpretation of evidence is contentious. I am not arguing here that no arguments are relevant, but that they can't equal facts. The problem with evidence is that it can be utilised unsafely in arguments.

Say, for example, a bigot said that gay people have an illness, because they are more likely to suffer depression. If homosexuality caused depression, you would have to rule out other causes by looking for further evidence. So, for example, you could compare data on gay people living in liberal societies and those living in hostile societies. Any difference could implicate society as a cause of the depression.

So, I think that even when evidence is used in an argument, you need more evidence to prove a point. What concerns me is people going beyond the evidence in any direction. I think the value of studying arguments is looking for fallacies and not in proving something.

My idea is that arguments don't decide the truth. I am not sure what a hypothesis is exactly, but I would say that it was an interpretation of evidence. It may involve arguments that claim what follows if the hypothesis is correct. Sometimes theories are partially correct and useful, and sometimes manipulations can be done without causal explanations. I think that science makes a different type of use of arguments then other disciplines in which they are more formal tools. I'm referring more to arguments in debates.

Can you raise an argument that wouldn't translate to a hypothesis in the scientific background?

I don't see how you could have such an argument without evidence. Science seeks to explain things that exist. I don't see how you could argue something into existence.

When something already exists you can try and explain it and use arguments but evidence is the final arbiter. Things like cells and cell mechanisms and DNA were discovered by new technologies such as powerful microscopes.

I see an argument as a formal structure such as a mathematical claim in physics. The argument doesn't commit someone to believe something, but is a tool for thought and analysis.

To me, a hypothesis is a bald statement. It doesn't need premises and a conclusion. But I am not fussed with the idea that a hypothesis could be an argument. My issue is with whether arguments can replace evidence.

I think that science is not the best discipline to explore the nature of arguments, because it relies on evidence. But philosophy, for example, relies mainly on arguments.

Even if some scientific claims were justified by valid arguments, evidence is still invoked or expected.

However, it seems that in philosophy, arguments are trying to ascertain things. But they then seem to only ascertain negatives and restraints, such as "That premise doesn't follow".

If we want to go from provisional facts about reality to action, then it seems that we need to cross the "is-ought" barrier. Do facts imply anything about how we ought to act? I am fatalistic. I don't see how my own thoughts and desires can effect the truth or essence of reality. I would like to be able to turn my arguments into "oughts" but am nihilistic about the possibility.

For example, I don't think that claims about climate change - however valid - can legitimately lead to the claim that we ought to prevent climate change. So, I think that arguments often slide between facts and desires or fallacious conclusions. For a determinist, reality or nature will just unfold in a remorseless determined way, regardless of our protestations. It is hard to know how we can validate any goal directed interference in nature other than with subjective individual desires.

So, in a way, you can have the survival of the fittest desire or ideology, and the restraints will be the restraints of nature's possibilities. Society utilised massive slavery for centuries and flourished, but that ideology was defeated (at an appallingly late stage). Arguments against slavery made little impact for centuries. So we could end up with any type of weird dystopian society that nature allows, regardless of counter-argument.

If you are talking about jurisprudence, then yes, arguments can be treated as evidence. But if you are talking about science, then every unproven argument will be a hypothesis.

For example, I don't think that claims about climate change - however valid - can legitimately lead to the claim that we ought to prevent climate change. — Andrew4Handel

If we want to go from provisional facts about reality to action, then it seems that we need to cross the "is-ought" barrier. Do facts imply anything about how we ought to act? — Andrew4Handel

If climate change would make mankind worse off, then don't you think that we, as human beings, have sufficient reason to prevent it or slow it down?

So, in a way, you can have the survival of the fittest desire or ideology, and yet the restraints will be the restraints of nature's possibilities. Society utilised massive slavery for centuries and flourished, but that ideology was defeated (at an appallingly late stage). Arguments against slavery made little impact for centuries. So we could end up with any type of weird dystopian society that nature allows regardless of counter argument. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I don't think that arguments against slavery were very efficient. But it constitutes a factor for the sufficient reason principle, since slavery is not as popular now as it was centuries ago.

So evidence seems much stronger than argument. However, absence of evidence doesn't equate to absence. Something can be true but unobserved or unobservable. — Andrew4Handel

But evidence is only strong when it is pieced together through rational deliberation. Observation doesn't just magically lead to knowledge. What we perceive has to be disassembled, reassembled, and interpreted. The same observation can be interpreted in many different ways. The way we move forward in inquiry isn't simply by making more observations, but by returning to the premises and analyzing those as well. Paradigm shifts.