In this episode I respond to Matt Dillahunty's position that claims are not evidence and show why it is not a true or even helpful epistemic truism to hold.
Found this episode (good job) and podcast. The initial impression regarding Dillahunty's claim (as presented here, I have not read his material yet) is as follows: Key question, upon what basis (evidence) is the assertion "claims are not evidence" made? Science does not support this claim. Science (and the philosophy of science) relies upon claims (even some without support, yet). Logic does not support this claim. Logic does not address this issue (though one will attempt a logical argument for/against it). Historical claims cannot support this claim. It seems that the claim "no claim is evidence" can only be accepted based upon the claim itself. Yet that is contrary to his point (self-refuting nature of this position). Thank you for your podcast.
Proportion credibility and probability to what’s being claimed. Matt could have simply said accounts can be a -weak- form of evidence, and he has acknowledged another form of weak evidence in the discussion with Peterson.
You quibble over the indeterminate difference between weak vs non.
Found this episode (good job) and podcast. The initial impression regarding Dillahunty's claim (as presented here, I have not read his material yet) is as follows:
ReplyDeleteKey question, upon what basis (evidence) is the assertion "claims are not evidence" made?
Science does not support this claim. Science (and the philosophy of science) relies upon claims (even some without support, yet).
Logic does not support this claim. Logic does not address this issue (though one will attempt a logical argument for/against it).
Historical claims cannot support this claim.
It seems that the claim "no claim is evidence" can only be accepted based upon the claim itself. Yet that is contrary to his point (self-refuting nature of this position).
Thank you for your podcast.
Proportion credibility and probability to what’s being claimed. Matt could have simply said accounts can be a -weak- form of evidence, and he has acknowledged another form of weak evidence in the discussion with Peterson.
ReplyDeleteYou quibble over the indeterminate difference between weak vs non.