This discussion is a tangent to the topic we started with, which was human rights based in self-evident truth.
<<“I find your logic very hard to follow.”>>
I am sorry but I think you may be over complicating it. The logic is simple.
1. As you presume, lack of hard evidence, on its own fails to prove an issue. However, lack of hard evidence on its own also does not prove the counter issue. For example lack of hard evidence, on its own fails to convict a criminal. However, it does not prove the criminal is innocent. Fortunately there are other types of evidence we consider valid.
2. I asked you to consider other types of evidence in the context of the abstract issues all of us agree are real. It would have helped you and it would have forwarded the discussion if you had. You refused to consider anything but empirical evidence which causes you to get bogged down when empirical evidence is not enough.
=================================================
Some other types of evidence:
Witness: Testimonials from witnesses or victims.
Anecdotal Evidence: Evidence describing experiences (example: Eye witnesses in a criminal trial).
Authority as evidence: The views of an impeccable authority are often entered as evidence.
Textual evidence: Words on a page which have been recognized as meaningful and sound upon review by their audience.
Self-Evidence: Provided that you understand a self-evident proposition, you believe it, and self-evident propositions are not in need of empirical proof. (Ex: I know that I am conscious, I can’t provide empirical proof, just the same, I believe it to be true.) A denial of self-evident truth would be contradictory.
Reasonable Person: The conduct of a reasonable person is the manner of an average Joe or Josephine (not saint, sinner, hero, miscreant, or mentally ill).
Circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence requires you to make an inference to draw a conclusion of fact. |
