Philosophy, categorical propositions, evidence: a poll

tim wood

This thread is a poll of sorts, but before getting to the question itself, some ground and background.

Philosophy, very broadly speaking (sez I), is the attempt to render the world into words, into language, so that we may encounter the truth of it. Details of the how or why two large topics, neither the topic here. Important tools for this rendering are categorical propositions. The general forms most of us know: All p is q, Some p is q, No p is q, Some p is not q. And many sentences can be reduced to just these forms. To be sure, more modern developments in mathematical logics have expanded the scope, power, and effectiveness of logic, but for the moment it's enough just to stay with the Aristotelian forms.

When meaningful, categorical propositions or their negations are supposed to be true with respect to appropriate criteria, the latter phrase the lubricant that keeps the whole enterprise from grinding to a halt. I wish to focus on that: with respect to appropriate criteria. Truth without criteria is a chimera - how indeed would it be known to be the truth without criteria?

Readers and writers here will instantly recognize that much of the substance of discussions on TPF is, in skeletal form at least, categorical propositions. And when we arise to the level of argument above mere assertion, then the argument is usually reducible to its component categorical propositions.

That implies there are two constructive ways to attack an argument (and many kinds of destructive attacks, but again not the topic). That is, are the propositions true, and are the arguments valid. Why constructively attack an argument? Because what seems valid may be invalid, and what seems true may be actually be false. And securing truth is understood to be the whole point. Setting aside validity, that leaves the truth of the propositions.

There have been many threads and many posts on true and truth, these too not the topic. But when a categorical proposition is offered up as true, implicit is the existence of appropriate criteria and, equally but more important, more-or-less immediate access to those criteria. Now to the point:

Much of the argument in many TPF threads is comprised of unsupported categorical propositions. When asked for support, or evidence, many in good faith provide it. And some do not. This poll is towards a consensus and general understanding of how to interpret a failure to provide evidence in reply to a reasonable and good faith request for it.

180 Proof

↪tim wood

Excellent OP. I hope someone explains their "No" answer to the last question.

fdrake

↪180 Proof

Answered no. It's difficult to perturb a wrong question with right evidence.

180 Proof

↪fdrake

True, but that's not the question in #3.

fdrake

↪180 Proof

A: "Assertion!"
B: "On what basis do you believe this is true?"
A: (supporting argument or citation)

Is how it should go with a fixed question, or analyzing a given argument. I'd've answered "yes" to 3 if I thought assertions weren't usually more like:

A: "Assertion that reframes something unstated as relevant"
B: "Upon what basis do you believe that is relevant?
A: (supporting argument or citation for assertion, rather than the relevance of the unstated)

Is how it usually plays out. Context requires chewing. It lives in what's left out when using an enthymeme. We're almost always using enthymemes. If we could only agree on what assertions were relevant to what, things would go more like the first case and not the second.

fdrake

When meaningful, categorical propositions or their negations are supposed to be true with respect to appropriate criteria, the latter phrase the lubricant that keeps the whole enterprise from grinding to a halt. I wish to focus on that: with respect to appropriate criteria. Truth without criteria is a chimera - how indeed would it be known to be the truth without criteria? — tim wood

↪180 Proof

I guess linking to both; we rarely articulate the criteria by which our arguments are seen to flow. Or how our assertions/attempts to reframe things are intended to work. Or in what context our evidence works as evidence. These failures in articulation crop up more in contexts (like on the forum) where a common background of understanding is not present, and when the discussants are operating under different criteria of relevance.

In contexts like this: "The Earth orbits the sun" is followable by "How are you certain of that?", which draws the image of a square peg smashing angrily into a disagreeable round hole.

The "unstated" point in such things may not be null, it's often what matters most; a pivot around which the disagreement turns. It has that status in part because it remains unarticulated and unevidenced.

neonspectraltoast

Philosophy is the endeavor of dumb, uptight people to try and boost their egos. At least 75% of the time.

jgill

Sometimes superior articulation conceals faulty arguments.

Metaphysician Undercover

Failure to provide evidence or support when requested renders the proposition in question null. — tim wood

This is rather moot because more often than not, what is at question is whether what is provided constitutes evidence and support. So the person who provides evidence and support as requested, get's the response of, that's not evidence or support, and the proposition is declared null. What's the point? There are at least as many people who cannot recognize evidence and support when they see it, as there are those who do not provide it when requested.

Banno

Failure to provide evidence or support when requested renders the proposition in question null. (9 votes) — tim wood

It's obvious that failing to provide support does not imply the lack of suport.

tim wood

It's obvious that failing to provide support does not imply the lack of suport. — Banno

Too many Foster's, Banno. Care to rethink your English, here?

