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?

[JohnA]

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.

For some unknown reason instantc seems to reject friction as a known force.

Previously instantc tried to argue that thought experiments outweigh sceintific physical experiments and offered Emmy Noether's theorem. He argues that all you need is some logic (Noether's theorem and no concrete experiments) to show that the law of conservation of energy holds with any set of laws of physics that are invariant through time.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 141#598141

Am not sure why instantc thinks that logic (arguments with no evidence or accounting for friction forces) can outweigh concrete experiments. This is just an example of flawed reasoning in my opinion.

[instantc]

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.

I'm fully in agreement. When you asked whether I can defend the argument without evidence, I thought you meant physical evidence, since the dispute was about whether or not an argument can be sound without containing empirical data from the natural world. Obviously some form of evidence is required to back up any claim that is not self-evident.

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.

No, it doesn't explain how gravity works, for that we need experiments. But, it does give us valuable information about the world.

[Goat]

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.

I'm fully in agreement. When you asked whether I can defend the argument without evidence, I thought you meant physical evidence, since the dispute was about whether or not an argument can be sound without containing empirical data from the natural world. Obviously some form of evidence is required to back up any claim that is not self-evident.

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.

No, it doesn't explain how gravity works, for that we need experiments. But, it does give us valuable information about the world.

I disagree. It gives us information about 'what can we test', but until it can be tested, it's not 'information about the world'.

[instantc]

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.

I'm fully in agreement. When you asked whether I can defend the argument without evidence, I thought you meant physical evidence, since the dispute was about whether or not an argument can be sound without containing empirical data from the natural world. Obviously some form of evidence is required to back up any claim that is not self-evident.

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.

No, it doesn't explain how gravity works, for that we need experiments. But, it does give us valuable information about the world.

I disagree. It gives us information about 'what can we test', but until it can be tested, it's not 'information about the world'.

You do realize that even in the paper that you cited the author accepted that a modified version of that thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive, don't you? In any case, you must accept that at least some theories involve such brutal contradictions that they can be ruled out apriori without experiments by logicians? How is that not information about the world?

[Goat]

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.

I'm fully in agreement. When you asked whether I can defend the argument without evidence, I thought you meant physical evidence, since the dispute was about whether or not an argument can be sound without containing empirical data from the natural world. Obviously some form of evidence is required to back up any claim that is not self-evident.

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.

No, it doesn't explain how gravity works, for that we need experiments. But, it does give us valuable information about the world.

I disagree. It gives us information about 'what can we test', but until it can be tested, it's not 'information about the world'.

You do realize that even in the paper that you cited the author accepted that a modified version of that thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive, don't you? In any case, you must accept that at least some theories involve such brutal contradictions that they can be ruled out apriori without experiments by logicians? How is that not information about the world?

Yet, without verification, it means nothing. All the though experiments in the world do nothing without a means to show that they are true. They might point out avenues of experimentation.

Let's suppose that Galileo's experiment showed that heavier objects indeed fall faster. What would that to to Aristotle's arguments and theories?

[instantc]

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.

I'm fully in agreement. When you asked whether I can defend the argument without evidence, I thought you meant physical evidence, since the dispute was about whether or not an argument can be sound without containing empirical data from the natural world. Obviously some form of evidence is required to back up any claim that is not self-evident.

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.

No, it doesn't explain how gravity works, for that we need experiments. But, it does give us valuable information about the world.

I disagree. It gives us information about 'what can we test', but until it can be tested, it's not 'information about the world'.

You do realize that even in the paper that you cited the author accepted that a modified version of that thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive, don't you? In any case, you must accept that at least some theories involve such brutal contradictions that they can be ruled out apriori without experiments by logicians? How is that not information about the world?

Yet, without verification, it means nothing.

Let me get this straight, you accept that certain theories about the world can be ruled out as contradictory on basis of logical analysis, and you accept that this gives us limited information about the world, but yet it means nothing to you?

Are we discussing facts here, or has this whole conversation been about your personal statement that certain bits of information don't mean anything to you, that you simply don't like certain methods of acquiring information?

[EduChris]

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

Arguments can proceed strictly within the realm of logic. Evidence seems to require at least the semblance of some physical component. Evidence without argument is useless; therefore, arguments are foundational.

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

It is impossible not to employ arguments whenever there is any debate about anything.

[Goat]

Let me get this straight, you accept that certain theories about the world can be ruled out as contradictory on basis of logical analysis, and you accept that this gives us limited information about the world, but yet it means nothing to you?

Are we discussing facts here, or has this whole conversation been about your personal statement that certain bits of information don't mean anything to you, that you simply don't like certain methods of acquiring information?

Just because an argument is contradictory (and, you have yet to respond , except by pure dismissal, the article I post that showed that 'strongly suggest' is not the same as actual contradiction in the case of the Aristotle argument), does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

You see, you can have a totally invalid argument, yet, have a valid conclusion.

Just because Galileo had a different idea about the rate at which the objects falls, and rejected the Aristotle conclusion based on perceived contradictions didn't mean Galileo was right (although verification showed he was).

I mean, it is obvious that a single light particle can not go through two different slits at the same time, isn't it.. that would be a contradiction!@

[instantc]

Just because an argument is contradictory, does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

You are way off here. In Aristotelian theory of gravity, it's the conclusion that contradicts itself. I'm sorry but that does mean that the conclusion is wrong.

(and, you have yet to respond , except by pure dismissal, the article I post that showed that 'strongly suggest' is not the same as actual contradiction in the case of the Aristotle argument)

Notice that even that author accepted that a modified version of the thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive. Since I am not a particular fan of Galileo, that makes my point just as well. In any case, I'd rather trust the consensus of the relevant academic community, even if you could find a single author who disagrees.

David Hume has also argued that our observations of the laws of physics merely 'strongly suggest' that those laws will hold tomorrow, it's not the same as actually knowing that they do. So it seems that your experimental method cannot do any better than strong suggestions either.

[Goat]

Just because an argument is contradictory, does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

You are way off here. In Aristotelian theory of gravity, it's the conclusion that contradicts itself. I'm sorry but that does mean that the conclusion is wrong.

(and, you have yet to respond , except by pure dismissal, the article I post that showed that 'strongly suggest' is not the same as actual contradiction in the case of the Aristotle argument)

Notice that even that author accepted that a modified version of the thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive. Since I am not a particular fan of Galileo, that makes my point just as well. In any case, I'd rather trust the consensus of the relevant academic community, even if you could find a single author who disagrees.

David Hume has also argued that our observations of the laws of physics merely 'strongly suggest' that those laws will hold tomorrow, it's not the same as actually knowing that they do. So it seems that your experimental method cannot do any better than strong suggestions either.

Which, basically, shows why much of philosophy is full of nonsense. People hold up such stupid arguments , so they can dismiss what IS known, and so they can hold onto what can not be shown to be true.

This does really point out that 'arguments are not evidence', since the evidence is 'strongly suggests', .. and zero evidence to contrary...

To say that the possibility is otherwise is just an argument, not evidence.