Skip to main content

New answers tagged

0 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; any claim extending beyond human perception of reality can neither be proven nor disproven. As a result, a virtually infinite number of claims can be ...
alanf's user avatar
  • 8,044
-1 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

The argument works extremely well when fortified. In particular, it needs a strong explanation of what we mean by "natural" so that we can be confident that our empirical approach has not ...
Corbin's user avatar
  • 1,589
2 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

That sounds similar to David Hume's (lesser known?) argument about the non-existence of miracles. Instead of imagining an infinite number of contradictory possible claims, he write there are many ...
Owen Reynolds's user avatar
3 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims? Poorly, I'm afraid. Summary The argument makes unsupported assumptions, including assuming the ...
John Bollinger's user avatar
5 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

Most philosophy is going to take a pause and reflect your first line: Human perception is solely naturalistic; as such, empiricism and logic generated by human perception and interpretation of ...
Ted Wrigley's user avatar
  • 21.2k
0 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

The argument fails because a lot of supernatural claims start with the claim "I experienced something supernatural". Which is very much in the realm of the senses, but still unfalsifiable ...
kutschkem's user avatar
  • 2,699
14 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

A review on the strength of argument: Human perception is solely naturalistic This is an assumption, but due to the mind-body problem it is not general consensus in philosophy. Some would claim mind ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 4,956
4 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

To investigate further the question of unfalsifiable supernatural claims it could be helpful to provide some examples of specific candidates for unfalsifiable claims. Just to provide a data basis for ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 34.4k
4 votes

How well does the following argument work as a counter towards unfalsifiable supernatural claims?

"any claim extending beyond human perception of reality can neither be proven nor disproven." This a metaphysical presupposition of methodological naturalism. The vast majority of humans, as ...
J D's user avatar
  • 29.1k
1 vote

How strong is the argument for quantum mind theory?

See too June 2024: "Testing the Conjecture That Quantum Processes Create Conscious Experience" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38920469/ "Here, we present a novel proposal: Conscious ...
David Pearce's user avatar
0 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

If a person says "I believe X because I believe A, B, C, and D are true, and that the combination of A, B, C, and D proves X", then their conclusion would be unsound if any of A, B, C, or D ...
supercat's user avatar
  • 248
0 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

Verum that for any proposition p that comes up in discourse, p must always be accompanied by justification. So if p = There are unicorns in the garage, Alice has to justify p. If ¬p = There are no ...
Hudjefa's user avatar
  • 4,331
14 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

The concept of a "burden of proof" is fundamentally misguided, because everyone has a duty to justify their beliefs. Whether you think A, or whether you think not-A, you need a reason! And ...
causative's user avatar
  • 14.7k
0 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

No. This is not shifting of the burden of proof. If you provide evidence for your beliefs and then ask for debate or investigation of evidence then it is called proper engagement of verification of ...
SacrificialEquation's user avatar
2 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

Yes. A claimant of an unusual claim has the philosophical burden of proof, they cannot rationally demand others to invest effort. This is not necessarily about heated debate, but just common sense. ...
tkruse's user avatar
  • 4,956
7 votes

Is it a "shifting of the burden of proof" if I show evidence in favor of a position, and ask the audience to debate that evidence if they disagree?

You ask: Is Alice here really fairly shifting the burden of proof or is she committing what Bennett considers a fallacy? She actually came up with proof for her position, and offered to debate those ...
J D's user avatar
  • 29.1k

Top 50 recent answers are included