On eye witnesses testimony as evidence

Post Reply New Topic

^^^

I have to apologize in advance I cannot copy and paste in any reliable way. So any breakdown of your argument using quotes is impossible.

As to my example of the innocent man. Verificationism would not be able to validate the experience under either the empiricist or positivist schools of the subject. A personal belief, however warranted, cannot be verified through either school. Thats why the example is in the textbook I have written about the death of verificationism.

As to the rest of the article. It makes all kinds of claims, such as the worm, that, having not been verified, are not warranted to believe in. However logical this sounds, verification cannot prove that a worm is a worm on the first place, in any properly basic way. Nor can it establish what a table is without referring to a table. So the article's discussion of the table is moot, since it uses verification as it's standard of proof, something which is self refuting.

I will not go on discussing the article with you, I know your love of argument and it seems quite pointless to argue about an article, that has little to say.

As to my own beliefs. They are not an exercise in circular reasoning, you are presupposing that belief on God is either unwarranted, or that the resurrection is the only evidence one has to go on. One can infer that Christ is God, from multiple sources, his radical claims and sense of authority, God is the best explanation as to why anything exists instead of nothing, he is the best grounding for objective moral values and then from this, it is logically consistent, that Christ was vindicated by his resurrection. So your position is far too limited, my beliefs are not so easily boxed.

The mention of Michael Martin, is just a red herring, as it stands it is just an appeal to authority. You then simply state that there is not really any warrant for Christian belief. And to finalize, you threw in some ad homeniem. So basically, go look for your argument fix elsewhere.

If all of us witness it (and not just me or some guy high on drugs), then I'm happy to strongly reconsider the claims about Jesus' resurrection.

That's simple epistemology, my friend.

I'm a simple man with a simple mind. Therefore, I can only go with what's simple.



Fair to me because I don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance because of a religious book. It makes you feel quite liberated intellectually. You'd no longer have to believe in what you don't intellectually perceive as possible just because a book, that you've been conditioned to believe in as a book of divine source, says so.

But also it's fair to others because I no longer have to insult their intelligence.

Christian epistemology. I'm sure it's "if the Bible says it, then that is evidence enough". But I can't accept that.

I know I oversimplified it but that is what it basically is if you brush away all the unnecessary details that Christians like to dress their epistemological arguments with.

A clinically brain dead person (verified by a flat line over a period of hours) restored to functional sentient life. Just getting the heart restarted does not count.

ruveyn

Hunh?? Positivism is a form of empiricism. That being said... um.... "personal belief" refers to anything. My personal belief is that there is a sun in the sky. This is something I think most of these people would say is verifiable. You might just mean the more purely internal beliefs, but one does not have to be a verificationist to have cynicism about inner beliefs.


Oy, I don't think you have enough grasp to distinguish between your bizarre interpretation of the article, and what the article actually says:
"It’s easy to accept the first one because lots of people own cars. It would take a little more evidence to accept the second, since nuclear missiles are hard to come by. For the last one, we should not listen to the eye witness without a bunch of complementary evidence since sixty foot car-eating worms are not known to exist."

This point is actually abundantly common in more modern philosophy. In fact, this point can be restated in Bayesian terms, as the author is referring to background beliefs, and conditions. Bayes is actually not disliked in modern philosophy, but rather referring to Bayes is common, and even a lot of religious people do this.

As for "proving that a worm is a worm"... um... either you are saying verification is impossible, which isn't relevant to the author's argument, or you are making a more bizarre point, and one that I am not sure anybody has to accept.

That being said, you are clearly misunderstanding the article, period. This article, despite ANY FLAW you might point out, is still actually pretty straightforward and using a reasoning that is similar to ongoing discussions of miracles, and reasoning similar to ongoing discussions of Hume's argument against miracles.


Look, you're wrong, that's all I really have to say.


1) We don't have very many sources, and I am not sure that the Gospels should be considered independent sources.
2) Radical claims and a sense of authority don't really give us strong reason at all. Any madman can make radical claims and have a sense of authority, and a somewhat mythicized madmen will have those "divine" characteristics enshrined even more.

As for your arguments about God, um.... first of all "why something exists rather than nothing", isn't explained by God's existence. God is something. If you explain why something exists rather than nothing, by holding that the existence of something explains that, then you have failed. Given all of the possible natures of any being that could be called "God", the notion that he incarnated and resurrected is problematic to establish at best. Even further, given that Christ claimed to be God, but really couldn't be God due to logical consistency issues with the incarnation, and given that Christ was not really a fulfiller of prophecies(I've not made the argument in this thread, but I have made it in the past) then it really seems to me that this whole theology ends up failing.

I don't see how anything you stated says anything about boxing your beliefs. I tried to interpret your statement, you now tried to argue that I am wrong. I don't see very easily how your current position justifies your past statement: "So unless it can be proven that Christ is not God, a Christian is perfectly warranted in believing in his resurrection, regardless of eyewitness testimony. "


Actually, the mention of Michael Martin is just a reference, you've done a lot worse in appealing to authority, and it is questionable whether this is an appeal to authority at all, as all I did was reference an author who made a certain kind of argument, and just jumped through a lot of claims, claims that I could justify, but that I just didn't think were worth justifying at the moment. As well, what I stated is that this "inner eye" is not trustworthy and that given our background evidence we have little reason to believe it is trustworthy, and that this undercuts Christian notions of warrant.

