And is the "medium" you speak of conspiratorial thinking, or something else? — Leontiskos
I think that's part of the reason why he got so quiet after seeing his own theories debunked by his own authorities. — Leontiskos
The point is clear, I hope - evidence is always equivocal. There is always a point about which folk may disagree.What's your point? Are you just acknowledging what I said about background beliefs being involved in our epistemic judgements? — Relativist
No one would disagree. At issue is how "supported by evidence" is payed out. From Quine-Duhem, we see that there are always ways to question the evidence. So the issue becomes when questioning the evidence is reasonable, and when it isn't. And it seems there is often no clear clean place at whcih to draw the line.I contend that more credence should be given to claims that are supported by evidence, than those that are purely speculation. — Relativist
And not the result of the application of an algorithmic method. I think you see this, but perhaps what's been said here will better articulate it.Plausibility is a factor in epistemic judgement. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.