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?

[instantc]

[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.

We are mostly in agreement. All of those arguments have flaws that can be pointed out and discussed. The reason why we make arguments is that organizing all the supporting knowledge into premises, from which the claimed conclusions follow logically, makes the discussion much easier. If the argument is in the form of a valid deduction, then something has to give, either the conclusion is correct or one or more premises are unsupported. It is understandably irritating if one simply dismisses the whole argument without bothering to point out where the problem lies.

Consider that your boss were about to fire you. When asked for a reason, he cannot point to a single thing that you haven't done perfectly, but he insists that your overall performance is not satisfactory. It then becomes quite evident that his dismissal is not based on objective facts, but merely on some sort of a gut feeling. The boss may have the right to do that, but debaters owe each other the courtesy of going through each others arguments point by point.

[Danmark]

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.

It is true that using 'arguments are not evidence' by itself does not refute the evidence that may support the argument.

But the phrase, 'arguments are not evidence' is nonetheless correct. And that is how this conversation got started. Perhaps it is helpful to borrow from your response.

1. It is certainly proper to say "the argument is unsound." That may be the case even if the evidence that supports it is good evidence.
2. It is also proper to say "the argument is sound, but there is no evidence to support the argument."

The problem with this entire discussion is the conflation of the two concepts, argument with evidence.

One can make an argument without evidence; it simply won't be persuasive.

Evidence can exist without argument. It is the application of argument to the evidence that is persuasive.

[Goat]

[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 logically impossible for someone to be two places at the same time (see the double split experiment, where a photon is two places at the same time.

However, from experimental data, macro level being, such as humans, can not be.
We have empirical data showing that a person can not be two places at the same time, so , that is an argument based on evidence.

The argument is self iit not evidence, it is an observation of how the world works.

[WinePusher]

One can make an argument without evidence; it simply won't be persuasive.

I have a problem with this statement. I am honestly sitting here thinking through various different arguments in my head and I can't think of a single one that does not use evidence. I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

[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'?

It is not logically impossible for someone to be two places at the same time (see the double split experiment, where a photon is two places at the same time.

You are actually right here, this was a poorly thought hasty example on my part.

[Danmark]

One can make an argument without evidence; it simply won't be persuasive.

I have a problem with this statement. I am honestly sitting here thinking through various different arguments in my head and I can't think of a single one that does not use evidence. I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

Actually, I have to admit I agree. I recently wrote, on the 'show me the evidence' subtopic:

"It also reinforces the importance of how we define 'evidence,' and that the real issue is the value, type, and amount of evidence.

Which brings up a word that has been misused repeatedly on this forum, 'epistemology.' Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with defining knowledge and how we acquire it. The sources of knowledge must be considered. Perception, reason, memory, testimony, revelation, introspection and innate ideas have been considered sources of knowledge. The word has been used as if it refers only to scientific empiricism. Sonof makes the argument that one source of knowledge is personal revelation. This is subjective by definition, and weak in terms of its value in producing knowledge or evidence that can be judged on an objective standard. It's product can still be called evidence, but it is evidence of a whole different order and value than [that] acquired empirically."

'Evidence,' broadly defined, is anything that tends to support an assertion.

So I admit I was wrong to say 'One can make an argument without evidence; it simply won't be persuasive.' Because I have trouble too, making a coherent argument without evidence.

My mind rebells at the attempt. For example:

'Trees do not grow. In support of this statement I have watched a lot of trees, and I have never seen one grow.' I guess that's an argument from ignorance, but arguably it contains evidence, to wit, my pathetic testimony of ignorance.

At law, "arguments" are not "evidence," but that refers to evidence that was admitted, "into evidence" during the fact finding portion of the trial.

But, sadly perhaps, life is not a trial. . . at least not a courtroom trial.

[instantc]

'Evidence,' broadly defined, is anything that tends to support an assertion.

Take my example of the argument against 9/11 conspiracy theories. If such a massive conspiracy existed, it would very probably have leaked at some point. Somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. I find that a very persuasive argument, but what exactly would you say is the evidence in that argument?

[Danmark]

I can't seem to shake the idea that an argument can be made without evidence:

Yellow is not a color.
This is so because red IS a color.
Red is not yellow; therefore,
Yellow is not a color.

That's about as dumb an argument as I can make [without reference to theology ]

Does it contain any evidence? Is the assertion 'Red is not yellow' evidence?

What about...
This post is a complete waste of time.
I feel guilty about having written it and am aware I am wasting my time and the time of anyone who reads it. I prob'ly should not hit 'Submit.'
Therefore this post is a complete waste of time.

There. That's an argument few will disagree with. But does it contain 'evidence.'

I have to confess it does because I have cited my introspection as 'evidence.'
Rats!

[Goat]

I can't seem to shake the idea that an argument can be made without evidence:

Yellow is not a color.
This is so because red IS a color.
Red is not yellow; therefore,
Yellow is not a color.

That's about as dumb an argument as I can make [without reference to theology ]

Does it contain any evidence? Is the assertion 'Red is not yellow' evidence?

What about...
This post is a complete waste of time.
I feel guilty about having written it and am aware I am wasting my time and the time of anyone who reads it. I prob'ly should not hit 'Submit.'
Therefore this post is a complete waste of time.

There. That's an argument few will disagree with. But does it contain 'evidence.'

I have to confess it does because I have cited my introspection as 'evidence.'
Rats!

An argument can be made without evidence. Yet, that does not mean the argument is evidence.

[Danmark]

'Evidence,' broadly defined, is anything that tends to support an assertion.

Take my example of the argument against 9/11 conspiracy theories. If such a massive conspiracy existed, it would very probably have leaked at some point. Somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. I find that a very persuasive argument, but what exactly would you say is the evidence in that argument?

I have really screwed up. Now I'm arguing against what I said, then supporting the idea I was wrong in the first place.

OK, implicit in your anti conspiracy argument is the evidence that it hasn't leaked; that 'Somebody somewhere ... [has not] come forward with inside information.