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]

Is it just me or is half this debate arguing over definitions; then when the other side disagrees, accusing them of being arrogant/stupid/dishonest?

If they are definitions there is nothing really to be wrong about, and neither side is "right" or "wrong" when people are using the same words differently and fighting about whats more acceptable there really is no debate.

THis is why definitions need to be agreed to ahead of time; its rather pointless arguing about definitions that all could be right if people agreed to them.

Instead we have 14 pages of people fighting about the precise.meaning of "argument" "evidence" and reasoning when most of these definitions are correct or at least ambiguois. The thing with definitions is they only make sense when we agree on them; if we use the terms differently then define ourselves to be correct, then there is even no point in having the debate.

Good point. Part of the problem is with the OP, which started out in attack mode:

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

With WP responding with:
"I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statment [sic]."
This was confusing from the beginning. Goat was right, arguments are not evidence. Arguments should be based on evidence.

The Washington Pattern Jury instruction, 1.02 Conclusion of Trial—Introductory Instruction, is... well... instructive:

The lawyers' remarks, statements, and arguments are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law. It is important, however, for you to remember that the lawyers' statements are not evidence. The evidence is the testimony and the exhibits. The law is contained in my instructions to you. You must disregard any remark, statement, or argument that is not supported by the evidence or the law in my instructions.
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/defa ... C&vr=2%2E0

[Nilloc James]

Also the words change depending on meaning. Law, science, math, literature: they all have differebt interpretations of what is an argument, and what is suficient evidence and/or proof.

To think we can get a certain answer just by disagreeing back and forth is silly.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 127 by Danmark]

"There's Something corrupt going on around my pants and I just can't seem to locate it"

Oh Shenanigans

[instantc]

Is it just me or is half this debate arguing over definitions; then when the other side disagrees, accusing them of being arrogant/stupid/dishonest?

If they are definitions there is nothing really to be wrong about, and neither side is "right" or "wrong" when people are using the same words differently and fighting about whats more acceptable there really is no debate.

THis is why definitions need to be agreed to ahead of time; its rather pointless arguing about definitions that all could be right if people agreed to them.

Instead we have 14 pages of people fighting about the precise.meaning of "argument" "evidence" and reasoning when most of these definitions are correct or at least ambiguois. The thing with definitions is they only make sense when we agree on them; if we use the terms differently then define ourselves to be correct, then there is even no point in having the debate.

I think the intention of the OP was to call out Goat for an inappropriate use of 'arguments are not evidence', which is a completely trivial sentence to begin with.

Suppose you and I are debating over 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I point out that if there were such a massive conspiracy, it would have very probably leaked at some point, somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. This is a persuasive and a completely relevant point to make. Now, you respond by saying 'arguments are not evidence'. What am I supposed to make out of that? Obviously I could most likely come up with some supporting evidence over time, but even before that the argument as such makes a strong point. If someone is going to dismiss it by saying something like 'arguments are not evidence', why would I have any interest to continue the conversation?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 127 by Danmark]

"There's Something corrupt going on around my pants and I just can't seem to locate it"

"Iffa you think we're'a crooked, we give you anotha' dollah."


I do what the voices in my pants tell me to do.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 102 by Goat]

Goat, I don't want to get stuck debating Galileo's thought experiment, since there are other simpler ways to make my point.

Now, you say that an argument cannot give us real information about the world, unless it contains evidence. Consider the following simple scenario.

You are being accused of murdering A in Washington and Assaulting B in Hong Kong, both of which allegedly happened at the same moment of time. I will put forward the following argument, listen closely:

1. It is logically impossible for a person to be in Washington and in Hong Kong at the same moment of time
2. Therefore you cannot be guilty of both of these crimes

It is clear that the above argument (1,2) doesn't contain any information from the world, just a simple logical deduction. Does (2) not count as real information to you? Is it not useful? Would your response be, 'But, your honor, arguments are not evidence! I demand that the defendant will be convicted for both of the crimes'?

[WinePusher]

Is it just me or is half this debate arguing over definitions; then when the other side disagrees, accusing them of being arrogant/stupid/dishonest?

If they are definitions there is nothing really to be wrong about, and neither side is "right" or "wrong" when people are using the same words differently and fighting about whats more acceptable there really is no debate.

THis is why definitions need to be agreed to ahead of time; its rather pointless arguing about definitions that all could be right if people agreed to them.

Instead we have 14 pages of people fighting about the precise.meaning of "argument" "evidence" and reasoning when most of these definitions are correct or at least ambiguois. The thing with definitions is they only make sense when we agree on them; if we use the terms differently then define ourselves to be correct, then there is even no point in having the debate.

I think the intention of the OP was to call out Goat for an inappropriate use of 'arguments are not evidence', which is a completely trivial sentence to begin with.

Suppose you and I are debating over 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I point out that if there were such a massive conspiracy, it would have very probably leaked at some point, somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. This is a persuasive and a completely relevant point to make. Now, you respond by saying 'arguments are not evidence'. What am I supposed to make out of that? Obviously I could most likely come up with some supporting evidence over time, but even before that the argument as such makes a strong point. If someone is going to dismiss it by saying something like 'arguments are not evidence', why would I have any interest to continue the conversation?

