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?

[Danmark]

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?

Of course there is a distinction between argument and evidence. Goat is correct. Persuasive arguments are based on evidence. Arguments themselves are not evidence. At law this distinction is clear and necessary. A frequent objection to a closing argument in a trial is that it argues facts than are not in evidence before the court.

The OP confuses this necessary distinction between the argument itself and the evidence it is based upon.

[otseng]

All we have here is a failed attempt to ask for clarification, but we do have a great example of dodging the question. Well done - that is a complement to you!

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Star]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

I don't agree with this.

The logic itself is sound, but we're taking it on your word that it has two mutually-exclusive consequences and that neither can be true. To agree with you, I'd have to look at the evidence to ensure these premises are accurate.

A alternative conclusion could be that it turns out they're not actually mutually exclusive consequences, or one isn't a consequence, or sometimes one can be true while the other false.

Of course, I don't actually support theory, but to the objections I raised, try defending your argument without evidence.

[otseng]

Is this a theist that are trying to confuse the facts with nonsense; con man selling to the fools?

Moderator Warning


Please do not accuse another of being a con man.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

Please pay attention this time.

Moderator Warning


This would not be a civil and respectful comment. Stop telling others to pay attention and stop saying that you're the only one paying attention.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[instantc]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

I don't agree with this.

The logic itself is sound, but we're taking it on your word that it has two mutually-exclusive consequences and that neither can be true. To agree with you, I'd have to look at the evidence to ensure these premises are accurate.

A alternative conclusion could be that it turns out they're not actually mutually exclusive consequences, or one isn't a consequence, or sometimes one can be true while the other false.

Of course, I don't actually support theory, but to the objections I raised, try defending your argument without evidence.

The justification for (1) is a famous thought experiment, I'll explain it in a nutshell, even though for it to be fully logically decisive, a more detailed analysis will be required.

In Aristotle's view that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. Now, Galileo thought about this and realized that it cannot possibly be true. If a heavy body and a light body are dropped at the same time, according to this theory, the heavy one would reach the ground first. If they are chained together firmly, however, they would make an even heavier object and they should fall even faster, while at the same time the lighter body would have to work as a kind of a brake for the heavy body. Therefore, Aristotelian gravity is not a logically consistent theory and couldn't possibly apply in the real world.

[JohnA]

double post. removed

[JohnA]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

I don't agree with this.

The logic itself is sound, but we're taking it on your word that it has two mutually-exclusive consequences and that neither can be true. To agree with you, I'd have to look at the evidence to ensure these premises are accurate.

A alternative conclusion could be that it turns out they're not actually mutually exclusive consequences, or one isn't a consequence, or sometimes one can be true while the other false.

Of course, I don't actually support theory, but to the objections I raised, try defending your argument without evidence.

The justification for (1) is a famous thought experiment, I'll explain it in a nutshell, even though for it to be fully logically decisive, a more detailed analysis will be required.

In Aristotle's view that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. Now, Galileo thought about this and realized that it cannot possibly be true. If a heavy body and a light body are dropped at the same time, according to this theory, the heavy one would reach the ground first. If they are chained together firmly, however, they would make an even heavier object and they should fall even faster, while at the same time the lighter body would have to work as a kind of a brake for the heavy body. Therefore, Aristotelian gravity is not a logically consistent theory and couldn't possibly apply in the real world.

Can you also state the assumptions (methodological, conceptual, causal, theoretical) and previous evidence that Galileo had in order to formulate this though experiment?
Also state how this thought experiment came to be accepted by science.

More questions:
How did Galileo ensure that other causes of the rate of fall (except gravity) have been controlled, can be controlled?
What will happen if the experiment is near a big magnetic field or in a hurricane or if the observers are lunatics? Would it still yield this contradiction?
How did Galileo ensure that it does indeed falls under the Aristotelian theory (i.e. was it unnatural in Aristotelian theory to tie two masses together, did Aristotelian theory cater for vacuums?)

Do you agree that thought experiments are epistemically derivative, unlike concrete experiments?

Do you agree that:
1) Thought experiments, never precede theories and cannot be conducted independently of them, unlike concrete experiments that be used to independently of and prior to any theorising?
2) The validity of a thought experiment always depends on the results of similar concrete experiments
3) Thought experiments do not have a life of their own because their epistemic worth is derivative from other, concrete experiments

The Galilean thought experiments function by assuming the truth of an aspect of Aristotelian physics and deriving a contradiction from it. This Galileo experiment would not have been possible without evidence of Aristotelian physics.

