Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Not that I am taking a side, but emotions are considered what is called intersubjectively verifiable.
Intersubjective verifiability - Wikipedia
Intersubjective verifiability - Wikipedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I Have Proof
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
I think you must mean that emotions in general are intersubjectively verifiable. Specific emotions -- e.g. whether John loves his dog -- are not intersubjectively verifiable.
Why does it become baseless? I'm genuinely curious about your thinking here. Wouldn't you consider it evidence -- however weak or strong -- that X was the case, if someone claimed X was the case? And if you wouldn't, then on what principle of logic wouldn't you?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Because it may be very well not the case.
How are you defining the word "evidence" then?
psychoslice
Veteran Member
How are you ?.
Let's not play games. I politely asked you how you are defining the word "evidence". Just answer the question, please, and then I'll answer yours.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Evidence doesn't mean that is is true, like who's evidence do you believe in, courts are an example, the best so called evidence is the best persuader of that evidence, be that right or wrong.
I agree with you there.
And, if I understand what you're saying, I disagree with you on that point.
To me, evidence is defined as anything that would suggest or demonstrate something to be the case, or not to be the case. Evidence can be weak, strong, or anywhere in between weak and strong. If you said you loved your wife, and I had reason to believe that you were a credible witness and judge of your own emotions, I would count your statement as fairly strong evidence that you loved your wife. However, if I had reason to believe that you were not a credible witness and judge of your own emotions, I would count your statement as fairly weak evidence that you loved your wife.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes and it all comes down to your own belief in what I say, its you who is deciding what true and what is not, that is your truth, as I have mine also........and so we all disagree.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
However, the feeling of love is something people can relate to, and that is an important distinction. The statement: "I have proof shoe fairies exist but I cannot share it with you." is very different than the statement: "John loves his dog." Many of us have experienced love for dogs, therefore it is something we can relate to; however, very few of us have witnessed a shoe fairy.
It seems to me you are making a distinction between whether or not one understands the evidence, rather than a distinction between, say, evidence and no evidence, or between weak and strong evidence. Or are you arguing that the quality (e.g. whether it is weak or strong) of the evidence changes depending on whether or not the evidence is understood?
Altfish
Veteran Member
That's like saying, "Take me on trust" - the sort of thing Trump does with his taxes.
No.
Sharing is not a requirement of validity. Imagine, what if you were the last person on Earth and couldn't share anything. Would nothing be valid, then? Of course not.
Nevertheless...
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
If I was the last man on Earth I would not be making any claims to someone else. Your example drags the question out of the context it was asked in.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Valid to you, meaningless to anyone else.
It's not an example of making a claim, but an example of the appropriateness of the requirement of validity.