Yes, this is exactly my point. I'm surprised you actually agree with me on this issue considering our past disagreements over other various topics. Part of the problem with the way a lot of people debate is that they simply will dismiss an argument without any valid reason. The OP gives a clear example of that.

A user was asked to present evidence. The user presented a slew of arguments and all these arguments were dismissed cause, according to Goat, 'Arguments are not Evidence.' It is one to thing say that the arguments contain unconvincing evidence, or that the evidence presented does not sufficiently justify the conclusion. I agree that there is room for disagreement when it comes to a lot of the philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. I would have had no problem if Goat had explained why he thought the arguments were unsound, but instead he simply writes these arguments off because in his mind arguments cannot be used in place of evidence. That is simply incorrect.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 102 by Goat]

Goat, I don't want to get stuck debating Galileo's thought experiment, since there are other simpler ways to make my point.

Now, you say that an argument cannot give us real information about the world, unless it contains evidence. Consider the following simple scenario.

You are being accused of murdering A in Washington and Assaulting B in Hong Kong, both of which allegedly happened at the same moment of time. I will put forward the following argument, listen closely:

1. It is logically impossible for a person to be in Washington and in Hong Kong at the same moment of time
2. Therefore you cannot be guilty of both of these crimes

It is clear that the above argument (1,2) doesn't contain any information from the world, just a simple logical deduction. Does (2) not count as real information to you? Is it not useful? Would your response be, 'But, your honor, arguments are not evidence! I demand that the defendant will be convicted for both of the crimes'?

It is not an argument, you need at least 2 premises.
As I explained before, you needed real world information to write what you did. E.g. How did you know Washington and HK is not the same place? And you argued before a person can be guilty automatically until proven innocent by himself, and that murder is sometimes not unlawful killing, are you now taking that back?

I really do not get why you beat the same dead horse.
Please stop. It is getting embarrassing.

[JohnA]

Is it just me or is half this debate arguing over definitions; then when the other side disagrees, accusing them of being arrogant/stupid/dishonest?

If they are definitions there is nothing really to be wrong about, and neither side is "right" or "wrong" when people are using the same words differently and fighting about whats more acceptable there really is no debate.

THis is why definitions need to be agreed to ahead of time; its rather pointless arguing about definitions that all could be right if people agreed to them.

Instead we have 14 pages of people fighting about the precise.meaning of "argument" "evidence" and reasoning when most of these definitions are correct or at least ambiguois. The thing with definitions is they only make sense when we agree on them; if we use the terms differently then define ourselves to be correct, then there is even no point in having the debate.

I think the intention of the OP was to call out Goat for an inappropriate use of 'arguments are not evidence', which is a completely trivial sentence to begin with.

Suppose you and I are debating over 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I point out that if there were such a massive conspiracy, it would have very probably leaked at some point, somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. This is a persuasive and a completely relevant point to make. Now, you respond by saying 'arguments are not evidence'. What am I supposed to make out of that? Obviously I could most likely come up with some supporting evidence over time, but even before that the argument as such makes a strong point. If someone is going to dismiss it by saying something like 'arguments are not evidence', why would I have any interest to continue the conversation?

Yes, this is exactly my point. I'm surprised you actually agree with me on this issue considering our past disagreements over other various topics. Part of the problem with the way a lot of people debate is that they simply will dismiss an argument without any valid reason. The OP gives a clear example of that.

A user was asked to present evidence. The user presented a slew of arguments and all these arguments were dismissed cause, according to Goat, 'Arguments are not Evidence.' It is one to thing say that the arguments contain unconvincing evidence, or that the evidence presented does not sufficiently justify the conclusion. I agree that there is room for disagreement when it comes to a lot of the philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. I would have had no problem if Goat had explained why he thought the arguments were unsound, but instead he simply writes these arguments off because in his mind arguments cannot be used in place of evidence. That is simply incorrect.

Philosorcery works very similar to Theology:
Start with a conclusion and try to justify it using things that can not be proven/dis-proven, to argue it true. Religion actually just declares truth based on faith, and mostly do not bother justifying it.

Science and the real world does not work like that.
You let nature (real world evidence) do its thing and you make conclusion from that.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 133 by instantc]

Listen - I agree, well substantiated arguments are often used as support due to the evidence contained within it. Same goes for self evident arguments such as the one you gave as an example.

My gripe, is that technically, and yes - even sometimes semantically - arguments are not necessarily evidence. When one starts listing off arguments that are not sufficiently substantiated, and then tries to call them "evidence" I think calling that person out on it is very OK.

The whole thing stems from WP's post listing the arguments from teleology, cosmology, morality, ontological arguments, etc... as being proof positive that God exists - as if they are in themselves evidence, I'm sorry - this is where (due to my disagreement on their sufficiency) I would have no problem stating that arguments are not necessarily evidence.