Evidentialism

[Rex]

From wikipedia-

Evidentialism is a stance or theory of epistemology, which holds, for example, that belief in the truth of a proposition is justified, only to the extent that evidence demonstrates the truth of the proposition. In other words, belief is only as sound as the evidence upon which it is founded.

Is it just me or does that sound so on point?

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Making epistemological statements is tricky business, because the concepts involved need to be exactly defined.

Does evidence refer solely to physical, material evidence? If so, then statements of evaluation ("I love you") or emotion ("I feel sad") can never be considered true. If evidence refers to any existent 'facts' of reality, what defines a fact? Some theists would argue that faith is factual, and that their belief in God is based on the evidence of that faith.

Objectivist epistemology would agree almost exclusively with evidentialism, but only after clearly defining evidence as 'objectively true facts.' The key element differentiating the Objectivist interpretation of evidentialism from, say, a theistic interpretation, is the recursive nature of the definition: Each factual component of that evidence must, itself, be based on its own evidence, which must be based on further evidence, and so on and so forth. The result would be a hierarchy of objectively true concepts ending at the three undeniable, self-evident concepts of reality: Existence, Identity and Consciousness. It is the acceptance, without evidence, of those three concepts that differentiates Objectivism from absolute evidentialism (and explains the 'almost exclusively' at the beginning of this paragraph).

 

[No*s]

There are no "objectively true facts" naturally, nor is there any "evidence." All evidence data we have is based on our interpretations, and any part of it, or maybe even as far as all of it, may be in error.

I would ask for an example of an objectively true fact. I would also like an example of evidence. Data, before interpretation, is just gibberish. It's our interpretation that transforms it into evidence.

From the way I see things, if you take the epistimology you have just espoused seriously, you must either make conscious deviations from it, or deny belief in anything. It seems that you do not opt for the latter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Making epistemological statements is tricky business, because the concepts involved need to be exactly defined. Objectivist epistemology would agree almost exclusively with evidentialism, but only after clearly defining evidence as 'objectively true facts.'

As opposed to, of course, objectively false facts, subjectively true facts, and subjectively false facts. You're right, Trendy. "Making epistemological statements is tricky business."

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Three objectively true facts:

(A) Existence exists.
(B) All existents have identity (characteristics or attributes that distinguish one existent from another).
(C) Consciousness is conscious.

How are these objectively true? Because any attempt to disprove them affirms them. Try it. You cannot disprove any of the above concepts without first affirming that they objectively exist.

Some objectively true facts that follow from the above three:

(1) (From B) Identities cannot contradict each other (ie. a tree cannot both have leaves and not have leaves).
(2) (From 1) An existent has only one identity. Identity, it should be noted, does not refer to our description of the existent -- it refers to what the existent is. A pigeon is a bird and an animal. That does not mean it has two identities; it only has one identity. 'Bird' and 'animal' are two distinct concepts under which the single identity of the pigeon is subsumed. In fact, 'pigeon' is itself a concept under which the the identity of the specific, distinct existent being described is subsumed.
(3) (From 2) The Law of Causality: In any given situation, an existent will behave as its identity necessitates, and cannot behave in any other way (to do so would contradict its identity, violating 1). If a ball (a concept formed in consciousness (C) containing the identity (B) of an existent (A)) hits another ball, the identities of the inclusive existents ("ball", "the motion/relationship of hitting") will demand an outcome that does not contradict those identities -- there can be only one outcome, for multiple outcomes imply multiple identities, which implies inherent contradiction.

From there, the rest of objective logic springs -- all of it based on the above objective truths.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

As opposed to, of course, objectively false facts, subjectively true facts, and subjectively false facts. You're right, Trendy. "Making epistemological statements is tricky business."

I'm glad you're here -- I was looking forward to discussing objectivist epistemology with you, since I've finally finished a reasonable fraction of the material on the subject.

And you're right, my statement was redundant. It wasn't false, just redundant, and so any conclusions I might draw with it would still be valid -- there was no fatal error in that definition. I should have phrased it as 'objectively true propositions.' I actually prefer that definition for reasons other than its clarity -- it makes the recursive nature of the definition that much clearer. Objectively true propositions are based on objectively true propositions which are based on objectively true propositions which are... etc, etc, etc.

 

[No*s]

Three objectively true facts:

(A) Existence exists.

And...how do you determine what really exists? There is a theological system (in Hinduism I believe), that posits that the world is a part of God's dream. If this is so, then your existence is no more concrete or real than the Thundercat's. This isn't an objectively true fact. It is a pragmatically true fact. If we deny it, then from the only perspective we really have experience with, we die. Still, we can't prove it.

(B) All existents have identity (characteristics or attributes that distinguish one existent from another).