I think it is a fact that you are deeply confused on the issue. I mean, most of your statements on what the article says seem deeply wrong. You are attacking a traditional enemy of yours I suppose, but you haven't identified the right target at all. As such, your efforts are just silly. You might claim that I am just seeking an "argument fix", but in this situation, you are just wrong.

Actually, this one is "If I feel it is true, then I am justified to think that it is". The major problem with it is just that many different people feel different things are true. (This is a gross oversimplification of the belief, but, it is pretty correct, and the idea has a lot of problems with Islam and other religions being able to use the same justificatory framework)

@AG

You need to get your basic philosophy straight. Logical positivism and empiricism tend to be treated as schools that exist within the subject of verificationism (at least for the purposes of the study of verificationism). Though one can be one and not the others. Verificationism, everywhere I have seen it taught, has always been done so in this way.

My statement about the 'worm being the worm' is not a statement that it is impossible to ground belief in worms as properly basic. However, under verificationism, the worm can only be verified to be a worm, by verification, it presupposes its own accuracy. Hence why it fails to groud the belief as properly basic (since verification cannot be independently verified) since it tends to presuppose itself. This is verificationism 101.

As Chesterton said,
'if you cannot contemplate why a pumpkin goes on being a pumpkin, then you have not yet started to study philosophy'

No, logical positivism was strongly verificationist, while early empiricism was verificationist. Later empiricisms have varied strongly. For example, falsificationism is a non-verificationist empiricist paradigm developed by Karl Popper. There are a lot of empirical directions one can go without verificationism, it is just that the early empiricists, like most naive individuals, were verificationist. That being said, positivism is a form of empiricism. LOGICAL positivism was positivism plus a lot of rationalism, making it a different beast. I think I have my philosophy straight.


I think you'll have to phrase what you are saying better. Your use of terms seems to confuse the issue to me, as you seem to present a jumble. Try a step by step explanation with an eye towards the logical process engaged in. Perhaps even try to present a fake verificationist argument or some such.


And if you think Chesterton was much more than a rhetorician, then you have not begun to study philosophy. As it stands, pure metaphysical speculation, the thing that Chesterton is claiming at the heart of philosophy, is really the most useless element.

I'll create fake verificationist argument. Though this probably fits better in the 'argue against your own position' thread. I will make arguments for both strong and weak verificationism.

Strong

1. Verification entails that the statement, to be meaningful should be verifiable. Under strong verificationism, this requires testability and therefor naturalism. Under strong verificationism, that which cannot be verified, is a meaningless statement.

2. A table, being the same as another table is verifiable and therefor meaningful.

3. Statements relating to witnesses 2000 years ago are not verifiable.

4. Therefor the question 'did Jesus rise from the dead?' is a meaningless question.

Weak

1. Under weak verificationism, that which is most likely, despite being untestable, is the more properly basic belief.

i, This therefor 'favors' the naturalistic answer, which is always the more verifiable.

ii, Since in order to be naturalistic, it must be, in some way, testable.

2. A claim that Christ returned from the dead, is unlikely.

i, No one has ever risen from the dead after three days.

3. It is far more likely that almost 'any' naturalistic explantation (or combination of explanations) are to be true.

i, Naturalistic explanations are inherently testable and therefor more properly basic

4. Therefor, the belief that Christ returning from the dead is not the most basic, properly basic belief.

I hope now, this slightly different version, of the article posted, shows the inherent link I drew between the type of argument on offer.

No, it is democracy. I am not Socrates, but if I were, I would sit with you in the agora and get you to go through the catalogue of what you believe and I will just betcha SOME of your beliefs would turn out NOT to be grounded on the number of concurring witnesses. Then you would talk to the government and have them roll out the barrel of hemlock.

It's not just about witnesses. It's about cross-checking with them what we each see. Along with any physical evidence that strongly confirms what we see.

It's really a collective thing. Not just one factor for good enough evidence.

If people didnt have the copeacity to fib then I wouldnt have a problem taking anyones "testimony" as truth.

MCalavera:

"Fair to me because I don't have to deal with cognitive dissonance because of a religious book. It makes you feel quite liberated intellectually. You'd no longer have to believe in what you don't intellectually perceive as possible just because a book, that you've been conditioned to believe in as a book of divine source, says so.

But also it's fair to others because I no longer have to insult their intelligence."

A. NOBODY is compelling you to insult anyone's intelligence.

B. The last book I was conditioned to believe in - about the only one I have ever been conditioned to believe in - is the phone book. And I have learned over time it is not infallible - and these days durn hard to use.

C. I do not now believe - nor have I ever believed - in anything I do not intellectually perceive as possible. I do believe - and have believed - in some things that are counterintuitive when my intellect is supplied with strong evidence - thus I believe ennea-3s have an important role to play in humanity's development, and that TG [you don't know him, I hope - pretty bad] is neither insane nor stupid.

D. If it is not fair to discuss anything that might involve cognitive dissonance, ain't NOBODY gonna learn NOTHING. Good God, man, who - especially Wrong Planeteers - can live a day on this planet sans cognityive dissonance?

E. Are you going to avoid arguments I find dissonant in order to be fair?

Is it logical to assume that people are fibbing JUST BECAUSE they have the capacity to fib?

yes.