This is rather moot.... — Metaphysician Undercover

I imagine you get out of bed in the morning notwithstanding all the possible bad things that could happen. This isn't about cowering under it, but rather about getting on with it and assuming your interlocutor is acting and asking in good faith, that is, making a civil and appropriate request, which, apparently most voters think should be responded to in kind. To my way of thinking, assertion bears with it a responsibility to provide appropriate evidence, even more than once. I don't mean to harp on it - actually I do - but the word that matters is appropriate. And it's not out of the question that the discussion might shift to resolving questions about the supporting material.

Silly example: Bob says, "God exists." Alice, "Prove it." Bob in reply, "The Bible says so." At his point I'd regard Bob's original proposition as meaningless and if I had any sense quit the discussion. Perhaps he should have started with, "The Bible says that God exists." Then if challenged he could easily provide the references. But it's not just in religion. Sometimes there's a claim and the "evidence" is that Aristotle said so. That Aristotle said so, assuming he did, is evidence that Aristotle said so, and that's interesting, but usually irrelevant - unless of course the discussion is about what he said. And mutatis mutandis in the other forums. And so it goes.

Banno

Too many Foster's, Banno. Care to rethink your English, here? — tim wood

Fosters is not a beer Australians drink. It is a beer we export to those with no taste.

And no; I won't support my proposition; hence demonstrating it.

tim wood

Fosters is not a beer Australians drink. It is a beer we export to those with no taste. — Banno

I did buy and used to buy that. And for a while I liked it! But I come from the home of Sam Adams beers, of which we only export the excess to those who can appreciate it.

Wayfarer

When asked for support, or evidence, many in good faith provide it. And some do not. This poll is towards a consensus and general understanding of how to interpret a failure to provide evidence in reply to a reasonable and good faith request for it. — tim wood

There's often an implicit presupposition about what constitutes 'evidence'. That presupposition is generally an appeal to empiricism. This means the demand that 'evidence' be necessarily empirically demonstrable; 'show me the data' is a common refrain. So that becomes an implicit appeal to some form of verificationism. And this is of particular import in philosophy, because philosophy plumbs questions which are not necessarily amenable to either empirical demonstration or verification in the normally accepted sense.

Speaking of Aristotle (of whose works my knowledge is slight), a point made in his metaphysics is that metaphysics itself deals with unproven first principles or axioms. And why are they unproven? It's because, he says, they are what have to be assumed to prove or reason for any argument at all. His paradigmatic case is the law of non-contradiction: that something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time (a point which diathelism disputes, but never mind). But I don't want to get into the specifics, rather the general idea that there are 'unprovable first principles' and that we must assume them. It's not 'turtles all the way down'. And because of the nature of the subject, then it's natural that there will be arguments about principles that one or another party holds to be self-evident, or so obviously true that they should be assumed. And that's what you're seeing in many cases, I suggest.

praxis

↪180 Proof

I hope you'll explain a "Yes".

I like sushi

↪180 Proof

I answered ‘no’ to the last two.

Question 1: Asking is great. Demanding is naive/lazy. So I went with ‘yes’ because inquiry should always be encouraged.

Question 2: I took to mean ‘do your utmost’, and this may be a reasonable suggestion depending on the topic and intricacy involved. In general though I don’t expect to have to tutor people over and over again because they don’t possess a broad enough knowledge - I’d just point them in what I consider the appropriate direction and no more.

Question 3: I like to explore ideas rather than dismiss them. I often find it stimulating to squeeze sense out of arguments, propositions, positions, etc., that initially seem fruitless.

As usual ‘it depends’ pretty much suits all :D. Seriously, there is value in exploring naive assumptions because it can lead to new insights - the choice of which questions to blindly follow is down to each and every person’s particular level of curiosity in the moment. There are times when I will follow a thread that at other times I would just as quickly dismiss - often dependent upon what I happen to be reading/writing/thinking about at the time.

tim wood

↪I like sushi

Interesting answer. I have in hand a book that tells me that "the etymological root of the the Greek word logos is leg. Which suggests 'selecting,' or 'picking out." From this the word came to mean 'reckoning,' as well as 'measure' and 'proportion.' Various other closely related meanings of logos are 'thought,' 'reason,' 'ground,' as well as 'formula,' 'law,' and 'plan.'... [L]ogos [also] shares a common etymological ancestry with the verb lego, 'to speak.' Logos can therefore mean a spoken word, a statement, a discourse, an account, or a report." (Dennis Sweet, 1995).

This one word, λόγος, then, seems to capture most of what philosophy is about. And two different millstones - those that in the grind produce the end result - demonstration and persuasion. Philosophy reveals: either we "see" by being presented with a demonstration, or we are persuaded, affectively moved to assent to a proposition. In either case we ought to have access to that which demonstrates or that which is supposed to move us. How indeed can we acknowledge, or assent, if parts of the structures, the proofs, on which they're built are missing or withheld?

