T
TruthSeeker60
Guest
Part 2/3
The popularity of a claim doesn’t make it true.
If all experts in a legitimate field of study come to a consensus on something, one may tentatively accept it until one is able to properly evaluate the evidence for one’s self. This is not the same as accepting because it is popular, but rather tentatively accepting something as true because just about every person who has proven that he/she has done extensive research and has reached a high level of understanding, has done the work. If you are going to quote this paragraph, don’t also quote the following paragraph.
When we’re little children, as a matter a practicality, it’s good that we accept what authority figures teach us. Teachers generally teach children only what’s accepted by experts. As a matter of practicality, it’s good that we accept these things from teachers as children. But then we grow up (or at least most people do). As we grow up, we need gradually evaluate claims more and more rather than merely accepting them because we are told they are true. This is what scientists do. Scientists do not accept something due to consensus, they accept things due to evidence. Now if all scientists, who have proven that they have done their research (getting their doctorate degrees and publishing peer-review journals) we may tentatively accept a belief that they all share because we have evidence that these people accepted a claim as true due to evidence. Thus, even if you don’t have a Ph.D in something, if virtually all of the experts in that field agree on something, you may tentatively believe that sufficient evidence for a claim exists. When you do this, you are still ultimately relying on evidence. If however, the community of experts is not in full agreement, or you have reached a high enough level of understanding of the claim and evidence for or against it, yet haven’t seen sufficient evidence to accept the claim, you’re perfectly justified in not accepting it.
Perhaps by vague, you mean I didn’t specify what Bob’s claim was. However, what Bob’s claim was is irrelevant to the fact that John’s lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for Bob’s claim.
May claims be justifiably accepted without evidence?
Again, I’ve asked you this countless times, but may someone be justified an accepting a claim without evidence? I think you actually think the answer is yes. In this case, you think people may be justified in accepting arbitrary beliefs.
Continued…
You love twisting my words don’t you. Re-read what I wrote.
The popularity of a claim doesn’t make it true.
If all experts in a legitimate field of study come to a consensus on something, one may tentatively accept it until one is able to properly evaluate the evidence for one’s self. This is not the same as accepting because it is popular, but rather tentatively accepting something as true because just about every person who has proven that he/she has done extensive research and has reached a high level of understanding, has done the work. If you are going to quote this paragraph, don’t also quote the following paragraph.
When we’re little children, as a matter a practicality, it’s good that we accept what authority figures teach us. Teachers generally teach children only what’s accepted by experts. As a matter of practicality, it’s good that we accept these things from teachers as children. But then we grow up (or at least most people do). As we grow up, we need gradually evaluate claims more and more rather than merely accepting them because we are told they are true. This is what scientists do. Scientists do not accept something due to consensus, they accept things due to evidence. Now if all scientists, who have proven that they have done their research (getting their doctorate degrees and publishing peer-review journals) we may tentatively accept a belief that they all share because we have evidence that these people accepted a claim as true due to evidence. Thus, even if you don’t have a Ph.D in something, if virtually all of the experts in that field agree on something, you may tentatively believe that sufficient evidence for a claim exists. When you do this, you are still ultimately relying on evidence. If however, the community of experts is not in full agreement, or you have reached a high enough level of understanding of the claim and evidence for or against it, yet haven’t seen sufficient evidence to accept the claim, you’re perfectly justified in not accepting it.
What do you mean by “principle of democracy”? When I speak of democracy, I speak of a the right of a citizen to choose his/her government official. I am fully in favor of the right of a citizen to choose his/her government official. This has nothing to do with whether a claim about the world is true.
Being vague means not being particular enough with regard to concepts, so I’m not sure what you mean by say that my example “is vitiated by its particularity and vagueness”.
Perhaps by vague, you mean I didn’t specify what Bob’s claim was. However, what Bob’s claim was is irrelevant to the fact that John’s lack of belief is justified by lack of evidence for Bob’s claim.
That’s irrelevant. Evidence is needed for a claim regardless.
May claims be justifiably accepted without evidence?
Whether or not a claim “concerns the nature of reality which affects our whole attitude to life and the way we regard ourselves and others” is irrelevant to the fact that we are not justified in accepting a claim without evidence?
Again, I’ve asked you this countless times, but may someone be justified an accepting a claim without evidence? I think you actually think the answer is yes. In this case, you think people may be justified in accepting arbitrary beliefs.
No. The point of the above analogy is that a claim may not be accepted without evidence. Do you agree or disagree?
Continued…
They are priests and prophets of cynicism.
While they accuse those who believe in miracles of wishful thinking, they do not see how completely wishful thinking it is to believe there is no such thing as a miracle.
, I’m not sure if I’m allowed to go into a discussion about the validity and soundness of the proposed proofs of a god, as well as whether or not there is evidence for a god.