Are arguments a type of evidence?

[Thief]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

yes.....When it comes to belief....

there will be no photo, fingerprint, equation or repeatable experiment

all you CAN do is think about it

then post something

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Disagree. You need empirical evidence. For something to be even plausable there needs to be some form of empirical support from which the argument is made.

 

[von bek]

If there had been a poll, I would have voted yes. It may not always be the strongest type of evidence and should be discarded when better evidence comes forth; but, an argument can totally be a type of evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You obviously don't understand faith.

It's the difference between the physical, the meta-physical, the natural and the super-natural. You simply can't quantify everything empirically. Go ahead and quantify love. What? Do you contend that love is 'worthless'? I want to see your empirical values for love.

I understand faith just fine: a belief held without, or in spite of, evidence. Any other definition is a gloss over.

Equivocating faith to love isn't too useful.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

I think logical arguments are validated by evidence, or that the logic itself should validate the evidence presented in an argument.

If you and your opponent have the same evidence for the same issue that is being discussed, it comes down to who makes a more logical argument based around that evidence. I don't see how one could make a logical argument without evidence to support it, unless you delve into the hypothetical.

Logical argumentation is a way for us to rationalize that which we can and cannot directly perceive, I honestly cannot see how it could stand as evidence on its own. Perhaps you could provide an example for us to discuss?

 

[psychoslice]

I don't see the religious idea behind what your saying.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I understand faith just fine: a belief held without, or in spite of, evidence. Any other definition is a gloss over.

That's just 'blind faith'. It completely leaves out 'evidenced faith'. Only accepting one is the real gloss over. You use faith every time you flip a light switch or press on the brakes in your car. Faith is not a four letter word.

Equivocating faith to love isn't too useful.

So you deny love is faith? Or that faith is love? Talk about a 'gloss over'. How do you deal with all of those emotions? You just don't have them because you can't quantify them? Because they are inconvenient? All of them require faith. All of them are an extension of faith.

 

[Thief]

Disagree. You need empirical evidence. For something to be even plausable there needs to be some form of empirical support from which the argument is made.

the stars above and the earth beneath your feet.....
think....Cause and effect

the experiment you insist on won't fit in the petri dish

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That's just 'blind faith'. It completely leaves out 'evidenced faith'. Only accepting one is the real gloss over. You use faith every time you flip a light switch or press on the brakes in your car. Faith is not a four letter word.

So you deny love is faith? Or that faith is love? Talk about a 'gloss over'. How do you deal with all of those emotions? You just don't have them because you can't quantify them? Because they are inconvenient? All of them require faith. All of them are an extension of faith.

You sure do like to equivocate don't you?

And no, love isn't faith. You should get yourself a dictionary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's just 'blind faith'. It completely leaves out 'evidenced faith'. Only accepting one is the real gloss over. You use faith every time you flip a light switch or press on the brakes in your car. Faith is not a four letter word.

So you deny love is faith? Or that faith is love? Talk about a 'gloss over'. How do you deal with all of those emotions? You just don't have them because you can't quantify them? Because they are inconvenient? All of them require faith. All of them are an extension of faith.

I think you're equivocating between different types of faith. You would be able to get your point across more clearly if you used different terms (e.g. "inference" or "induction" instead of "evidence-based faith").

Using the word "faith" here doesn't add anything to the discussion. It just makes it hard to tell what you're talking about.

 

[Willamena]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Yes. For some people, on some subjects, they are the best evidence.

Edit: Given that its premises are true, a good argument establishes a valid conclusion which can then be used as a premise.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

I can start with a quote from Plato: "opinion is a consequence of persuasion not truth".

All argument is opinion, or human intellectual origin however ancient or dogmatized it might be. And contrary to much suggestion within the scriptural record, it is only in the absence of a revealed truth able to demonstrate its own efficacy that has allowed the theological conception of 'faith' to exist. It may be worth remembering that our contemporary idea of truth based upon Enlightenment criteria hardly existed in the days of the early church, but to suggest such potential, while going against history and tradition does not contradict scripture. It is only that religious tradition does not have such a profound insight to offer. And the presumption that such a perfect truth is not possible may yet prove to be humanities greatest own goal? The Final Freedoms

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

[Scuba Pete]

And no, love isn't faith.

So, show me the empirical evidence for love. Not anecdotal, but empirical. I'll follow the first rule of Scuba and won't hold my breath while I wait.

Using the word "faith" here doesn't add anything to the discussion.

It's because you truly don't understand the nature and scope of faith. Inference, induction, intuition all rely in part or in whole on faith. You hit a key on your keyboard. An 'a' should appear, but what if it doesn't? Is your faith shattered and you'll never touch another 'a' as long as you live? Phobias are the antithesis of faith. I have faith you'll disagree with me sometime after I click on "Post Reply".

 

[Twilight Hue]

the stars above and the earth beneath your feet.....
think....Cause and effect

the experiment you insist on won't fit in the petri dish

That's why we have probes, telescopes, and rovers. ;0)

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

A logical and reasonable argument is like a scientific hypothesis. It makes sense and fits all the parameters of what we know, but until you can find a way to test your hypothesis and gather verifiable evidence to back up the hypothesis, it will forever remain nothing more than an untested hypothesis. Verifiable evidence is require to elevate a mere hypothesis into a recognized scientific theory. The same holds true for logical and reasonable arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's because you truly don't understand the nature and scope of faith.

It seems like I don't share your understanding of them. I also see "faith" as describing multiple separate concepts.

Inference, induction, intuition all rely in part or in whole on faith.

On different senses of faith, sure. Intuition - a gut feeling - is qualitatively different from inference and induction - making predictions based on evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So, show me the empirical evidence for love. Not anecdotal, but empirical. I'll follow the first rule of Scuba and won't hold my breath while I wait.

It's because you truly don't understand the nature and scope of faith. Inference, induction, intuition all rely in part or in whole on faith. You hit a key on your keyboard. An 'a' should appear, but what if it doesn't? Is your faith shattered and you'll never touch another 'a' as long as you live? Phobias are the antithesis of faith. I have faith you'll disagree with me sometime after I click on "Post Reply".

Before anyone can show you empirical evidence for love you must first define what love is. Does everyone agree on what love is? Is it possible to believe you love someone only to discover that you didn't really know what love was? Is it possible that MY definition of 'like' is YOUR definition of 'love'? Until you can establish a definition for love that everyone can agree on it's impossible to answer your question.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"Are arguments a type of evidence?"

I often find that people's arguments are compelling evidence of whether they are capable of making rational arguments or not. So, yes, in this context, arguments are evidence.

 

[Acim]

- Evidence establishes premises.

What would be the evidence that establishes this premise?

I would say it would be an rational argument regarding the nature of evidence as it relates to (alleged) premises.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes or no, and why? To elaborate, many people today believe that only physical, empirical evidence should count for anything. They do not accept logically plausible arguments as a form of evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Sure, if a truth was established based on a logical arguement, that truth can then be used as factual evidence in another logical arguement.