But this seems reasonable to me:

I’d just point them in what I consider the appropriate direction and no more. — I like sushi

And if you can resist the impulse to show off your own erudition, maybe it's best.

I like to explore ideas rather than dismiss them. I often find it stimulating to squeeze sense out of arguments, propositions, positions, etc., that initially seem fruitless. — I like sushi

And I have no problem here. More power to you if you can do this.

Echarmion

Failure to provide evidence or support when requested renders the proposition in question null. — tim wood

Could you explain why you used this specific phrasing ("renders it null")?

180 Proof

↪praxis

I'm old school: assertions without argument can be dismissed without argument (Hitchens' Razor). Keeps the discussion moving productively, I think.

tim wood

Could you explain why you used this specific phrasing ("renders it null")? — Echarmion

Why? It's what came to me. It may be a part of something I read, I don't know what. Is that an answer?

tim wood

↪180 Proof

Yes! In two words what took me a whole bunch of words to convey and the two words do a better job!

I like sushi

And if you can resist the impulse to show off your own erudition, maybe it's best. — tim wood

That’s an extremely good point for someone like me! I love prose, etymology, and words in general. If I’m talking to friends I don’t have to worry about sounding like a complete pretentious dick, whereas online my ‘voice’/‘style’/‘tone’ of writing is not exactly a decent reflection of what you’d get talking to me face-to-face. Sometimes we’re playful with words when others aren’t and vice versa.

I can certainly understand that some people would look at certain ways of writing as ‘showing off’ but I write because I enjoy writing. I cannot really change the way I write to suit everyone, but I’m aware of certain things grating on others just as the way others write can grate on me.

The simple truth is that occasionally people are just in the wrong mood and wish to have an ‘argument’ for the sake of having an ‘argument’. Often leaving the topic obscured in the dust why they seek to bludgeon someone repeatedly over some trivial point they couldn’t care less about. And sometimes it appears people do this when they are doing no more than pointing out a subtle flaw in your writing - which is beneficial - rather than setting out to agitate and cause ire.

All that aside, it doesn’t hurt to lack in humility or patience every now and again. We’re human, so it’s probably better if we can all at least attempt to read our words as if they were someone else’s. Really though, passivity is not something I find helpful in so-called ‘philosophical discourse’ (whatever that is?).

TheMadFool

Failure to provide evidence or support when requested renders the proposition in question null. — tim wood

I'm aiming to provide an explanation for the way the poll results turned out.

The first question received a unanimous "yes" answer. Great! Everyone believes claims should be supported with adequate evidence.

The second question receieved a majority "yes" answer (77%). So far so good.

The third question was answered "no" by the majority. This implies that most think a lack of evidence doesn't constitute a claim to be null.

Are the beliefs, as far as how one should acquire knowledge, of the forum members who took part in the poll, consistent?

1. Claims require evidence (100% "yes" to 1st query)

2. The person making a claim should provide evidence (77% "yes" to 2nd query)

3. No evidence doesn't imply a claim is null (62% "no" to 3rd query)

1 and 2 are in agreement but 3 seems to be a point of contention; some have voiced the opinion that answering "no" to query 3 is somehow wrong. I wholly agree but what needs mentioning here is that a claim that hasn't been proven isn't necessarily false and so, while we maybe skeptical of the claim itself, we're not warranted to think such (unsupported) claims are false. Perhaps the forum members are confusing what you mean by null with false.

180 Proof

1 and 2 are in agreement but 3 seems to be a point of contention; some have voiced the opinion that answering "no" to query 3 is somehow wrong. This, however, isn't true. It's a good habit to prove a claim but just because the claim can't be proven, it doesn't then follow the claim is null. — TheMadFool

True, but that's a symptom of the discussion's potential degeneration into a time-wasting circle-jerk. And "proof" isn't really the point, just warrant - corroborable evidence and/or sound argument - sufficient for (plausable, or merely stipulative) assent.

Even if a claim is forwarded without evidence it could still be true.

Agreed.

If so, anyone disagreeing with such claims has the onus of disproving it.

Not at all. Onus probandi lies with the claimant (& counter-claimant), not for merely disagreeing or withholding assent for lack of warrant.

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

Point made. Point taken :up:

praxis

I'm old school: assertions without argument can be dismissed without argument (Hitchens' Razor). Keep's the discussion moving productively, I think. — 180 Proof

The burden of proof should lie with claimant , I also think, but it can’t be completely dismissed until it’s invalidated. This may be important to keep in mind in order to help avoid the potential for confirmation bias.

Philosophy, categorical propositions, evidence: a poll

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions