Arguments are not Evidence

[WinePusher]

Of course, one thing that it seems many people can not understand, arguments are not evidence.

I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statment. I've pointed out many times that using arguments in place of evidence is not inappropriate. An argument uses evidence within its premises, so it's completely absurd to say that arguments are not evidence. I've pointed this out to Goat and, of course, he ignores me and continues to repeat this nonsense despite the fact that it's been refuted by multiple people on this forum. This is also a debate forum, and arguments are used in debate.

Questions:

1) Is there any distinction between arguments and evidence? Is one superior to the other?

2) Is it appropriate to use arguments when debating issues about Christianity and Apologetics?

[Star]

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

[Star]

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

I think it stated that arguments are usually a main idea, often called a claim, or thesis statement. Am I wrong? Of course, the argument persists much longer than the thesis, when evidence is provided, as I said.

[10CC]

Wine Pusher - so if I put forward an argument for the existance of sasquatch, does this mean you must automatically accept it as Evidence?

Yes, only if it contains valid and sound premises. If you present an argument that utilizes things like large footprint casts, eyewitness testimony, photographs etc then it would absolutely be evidence. You continue to forget that the argument I present have evidence within the premises. The cosmological argument uses the beginning of the universe as evidence, the fine tuning argument uses the complexity of the universe as evidence, the moral argument uses the existence of objective moral truths as evidence, etc. You may disagree with the evidence and find it unconvincing but that is besides the point. The point is that I have adequately supported my claim with those arguments.

Prove that the universe had a beginning.
Prove that the universe is complex in comparison to what?
Prove that objective morality exists.

Your premises are based upon your subjective reasoning and therefore not on evidence.

No, these premises are all facts. I've gone into detail on this in my Evidence for God's Existence thread. Yes, there is some room for doubt when it comes to objective morality but it is a fact that the universe had a beginning and is fine tuned for life. I've explained this in detail and provided relevant sources to support this. If you have a problem with these facts you can go to that thread and take it up there.

It takes one alternative lifeform on only one of the trillions of planets to blow fine tuning outa the universe. Checked any planets lately, your sample of one is meaningless in light of your contention.
The universe has always existed by many measures including but not limited to the BB. The universe exists and expands when time begins, ergo the universe has always existed.
There isn't room for doubt as your holy blook makes perfectly clear, objective morality does not exist.

Your arguments are not based on evidence ergo your arguments are not evidence.

[JohnA]

Do you or do you not agree that if a theory contradicts itself logically, we can rule it out without testing it empirically? .

What logic are we using. Boolean, predicate logic, Hegelian, fuzzy and many valued logic (there are many), modal, intuitionistic (does not except excluded middle or double negation), paraconsistent (non classic that treats contradictory information as informative) etc.

To be honest I'd be inclined to stick with classic two valued logic and say yes.

Just answer yes or no

But here's the problem. How do we know that we have been thorough and worked through every possibility including concepts we are as yet to think up. Let's say we have a theory that classic logic and our best models says is a inconsistent, and we do a series of experiments that shows this theory is not only very accurate but makes correct predictions other valid theories just can't explain. I suspect we change our logic. Schrödinger invented his famous cat is both dead and alive thought experiment to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation. What happens now? The contradiction is used to illuminate what it is supposed to disprove. Go figure.

Maybe the correct approach is to call out contradictions where we find them, and collect evidence as best we can, and try to explain the data with the least number of contradictions using the most plausible logic. But we may end up with a view of reality and a logic that is a long way from both common sense and any simple logic we might draw with Venn diagrams. When evidence contradicts our ingrained sensibilities I think evidence wins.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be problematic, nor do I want to exaggerate the usefulness of logical analysis. Goat here, whom I was talking to, thinks that even if a theory suggests two mutually exclusive outcomes, we cannot rule out that theory without testing it around in a laboratory. That is an odd position indeed that makes debating very frustrating and difficult.

As I said before, to convince anyone of a claim, you need all 3 (in this order):

1. Logic
2. Argument
3. Evidence

None of these can stand on their own. The only way you can have a Sound Valid Argument is to employ EVIDENCE (observable/testable)

If you differ, then give me one, just one Sound Argument or just one Valid Argument without the use of evidence that can convert a claim into a conclusion (fact).

Just one, and I will admit defeat.

And yes, I agree with Goat.
Have you ever heard of the two slit experiment? Try to explain that without evidence. Can you?

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 39 by WinePusher]

It is absolutely not a fact that the universe had a beginning, and is fine tuned for life (fine tuned is a loaded term that insinuates a tuner). Find me the scientific works that establish this as a fact and we might be getting somewhere.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 39 by WinePusher]

It is absolutely not a fact that the universe had a beginning, and is fine tuned for life (fine tuned is a loaded term that insinuates a tuner). Find me the scientific works that establish this as a fact and we might be getting somewhere.

Winepusher's claims (not arguments as he has none) was defeated here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 220#605220

Am not sure why Winepusher refuses to address it.

I suspect his mistake is his reasoning that being rational makes him less of a person. It doesn't. He can be rational too, but I don't think he'll ever relinquish his faith based belief. It is too precious to him, which is why debate with him is pointless because he adopted some authority's faith.

[olavisjo]

.

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

I think it stated that arguments are usually a main idea, often called a claim, or thesis statement. Am I wrong? Of course, the argument persists much longer than the thesis, when evidence is provided, as I said.

The argument is not the claim, the main idea is often called the claim or thesis statement.

[Furrowed Brow]

It is the lack of verification that makes them claims

Would the lack of verification also make your argument (Arguments are not Evidence) nothing but a claim?

It would be a clarification of the meaning of words, and a showing up that words "evidence" and "argument" lose coherence when equated as WinePusher suggests. The stance you takes on the matter will define what counts as clear thinking for you.

Here are two arguments that need no evidence.

A)

• 1. Si Cogito igitur sum
  2. Cogito
  3. Ergo sum

This argument is in the form modus ponendo ponens. It is accepted as valid because when one thinks about it.....it just is valid.....and that is the only reason we accept it as a valid argument form. And that is why it needs no further evidence than checking it meets with the rules of a valid argument form.

And of course folk are welcome to say modus ponens is not valid or introduce arguments forms like P -> Q, P therefore Not Q. But folk who do dot find these alternatives valid will just find this a really bad way to think. But for someone who thinks this way is not going to be persuaded by all the examples of what we think counts as valid argument.

B)

• 1. If arguments are not evidence then this argument is not evidence
  2. Arguments are not evidence
  3. Therefore this argument is not evidence

This argument invokes self reference and self reference is notorious for introducing paradox into logical argument. But passing over the problems of paradox the simple answer is to say yes to line 3. The whole argument is not evidence of its validity, it is an example of what we think counts as valid.

[Furrowed Brow]

.

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

I think it stated that arguments are usually a main idea, often called a claim, or thesis statement. Am I wrong? Of course, the argument persists much longer than the thesis, when evidence is provided, as I said.

The argument is not the claim, the main idea is often called the claim or thesis statement.

This is how I'm looking at it.

Claim + evidence + logical form = argument
Argument - claim - logical form = evidence

The argument is not evidence and does not imply it is evidence.

[Star]

.

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

I think it stated that arguments are usually a main idea, often called a claim, or thesis statement. Am I wrong? Of course, the argument persists much longer than the thesis, when evidence is provided, as I said.

The argument is not the claim, the main idea is often called the claim or thesis statement.

It wasn't my source. The main point here is that arguments are not evidence. Arguments use evidence to support claims.