You need to have experience (real world evidence) with a situation that is relevantly similar to the thought experimental situation for this thought experiment to yield what we know from real experiments (or observations = evidence). Without it, the thought experimental result amounts to mere wishful thinking. In other words, you can not control nature with thought, only concrete experiments allows nature to answer (again, 2 slit experiment example that you fail to address).

Intuitions (wishful thinking, thought experiments) can not give the same answer as nature, and it flawed reasoning to think it can.

I hope you find this useful and bury this though experiment wishful thinking for ever in this forum. Though experiments have a use, but is in NO WAY a substitute for concrete real experiments and is NEVER valid on their own.


If you differ, then address my points/questions one by one, and you yourself with get the same answer as science did.

[Star]

Yes, it appears to be a famous thought experiment by Galileo. He deduced that Aristotle's theory of gravity (heavier objects fall faster) isn't logically possible because it requires two mutually-exclusive outcomes.

If Aristotle is right, two balls of differing mass dropped at the same time won't reach the ground at the same time. But if you tie them together, it should slow the heavier ball, but also speed it up, because it's now a heavier object with more gravity pulling it. Both outcomes can't be true.

Anything moving "slower" (like a parachute which uses surface area to increase drag/resistance) will slow any faster-moving objects it's tethered to. But, it also adds to the overall weight, and thus, this particular claim by Aristotle is debunked.

This requires evidence to explain. I needed to read further into this before agreeing. The information provided in itself wasn't enough. It also doesn't explain how gravity really works. Galileo didn't stop there. He did experiments and devised a formula. Newton, Einstein, and Higgs had to help improve our understanding further still.

[JohnA]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

I don't agree with this.

The logic itself is sound, but we're taking it on your word that it has two mutually-exclusive consequences and that neither can be true. To agree with you, I'd have to look at the evidence to ensure these premises are accurate.

A alternative conclusion could be that it turns out they're not actually mutually exclusive consequences, or one isn't a consequence, or sometimes one can be true while the other false.

Of course, I don't actually support theory, but to the objections I raised, try defending your argument without evidence.

The justification for (1) is a famous thought experiment, I'll explain it in a nutshell, even though for it to be fully logically decisive, a more detailed analysis will be required.

In Aristotle's view that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. Now, Galileo thought about this and realized that it cannot possibly be true. If a heavy body and a light body are dropped at the same time, according to this theory, the heavy one would reach the ground first. If they are chained together firmly, however, they would make an even heavier object and they should fall even faster, while at the same time the lighter body would have to work as a kind of a brake for the heavy body. Therefore, Aristotelian gravity is not a logically consistent theory and couldn't possibly apply in the real world.

The justification for (1) is a famous thought experiment

Actually, that is not a justification at all. What are probably meant to wrote is that the EVIDENCE for (1) is a famous (Galileo) thought experiment.
A premise is an assumption that something is true. You need to show it is true, and you need evidence for that, not a justification.
A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. So, a justification in an argument is merely if your premises are true, then the conclusion is justified as true. You need evidence to justify a premise.

Star asked you here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 113#608113 to try defending your argument without evidence.

You failed, because you provided EVIDENCE to try and show one of your premises (1) true.

Have your cake and eat it?

Furthermore, I argued here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 204#608204 that thought experiments are not sufficient evidence. Therefore, your premise (1) can not be shows/argued true, because your 'insufficient evidence' can not sufficient to show it true; Intuitions (wishful thinking, thought experiments) can not give the same answer as nature, and it flawed reasoning to think it can.
And even if you persist that a thought experiment is justification and not evidence (sufficient or not), you still fail because your 'justification' comes in short of the mark (it can not show your premise true).

This statement below from you is therefore patently absurdly false:

In any case, it is inescapable that if a theory contradicts itself logically, it doesn't apply in the real world.

Goat stated here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 038#608038 that the 'two mutually exclusive consequences' are 'strongly suggested', not actual. So, your premise (2) fails, falls short; you gave no evidence and your consequences could be both true.

Your Conclusion does not follow inescapably from the premises, because
1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Can be reduced to:

P entails Q.
Q is false.
Therefore, P is false

So, your argument is not even valid because you failed to establish the causal relationships.
That is in addition to your premises (1 and 2) are not correct, the conclusion drawn is therefore an error.
(heavier objects do fall faster than lighter one because of friction in the real world, the parachute example above by Star shows Aristotelian gravity theory 'can' apply to the real world).

That is besides the fact that we do not have a full explanation for gravity today. We have some understanding of the mechanisms (force or spacetime curvature and/or the Higgs Boson that gives things mass)

In conclusion do you agree that this quote from you is false?:

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever

btw. How can it be demonstrated if there is no evidence needed as you claim?)

And that your little argument falls flat?