This is purely an arbitrary distinction. What constitutes the identity of an object? Is it where the mateiral ends? Well, in that case, you and I are both the same thing. The Earth's atmosphere is a part of me, and it is a part of you. If you want to posit that all objects have an identity that can "distinguish one existent from another," then you had best propose a method whereby we can make such distinctions objectively.

IMO, there is no distinction between a mountain and a valley...except for the fact that we perceive mountains differently, but that is subjective interpretation, not an objective attribute. Likewise, the prime difference between a lake and the air is the quantity of water, and the amount of heat it has absorbed. The difference really is arbitrary, but it serves us well.

(C) Consciousness is conscious.

That doesn't explain anything. It's like saying "a definition is defined."

How are these objectively true? Because any attempt to disprove them affirms them. Try it. You cannot disprove any of the above concepts without first affirming that they objectively exist.

Now, that doesn't say a thing considering my objection. I said that data only becomes evidence when it is interpreted. So what if in order to "disprove them" I must "affirm them." It simply means that we are human beings, and there are certain perceptions common to us. It doesn't make them any less arbitrary.

I don't need to "disprove" them directly. I only need to clarify how we perceive reality. By doing so, I render your criteria into the realm of human perception, and away from objective reality. Once that is done, there isn't any need to "disprove" them. Their nature, in and of itself, does not extend to being an objectively true facts.

Some objectively true facts that follow from the above three:

(1) (From B) Identities cannot contradict each other (ie. a tree cannot both have leaves and not have leaves).

Solely because we have defined leaves in such a way as to allow that. Without our assigning an interpretation of what constitutes "tree" and "leave," the distinction would be irrelevant. This is not an objectively true fact. It's merely our defining a property in how we perceive something that we also perceive to be an object.

If we were to define it differently, the statement would be meaningless.

(2) (From 1) An existent has only one identity. Identity, it should be noted, does not refer to our description of the existent -- it refers to what the existent is. A pigeon is a bird and an animal. That does not mean it has two identities; it only has one identity. 'Bird' and 'animal' are two distinct concepts under which the single identity of the pigeon is subsumed. In fact, 'pigeon' is itself a concept under which the the identity of the specific, distinct existent being described is subsumed.

See above. We are incapable of knowing what an existent is. We only describe them, and that assumes the objective existence of the world and its contents. Making a distinction between something's being and its description is meaningless. All we have are definitions and perceptions, unless of course, when you see a pigeon, you perceive everything about it from the subatomic to the cellular to the tissue, to the organisms contained within it. I don't do that, and neither does anyone else.

We simplify what we see so that we can comprehend it. Without that simplification, we would be rendered unable to operate. This distinction assumes the conclusion, but it doesn't prove it.

(3) (From 2) The Law of Causality: In any given situation, an existent will behave as its identity necessitates, and cannot behave in any other way (to do so would contradict its identity, violating 1). If a ball (a concept formed in consciousness (C) containing the identity (B) of an existent (A)) hits another ball, the identities of the inclusive existents ("ball", "the motion/relationship of hitting") will demand an outcome that does not contradict those identities -- there can be only one outcome, for multiple outcomes imply multiple identities, which implies inherent contradiction.

Like the preceding, this is based on our perceptions of things. If something behaves "as its identity necessitates, and cannot behave in any other way," it does so because we have defined it to do what we have observed. When its actions contradict our definition, then we generally modify our definition. This isn't an attribute inherent to reality, but it is an attribute inherent to models.

All we can perceive, though, are actions and definitions. We are incapable of perceiving things as they are, their core being. If we did so, then we would have no need of definitions. They would simply be a means of obfuscating what we already know.

From there, the rest of objective logic springs -- all of it based on the above objective truths.

I can see how objective logic springs from it, but logic is only as good as its premise. I think this is an inadequate means of interpretating of reality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Objectively true propositions are based on objectively true propositions which are based on objectively true propositions which are... etc, etc, etc.

<yawn> You have yet to get beyond sophomoric word games and tautology. When you get around to the a posteriori, let me know. </yawn>

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

No*s, I'm about to head to bed, so I'll address the points you made tomorrow. Some things just can't wait, though...

<yawn> You have yet to get beyond sophomoric word games and tautology. When you get around to the a posteriori, let me know. </yawn>

You lost, long ago, any privelage to request debate from me on a silver platter -- especially in a tone that self-glorifies you as some philosophical Grand Poobah. Get someone else to wave your palm fronds.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You lost ... any privelage to request debate from me on a silver platter ...

While there is nothing quite like having one's privileges curtailed by an objectivist, there was no request intended.

 

[SoulTYPE]

Not in that case, Mr Deut. I have the privelidge of debating an opinion. However, you have the privilidge of disagreeing with them. And you use that privilidge well..

 

[retrorich]

I think--therefore I have a headache.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

I've summarized in greater detail the axiomatic concepts of Objectivism in another thread. No*s, I've also responded to your post there -- this thread is primarily about Evidentialism, not about Objectivism, after all.