What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion? — jufa
and you do not refute it, then your lack of response says you have ran into a dead end, and you have no other recourse by to say I have not presented myself specific in context. Oh well!You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.
I'm baffled by this statement. Where did I say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence? Unless you think that all testimonial evidence is hearsay by definition, but that's just not the case. Again you're not reading or understanding the argument.You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.
First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge. — Sam26
We shouldn't just go by testimony in cases where anything important is at stake. — Terrapin Station
Of course, and if you read my argument carefully, you would know that I deal with this question. I deal with it by pointing our what makes testimonial evidence strong, as opposed to weak. — Sam26
Physical evidence is necessary. — Terrapin Station
This is obviously not true, — Sam26
So, in my view, you can only reasonably conclude that I shot someone if you have physical evidence that I shot somene. 10,000 people giving you testimony, all agreeing with each other, etc. would be irrelevant. You need physical evidence that I shot someone, in my opinion, to make decisions that have a big practical effect on folks' lives, as would be the case in concluding that I shot someone.For example, if I have ten people who make the claim that you shot someone at 10th and Main street in Pittsburgh, PA at 2 pm on Monday October 3, 2018, then after a careful examination of the testimony (as presented in my argument on page 14), I can reasonably conclude that you in fact shot someone. — Sam26
Again, belief solely on testimony should be inversely proportional to the practical effects of that belief. For anything important, we should rely on physical evidence (for empirical claims), and on logical soundness (for non-empirical claims).If we couldn't generally trust the testimony of people, much of what we know would be invalidated. In fact, much of what we know is based on the testimony of others. — Sam26
First, were not talking about something true or false. We're giving opinions about what sorts of epistemic grounds justify actions, beliefs, etc. — Terrapin Station
This is the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, viz., I'm not giving opinions, you are. Opinions in my book aren't worth much. How to correctly reason to a conclusion is not a matter of opinion. Besides if you're just presenting an opinion, why are you so adamant that you are correct. One opinion, as far as I can determine, is as good as another. — Sam26
You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. --you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.) — Terrapin Station
You seem to be confusing the concept of subjective and objective. It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective, and it's based on a subjective opinion. My personal tastes are mind-dependent. So if I say I like anchovies based on my subjective opinion, that in itself doesn't hold much weight in terms of other subjective opinions on anchovies. However, I'm not talking about subjective feelings, which don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of having objective knowledge or asserting an objective truth. My feelings about the Earth having one moon has nothing to do with objective knowledge or truth. It's an objective fact that the Earth has one moon, and your feelings about that fact, have nothing to do with whether the fact obtains. — Sam26
Nope, not confusing anything. Whether the Earth has one moon is an objective fact. Whether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact. And no knowledge is objective. (Propositional) Knowledge is justifed true belief. Well, least controversial there is that beliefs are mind-dependent. Beliefs do not obtain mind-independently. — Terrapin Station
I would say that something that is subjective is mind dependent — Sam26
Logic is a language, and logic is based on the rules that define how we justify arguments. The rules that define how this is done is not based on any one person's idea of how or what it means to justify an argument (it is not subjectively defined). The rules of logic are objective, that is, mind-independent in that they are part of the reality of language use. — Sam26
Language has a reality of its own, and we can observe this reality as we observe how language is used amongst people. — Sam26
Hi, I think your approach to the idea of life after death is decent. However, I was wondering, if you avoid the religious/spiritual point of view, what will you say about consciousness that makes it something that should survive after death. In other words, why should it?
Secondly, how is consciousness in relation to our human lives, that is, does it have the capacity to act beyond our physical domain while we're still alive or does it have to wait until the body dies? — BrianW
It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective — Sam26
and it's [personal taste] based on a subjective opinion. — Sam26
I'm talking about the act of communicating with concepts using language. The creation of language is mind-dependent, but the actions as we use language with one another is mind-independent, it's part of the reality of language use. For example, you can watch someone play chess and know objectively that they are familiar with the rules. You can see them move the pieces and plan their moves. Part of the objective nature of language is how people use the concepts, are they using the concepts according to the rules of language. — Sam26
No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies — ChrisH
If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't. — ChrisH
That I'm giving an opinion wouldn't at all imply that I feel that all opinions are just as worthwhile. I have the opinion that I do because it's the way that I feel about it. I'm not going to equally feel every way about it. You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. -- you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.)
It would be your burden to establish that there is indeed a fact re what objectively justifies anything. — Terrapin Station
So, you're demanding an objective basis to believe that there are indeed objective judgements, having already declared that there's not really any such thing as an objective basis. — Wayfarer
There are no (objective) facts about justification; there are merely opinions about it. — Terrapin Station
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.