Belief/evidence

Simon,

The short answer is yes, but the short answer is not complete because it all depends on the situation and the subject matter. Such a question is open ended.

I tried to give examples of what and when I would require evidence of and examples of what I would not, which I believe is a more complete answer to your OP.

I could give other examples.

There are times that would I say I believe something without hard evidence, certainly.

But I would not say I know something without hard evidence.

Fair enough ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good. I was beginning to think one of us was crazy. But then I don't think you actually should answer yes to my question in the OP.

If one believes ONLY things he or she thinks other should believe because he or she has sufficient evidence

this would mean that others should share all of your beliefs, even about things that happened to you personally.

This set of things would include events without corroborating witnesses, physical evidence, etc.

So this would mean either

you only believe in events you witnessed or experienced that you can demonstrate happened for others

(so if you remember getting lost in a supermarket when you were a kid you would not believe it unless you had corroborating evidence)

or you think others should take your first person accounts as their knowledge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think, unless I misunderstood, you were working outside in. When you would believe something others believed. I am asking you to move inside out. Do you only believe things that you think others should believe because of the evidence you can present?
For example. You were beaten up by someone in elementary school (but you must come up with your own examples) You believe you hated gym
Should others believe everything that you believe to have happened to you?

You might want to run through my posts to Glaucon if this is still unclear and you haven't already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right.

I generally agree with all you say here.
However, first-hand experience always (obviously) has greater evidenciary 'weight' (and will always 'outweigh' any other).
The criterion as to the degree of 'weight' a first=person account (someone telling you of their experience..) enjoys will vary according to some comparison and contrast to your experiences. So, if someone tells you that they say a ghost, if you have never seen a ghost, this will carry little weight. But, if you have experienced such, their account will carry greater weight.

That's basically my scenario.

All of this of course, assumes a particular personal epistemological perspective. But regardless of how one goes about organizing one's experiences, one will always trust theirs with a primacy, and (more relevant to this discussion...) will necessarily judge any other person's experiences by comparison to their own.

 

Simon,

"Do you believe only in things/events/phenomena that there is sufficient evidence to prove their existence - or that they happened 'that way' - to others?"

I answered both of those, to me and to others.

"I think, unless I misunderstood, you were working outside in. When you would believe something others believed. I am asking you to move inside out. Do you only believe things that you think others should believe because of the evidence you can present?"

This is a different question.

No, because each of us have or encountered unique experiences which no single person can have experienced. Since no single person can experience everything the answer to that question will always be for everybody NO.

There is a differnce however between a question of a known such as a tangible object which requires little evidence and an experience that is unique to the event. One is more difficult to prove without solid evidence which is what I stated earlier.

If I told you I ate an orange today would you question it ?
What if I told you I surfed a 40 ft wave today ?

 

The actual o/e/p is not always accessible even though it is the preferred source.

No. Being unable to prove it to others comes under "so long as there are no extenuating circumstances." Just as a example I once had an experience of being another person. While it was an interesting experience, because I can't offer any proof that it actually happened, its just an interesting anecdote, not anything I genuinely count as knowledge.

 

I'd stay put and setup shop. This sounds like a hell of a good crossroad.

How?

So your soul is some one else?

 

But that is not the case. He may not have evidence specific to the event, but he has his personal history as evidence of his reliability. It would be best to have direct evidence, like seeing it happen. But in such a matter such as this, if he is reliable then all things being equal I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt on this sort of claim.

Now if he is a pathological liar I would be more likely to not believe him until actual evidence is presented.

 

What others believe is completely irrelevant to one's belief. If I get mugged, I don't have to prove to others that it happened in order for me to believe it happened. I don't have to have to prove to others that the planet Mars exists in order to believe it. I don't have to prove to others that I am in front of my computer in order for others to believe it.

If I am presented with evidence or something, consensus is irrelevant. Proving it to others is irrelevnt. I decide what is true and false based on the evidence evidence presented. Others do not decide for me.

If I make a decisions that something is true, and evidence compells me to believe otherwise, it is a realization. Realization is change from a belief that X is true to a belief that X is not true.

Wrong. You are presented with choices. You consider the choices, and you make the decision that you think might take you to your destination Perhaps you might even decide you cannot choose, and will not proceed.

 

swarm and lixluke, you misunderstand the scenario:

in life there are infinite number of choices, to make these choices we use scientific basis of past events we or others have encountered....however when we make a choice based on someone else's encounter we have faith to them, when we make a choice based on a scientific basis ourselves we have faith in ourselves.

Because there is no choice that we make that is foolproof, there is always not enough 100% scientific basis to it, there is always probability that it can be false neverthless and lacking piece of information.

At times however, we are faced with beliefs and situations were scientific basis comes close to 0% but we must make a choice in such situation neverthless. That is when other ways to decide what to believe come along, we choose sometimes to step blindfolded, sometimes we lie to ourselves, sometimes we also choose based on our moral values.

And life is a road of time, time does not stop...swarm, no shops, or whatever, time is a river that flows and we along with it, there is no escaping it, we either choose were to swim along the river or the river chooses for us.


We choose what to decide or life decides for us.

 

You only believe without evidence. When there is evidence you don't need belief, its a fact.

 

nothing is a fact, S.A.M. Every fact, bears some lack of blind belief involved...every fact is not fully 100% scientifically backed up.

 

I'm distinguishing between belief and knowledge. I believe and I know are two slightly different concepts, knowledge is justified belief.

 

and S.A.M I am stating to you that knowledge is not fully a justified belief, knowledge is mostly a justified belief but has some unjustified beliefs as well.

 

Hmm, I don't think so. For something to qualify as knowledge the belief in that particular concept needs a basis of justification. Could you give me an example of knowledge that is unjustified?

 

well S.A.M, you are the one stating that knowledge is justified, give me an example please of such knowledge.

 

Belief = held to be true ie I believe you even if no one else will

Knowledge = justified belief ie I know you could never do something like that. [based on previous evidence]

Can you tell the difference?

Whats your take on it? Where am I off base?

 

in my eyes knowledge is still a belief, with a higher probability of substantiated proof behind it.

For example, you would think I would never want israel to be its own country...right? based on my posts I clearly am against israel. But guess what, israel government sometime in the future decides to pay all its non-supporters 1mil dollars so that they support israel killings of Palestinians, well guess what I am poor I will take the 1mil dollars...and there goes all the knowledge

No but wait, another example...we have knowledge that there is SAM, and SAM is Indian...she talks she is Indian, she like India, she make posts about India, she has pictures with proof that she is Indian, boy she can even type in Indian...but wait, turns out SAM was a Sri Lankan girl who was actually an undercover CIA agent...

I am bad with examples...thou...

Anyways, no knowledge is actually just a fact, and no fact is actually what it claims to be, a fact is not 100% scientifically proven statement/belief...nothing can be 100% scientifically prove.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!