Do You Always Need Cold Hard Evidence?
Do you think an argument is truly justifiable without any substantial form of evidence at all, although it may sound rational?
Burden of Proof
Philosophy often gets a bad reputation because, unlike science, it can start with speculation and end with speculation.
That is, philosophers can assert nonsensical claims with absolutely 0 justification and their work can still be considered genuine philosophy.
Fortunately, philosophers have developed something called: "the burden of proof"; essentially, the principle of the burden of proof statistics that the claimant (the one making a claim) is under an obligation to provide reasonable evidence or supporting argumentation for his or her claims.
Conversely, it also states that the skeptic (the one the claimant is attempting to prove a claim to) is under no obligation to disprove a positive proposition until, and only until, proper evidence has surfaced.
Difference between Ignorance and Absence of Proof
The argument from ignorance is an argument which states that a proposition is false based on the fact that there is no evidence supporting such a statement.
- Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.
Moreover, I would argue that the argument from ignorance is valid in many cases. For example, imagine you are to claim that 500 men will destroy the United States tomorrow; tomorrow passes, and the United States has remained intact. The absence of evidence, in this case, can safely be said to be evidence of absence.
- "In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
— Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95"
Problems
Most of the time a big part of philosophy is to see with subjective eyes, it involves reason which operates from an inner level, dare I say intuition? See this is where I get kinda ticked, people disregard anything that seems too far out of the realm of facts and science. I mean the basis of philosophy is analyzing your ideas relative to life. Your relationship towards life doesn't come from outside of yourself.
I leave you with a quote:
What are your thoughts?
Thank You for Reading
Congratulations @arckrai! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThought-provoking post. There are things that I believe subjectively, that perhaps evidence has not caught up to. However, these things which I may believe (because of intuition or deductive reasoning) but do not quite have sufficient evidence for as of yet, I can not expect others to adhere to blindly. I can not deny these beliefs, either.
That is the problem as the argument being proposed my have some substance but with a lack of evidence may not be supported but should it be supported less than sometime with evidence or should both cases be treated equally in the world of philosophy.
Science is based on empirical fact and evidence, and philosophy concerns itself with reason and values. There are some philosophers who use empirical facts as the basis for their reasons, but there are some that do not. I think it's up to the individual to adhere to his own reason, but within the larger context of fact.
Visit my blog if you have some time
https://steemit.com/education/@therussianmonk/the-need-for-an-education-revolution
I just discovered all your work on Steemit. I'm looking forward to following your posts in the future. Philosophy is one of my main interests.
Thank you @seablue
I'm loving the James Allen posts and your support is highly appreciated.
You planning to blog anytime soon?
When my fear of missing out on the rise of Steem and Steemit reaches critical levels, I tend to post. :-)
The realization that the time to act is now overcomes my default mode of doing what is easy and pleasurable. ;-)
Just wondering if you can show me a study proving this? If not must be false.
Always hate that people can not make their own judgment calls.
One of my fav posts. Well done.
upped.
Nice work. Keep it up. I suspect you and I will be often interacting on steemit. If you continue to write such things then you are helping with what I personally think we need to be doing to make the world a better place. Free the minds. Viva Critical Thinking!
I agree more people need to open their minds rather than to live in fear of breaking out of their comfort zone and defying societies broken structure.
We are controlled and dictated like cattle and we have to leave this metaphorical farm that we are entrapped in to see it and this is only done by freeing our minds.
Thank you for your support.
Interesting but I have found with ignorance they don't care if there is fact supporting the argument , something is still wrong with your claim and they are to blind to see it !! Great post
Some will argue till there blue in the face with no logic or evidence, I just turn away and smile :)
Empiricism is concerned with establishing truth by means of scientific test and how we experience the world through our senses, but this ignores human values and tends to ignore anything that cannot be explained scientifically. It puts too much emphasis on science for my liking. I'd rather be the critical rationalist that I am, explore options and keep an open mind.
Science deals with measurable occurrences in life whereas Philosophy deals with the meaning of life itself, which is immeasurable. The application of the rigor of the scientific method to philosophy is based on the assumption that simple, universal truths exist and that an arbiter exists, to tell us what is true and what is not, whether it be a god or the consensus of modern society. In truth, everybody sees the world a little differently, there are many, many things we pretend to know that we really have very little information about (scientific findings of today, for example, may be disproved years from now) and all you can do is to see the world with your own eyes, and not through the eyes of someone else. I'm not saying that you should ignore science, but that life is not as certain as we may let ourselves think.