The English version is: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and is attributed to the famous atheist late Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011). — TheMadFool
In that case, axioms are not legitimate. If axioms are not legitimate, — alcontali
Here's a definition: "Axiom definition, a self-evident truth that requires no proof." — tim wood
In other words, axioms have fundamentally been arbitrary rules since the first half of the 20th century. They are certainly not correspondence-theory "true" in any way. — alcontali
This is Procrustean - and a variety of category error. Your "axiom" is clearly a term of art, properly restricted to its limited area. Which "area" has nothing whatever to do with Hitchens's razor or its applicability. Perhaps you've slipped on the various distinctions to be made in the meaning and usage of the word "axiom." And is my assumption about your understanding of rhetoric reasonable? It appears not to be. — tim wood
Fair enough, then. You know nothing whatever about rhetoric or its subjects. Your subjects are all apodeictic — tim wood
Agreed, Hitchens's razor is a pig in the parlor of mathematics, but in rhetoric a fine and useful tool. And in rhetoric, your "axioms" (quotes because yours is a term of art) non-sequiturs. — tim wood
So? — alcontali
Well, a good part of the body of modern knowledge is actually quite counter-intuitive, — alcontali
The English version is: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and is attributed to the famous atheist late Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011).
I would like an analysis of this purportedly rational stance on, possibly, all matters under the sun.
Personally, I think it has a flaw because it doesn't allow, in fact stifles, rational inquiry. — TheMadFool
So you're off your reservation with the wrong opinions on the wrong topics on and about which you don't have adequate information, knowledge, or understanding. And predictably, you're thereby dismissive and defensive - very weak stances from the standpoint of rhetoric. Of course from your area, it's simpler: you're just plain wrong. — tim wood
Here's a definition: "Axiom definition, a self-evident truth that requires no proof." — tim wood
That would be a very bad conclusion or rule. The evidence of the usefulness or accuracy of the axiom might come much later on, after the axiom is assumed for the sake of argument/investigation. Sure, having a hypothesis, in science say, that seems to have some evidence for it is a good starting point. But there is no reason oan a Tuesday, to decide that Tuesday, well that axiom or that assumption has no evidence, so let's throw it out.All the razor is doing is saying: sure you can start with this axiom, or this one, or that one, as long as there’s no evidence for them they’re all equally worthless. — khaled
It gets used broadly now in philosophical discussions. So even if the original was aimed at one issue, it is used in general. — Coben
Which is why this razor wouldn’t affect it — khaled
I do not have a dog in this fight, but it seems like Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur is valid. I can claim there is intelligent life on 23 planets, but I make this claim without evidence. There are quite a few planets that MIGHT POSSIBLY host life of some sort, and there is evidence for that claim. But there is no evidence at all for the claim that 23 planets host intelligent life. So you can say, "No there are not." — Bitter Crank
A conjecture in science is the same way. It can be dismissed without evidence, that doesn’t mean it is automatically false or insignificant. Notice the quote says CAN be dismissed without evidence not MUST be dismissed due to lack of evidence — khaled
These things are not something for people like Hitchens. That is why he produced that kind of low-knowledge "razor". — alcontali
If we had to present evidence for all our opinions, we would become terminally constipated and would eventually explode. — Bitter Crank
There is at least one missing assumption here.I do not have a dog in this fight, but it seems like Quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur is valid. I can claim there is intelligent life on 23 planets, but I make this claim without evidence. — Bitter Crank
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.