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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Sometimes superior articulation conceals faulty arguments.

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.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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.

I hope you'll explain a "Yes".

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.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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")?

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

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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?).

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.

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.

Point made. Point taken :up:

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.