You do realise that that post is an example of using reason to reach a similar conclusion to me? — S
What's the epistemological grounding of treating physical evidence as qualitatively different from testimony (ignoring for the moment that testimony is physical, so we'd need additional qualifiers)? — Echarmion
How can you say that nothing has been resolved, when by applying reason, we can discover that we're too ignorant to reasonably conclude either theism or strong atheism? — S
Should I abandon reason? No. — S
I'm not merely repeating your point, I'm pointing out that, contrary to your own words, "nothing resolved", it shows that the philosophical problem has been largely resolved, if not completely. — S
That's what resolving philosophical problems consists in: applying reason, logical analysis, making an assessment, reaching a conclusion, rejecting possible alternatives as unwarranted... — S
That sounds precariously close to a no true Scotsman. Anyways, as a matter of fact we make plenty of determinations based on lack of evidence. Drug trials come to mind. — Echarmion
The grounding is that the facts can't be wrong about the facts. But a reporter can be, including that reporters can be dishonest/they can weave fictions (so that it would turn out that they're not actually reporters at all), they are biased in many different ways, etc. — Terrapin Station
the entire purpose of drug trails is to establish evidence - — Rank Amateur
You haven't even begun to criticise my kind of atheism, — S
Your whole "argument" amounts to little more than fallacy. The fallacy of ad hominem, the fallacy of guilt by association, the fallacy of false equivalence — S
My kind of atheism is the kind which has rejected theism and strong atheism, not as impossible, but as unwarranted, and unwarranted due to insufficient evidence in support of them. — S
not that I positively need evidence other than testimony for a conclusion. — Echarmion
Sure. But if the drug trial fails to uncover any positive evidence, the conclusion will not be that we're agnostic about e.g. the effect of a drug. It will be that the drug is ineffective. — Echarmion
that is a conclusion based on evidence. You a mis-understanding me - I am not saying science will not say something does not exist, but they will only say that when there is evidence that it does not exist — Rank Amateur
Ah, then we agree on that. But who would even suggest that anyone is claiming that something doesn't exist on no evidence? — Terrapin Station
Many here and elsewhere erroneously believe science says something does not exist if there is no evidence for it - science does not.
Science only says something does not exist, where there IS evidence that it does not exist. — Rank Amateur
It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F." — Terrapin Station
"Evidence for it (for F)" to cover both. — Terrapin Station
It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F. — Terrapin Station
I know that there is at least one respondent here who is a theist. The question is, is he willing to admit that his belief is on par with guesswork? — S
You might have noticed that I was careful with my wording. I didn't say that faith is guesswork, I said that it is on par with it. Good luck trying to argue otherwise. Your faith in God is on par with faith in Teapot. That which is on par with guesswork is very much in contrast to reason. — S
That your faith in God is on the same epistemological level as faith in Teapot and on the same epistemological level as guesswork that flying indetectable giraffes are all around us? — S
↪Rank Amateur It is up to you to support any supposed difference in epistemological level. I can't do that for you. Either I'm right or I'm ignorant, but you have done nothing which could possibly change my assessment by simply pointing to my burden of proof. The burden of proof can be avoided, as you well know. You avoid it all the time. I can avoid it by retracting my claim for scepticism, which means I have nothing to defend, but you have a questionable faith which seems no different in epistemological terms to faith in a space teapot. — S
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.