Are arguments a type of evidence?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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".

Language games. Do you know what equivocation means? Honest question.

As per your fixation on the word 'emperical', that's your word not mine..there are other forms of evidence you know.Yet, even love can be detected and measured as a distinct sort of brain activity, so it's not even a good example of the point you are floundering with.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you know what equivocation means? Honest question.

I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure. It could mean what the dictionary says it does, but you might want it to mean something else. (Had to be done... Sry)

Yet, even love can be detected and measured as a distinct sort of brain activity,

Please show me these measurements. They sound as spiffy as they seem fictional.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you know what equivocation means? Honest question.

I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure. It could mean what the dictionary says it does, but you might want it to mean something else. (Had to be done... Sry)

making predictions based on evidence.

Yeah, it's like so many things: Those predictions work... until they don't. Want some fun? Do some research into the various bubble models of deco theory. Jeez Louise, want to talk about some effin Science based faith? We have a saying that deco theory is like measuring with a micrometer, marking with chalk and cutting with an axe. Inferences get you bent. Deductions get you killed. On another level, I have total faith in my rebreather. It's loop is unassailable. The oxygen measurements are redundant and absolutely bulletproof. I even wear a redundant computer on top of an already redundant system so that nothing can go wrong. That's why I never splash without lots and lots of redundant backup gas (what we call "bail out").

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I'm not so sure either.

As per your request, this should get you started.


Love and the Brain | Department of Neurobiology

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yeah, I've read that before. You have to love an article about how far they've progressed which starts with

Love may well be one of the most studied, but least understood, behaviors.

How much of this did you actually read? Are you just trying to blow me off with busy work? It focuses only on "romantic" love, which is more lust than anything else. You've actually proven my point.

 

[Fool]

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?

agree, people become attached to forms at the expense of ideas. ideas can evolve into many forms.


Symbolism of the Serpent


Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol V: The Refutation of All Heresies



One may see the nature of these speculations from such passages: "If God had not said to heaven and earth: 'Enough!' they would still continue to extend" (Gen. R. iv. 6). God is therefore called ("he spake, = "enough"), and among the Naasenes 'Ησαιδαῖος = plays, in fact, an important part (Hilgenfeld, "Ketzesgeschichte des Urchristenthums," p. 257). The spheres of the sun and moon are in the second of the seven heavens (Gen. R. vi. 5). The creation of light was especially puzzling, several kinds being distinguished (ib. iii. 4).

 

[Thief]

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

which are taking photos....
and samples....
and whatever....

and you have yet to admit.....the experiment won't fit in the petri dish

and all of this around us came from one location....the beginning

Spirit First

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I would say that evidence (or lack there of) and over exaggerations see saw on public opinions.
If it's theology or looking at events in a historical manner, this is why pilot washed his hands, or he couldn't wash his hands again.
Over exaggerations wouldn't be logic or emotionally helpful to the people at hand, neither would a lack of evidence.
Also destroying evidence is no prophecy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would be the evidence that establishes this premise?

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When I said "evidence establishes premises", I meant that evidence is used to establish premises, not that every premise needs evidence.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yeah, I've read that before. You have to love an article about how far they've progressed which starts with


How much of this did you actually read? Are you just trying to blow me off with busy work? It focuses only on "romantic" love, which is more lust than anything else. You've actually proven my point.

Omg you are too much. You obviously only went a couple paragraphs deep before rushing back to clack your keyboard.

The science isn't complete, but it's there. Your gaps continue to shrink by the day.

Are you done chasing red herrings?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Omg you are too much. You obviously only went a couple paragraphs deep before rushing back to clack your keyboard.

I did read it? Did you? Science is supposed to create inquiries not give us rote answers. It focused only on desire and raised questions about the deeper loves.

The science isn't complete, but it's there. Your gaps continue to shrink by the day.

Gaps? I don't rely on Gaps like you seem to rely on the Science of the Gaps. Now, that's real faith believing that Science will be splaining it all.

Are you done chasing red herrings?

I don't know? Are you going to stop using them?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I did read it? Did you? Science is supposed to create inquiries not give us rote answers. It focused only on desire and raised questions about the deeper loves.

Gaps? I don't rely on Gaps like you seem to rely on the Science of the Gaps. Now, that's real faith believing that Science will be splaining it all.

I don't know? Are you going to stop using them?

I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is broken or if you are just really dishonest. Either way I guess we are done here

 

[Acim]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When I said "evidence establishes premises", I meant that evidence is used to establish premises, not that every premise needs evidence.

So, reword to: "evidence can be used to establish some premises."

Though even that strikes me as questionable. I think the inverse is true for logical arguments, that premises establish evidence for the conclusion. Therefore arguments (that reach a conclusion) are evidence themselves of the premise(s).

The issue you're getting at stems from whether premise claims are acceptable or not, and that then may form another (side) argument. At some point, in my observation(s), there are claims made which are seen as 'self evident' yet that may not be acceptable to all, or is questionable by some.

Self evident claims are the thing that faith is based on, which is why I routinely claim that science, fundamentally (it's most basic premise) rests on faith. I think of that premise in the vein of "the physical world exists independently of the human mind." If that is not seen as self evident, suddenly science ceases to be its own endeavor and is instead a matter of philosophical consideration. If taken for granted, it is invoking faith/trust in the premise.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not sure if your reading comprehension is broken

Dude, you start off ascribing a "God of the Gaps" argument to me which I have yet to present. Why? If I'm not appealing to a God of the Gaps, then why accuse me of doing so. Do you think it makes you sound intelligent? It doesn't, it just distracts from what we are discussing. That's a red herring if there ever was one and you're the one tossing it out. Then you continue on with your faith based Science of the Gaps theology. Guess what? I find both the God of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps to be equally fallacious. Both require oodles of blind faith and I don't do blind faith. I love science and firmly believe in the scientific method to unravel the mysteries of nature. God however, is supernatural. The natural can never hope to adequately describe the supernatural. It's out of it's purview.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God however, is supernatural. The natural can never hope to adequately describe the supernatural. It's out of it's purview.

I've thought a fair bit about the natural/supernatural dichotomy that some people use and how it contrasts against my own worldview. Here's how I see the difference:

- my view: there's just "that which exists." Some of it's known to us, some of it isn't. Some of the unknown stuff may very well work in what we'd consider bizarre ways that shatter our current paradigms, but there's no reason to divide things into definite "supernatural" and "natural" realms.

- the "natural"/"supernatural" dichotomy: instead of thinking of that which exists as one amorphous blob, it's more accurate to think of it as two distinct blobs (defined by _________ - I've never seen anyone spell out how the divide is defined), each with their own distinct characteristics (e.g. ________ for the natural and ________ for the supernatural - again, I haven't seen it clearly spelled out).

Is that a fair description of your position? IOW, that "the natural" and "the supernatural" are inherently distinct and the two categories have their own separate attributes?

 

[Scuba Pete]

We are spirits in a material world!

There are certain aspects to our humanity which science can never hope to explain like the soul, the spirit and so on. If you claim science only, then you must reject the presence of the soul and the spirit. You also confuse lust and attraction for love. It's over simplistic to me. I understand the natural far more than I understand the supernatural, but that doesn't invalidate it for me. My mind is open.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are spirits in a material world!

There are certain aspects to our humanity which science can never hope to explain like the soul, the spirit and so on. If you claim science only, then you must reject the presence of the soul and the spirit.

What makes you think they exist?

You also confuse lust and attraction for love. It's over simplistic to me. I understand the natural far more than I understand the supernatural, but that doesn't invalidate it for me. My mind is open.

... to a certain extent. You're sure that the divide between "supernatural" and "natural" is real and permanent, right?

My personal opinion is that the word "supernatural" is used to describe two classes of things:

- real but misunderstood things, which will be reclassified as "natural" if we ever come to understand them.
- things that don't exist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What makes you think they exist?

I've seen a ghost. I've experienced another ghost.

You're sure that the divide between "supernatural" and "natural" is real and permanent, right?

Only idiots are "sure". I maintain a healthy skepticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen a ghost. I've experienced another ghost.

And the best explanation for what you experienced is that we live in incorporeal form (though corporeal enough to interact with the living) after we die?

Only idiots are "sure". I maintain a healthy skepticism.

So there may or may not be a firm divide between what you call "natural" and "supernatural"?

Honestly, I'm not sure why the divide - if it exists - would matter in terms of epistemology. Even if our tools of critical thinking only work when it comes to "natural" things, I think it would still be valid to say that the only things we know exist are those that can be confirmed using critical thinking and physical evidence. To make reasonable claims about "the supernatural", we'd need to have a valid methodology to acquire knowledge aboyt the supernatural... as well as a way to confirm that the methodology is working. Without our normal epistemological methods, that would be... difficult.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And the best explanation for what you experienced is that we live in incorporeal form (though corporeal enough to interact with the living) after we die?

I have absolutely no explanation for either event. None, nada and squat. To be frank, I'm rather embarrassed to admit them. I was a kid for the first one and rather tired for the second, where I actually encountered what appeared to be an apparition. I was in the fifth grade classroom of a church school getting them ready for their opening day of the school year. It was late Friday of a Labor Day Weekend, about eight. I was surprised by a kid who appeared to be wet and confused. I asked him what he was doing there. Then he wasn't there. It rattled me at the time and I thought it was just my mind playing tricks on me. My partner and I decided we were too fatigued to continue and went for dinner with one of the teachers (in charge of tech). I told them about my interaction and they kidded me mercilessly about my ghost. In fact, my partner kept bothering me about ghosts all through the weekend. He came onto the intercom to give me a "boo" at one point. It was embarrassing as all get out. However, on the first day of School, I got a call from the tech teacher. A sixth grader (used to be in fifth) had died by drowning that past Friday around eight. Up to that point and in spite of the initial event as a child, I was fairly quick to dismiss anyone who believed in ghosts as an idiot. Now, I am less than skeptical. Put yourself in my shoes... how would YOU explain those events?

Even if our tools of critical thinking only work when it comes to "natural" things, I think it would still be valid to say that the only things we know exist are those that can be confirmed using critical thinking and physical evidence.

Why would you conclude that? That's like trying to understand Chinese using a Russian translator. Or maybe like investigating a cave without any lights. If all you own is a hammer, the world becomes one big nail. Science explains the natural rather nicely, but it has absolutely no ability to assert or refute my incident in the Fifth Grade classroom. It's worse than using a hammer to drive in a screw, or the back of a screwdriver to pound in a nail.