Critiquing: What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Claims He Only Believes in Things He Can See?

December 18, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Empiricism Challenge — Sensory Limitations — Belief Verification — Evidence Mapping — Logical Inconsistencies

---

Introduction

The content explores how to engage with someone who claims to only believe in things they can see, addressing questions about empiricism, the purpose behind God creating beings with senses unable to detect Him, and the adequacy of introducing the topic of objective truth. Here, I evaluate the logical coherence of the arguments, identify inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and potential fallacies, and suggest ways to substantiate claims and map beliefs to evidence.

Main Argument Analysis

Challenge to Empiricism

The primary argument challenges the consistency of strict empiricism by providing examples that supposedly refute it. The speaker claims many things we know with certainty are not derived from our five senses.

“A massive amount of the things we know with certainty have nothing to do with what we’ve learned from our five senses.”

This argument lacks coherence because it conflates direct sensory input with indirect knowledge acquisition. While it is true that not all knowledge is directly sensed, this does not invalidate empiricism as a method for verifying knowledge. Instead, it highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of how sensory data contributes to broader knowledge.

Logical Inconsistencies

The content presents a scenario intended to demonstrate the self-refuting nature of strict empiricism:

“That sentence that you know is not something you know by the deliverances of your five senses.”

This argument is problematic because it misunderstands the empiricist’s stance. Empiricism does not claim that every belief must be directly sensed but rather that empirical evidence is the most reliable way to verify claims. This interpretation of empiricism creates a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting the position to make it easier to attack.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims made in the content lack empirical support:

“There’s all kinds of knowledge we have that we’re quite confident in that has not been a result of a deliverance of the five senses.”

This broad statement is unsubstantiated and dubious, as it does not specify what kinds of knowledge are being referenced or provide evidence for such knowledge being reliably acquired without sensory input. There is an obligation to substantiate these claims with specific examples and supporting data.

Linguistic Influence and Cognitive Biases

The discussion on verificationism introduces the idea that certain statements are meaningless if they cannot be empirically verified:

“Verificationism, which is a very popular notion in the early 20th century… cannot be verified by the five senses or any scientific method.”

While this critique of verificationism has merit, it overlooks the practical application of empirical methods in scientific inquiry. The content exhibits confirmation bias by selectively presenting verificationism’s flaws without acknowledging its contributions to scientific methodology.

Belief Verification and Evidence Mapping

The content argues against the notion that human senses cannot find evidence of God:

“The fact is there are all kinds of ways we use our five senses to come to the conclusion that an agent is responsible for what we see.”

This assertion lacks coherence as it conflates inference with direct evidence. Inferring agency from observed phenomena does not equate to direct sensory evidence of the agent’s existence. This argument should be backed by clear examples and empirical data to be more persuasive.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To test any alleged promises of God, one could propose controlled experiments to measure outcomes claimed to be influenced by divine intervention. For instance, studies comparing prayer groups to control groups in medical recovery scenarios could provide insights into the efficacy of prayer as a divine promise. Such studies should be rigorously designed to ensure validity and reliability.

Recommendations for Coherence and Substantiation

1. Provide Specific ExamplesSubstantiate claims about non-sensory knowledge with concrete examples and empirical evidence. Specify the types of knowledge referenced and how they are reliably acquired without sensory input.
2. Avoid Straw Man FallaciesAccurately represent the empiricist position to avoid creating straw man arguments. Clarify that empiricism values empirical evidence as the most reliable verification method rather than requiring direct sensory evidence for every belief.
3. Acknowledge Methodological ContributionsRecognize the practical contributions of verificationism and empiricism to scientific inquiry. Present a balanced view that addresses both the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.
4. Clarify Inference vs. EvidenceDistinguish between inferring agency from observed phenomena and direct sensory evidence. Provide clear examples and empirical data to support claims of inferred agency.
5. Encourage Evidence-Based BeliefsPromote the idea of mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. Encourage critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning in evaluating claims and beliefs.

Conclusion

The content’s logical coherence is compromised by unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and biases. Strengthening the argument requires substantiating claims with evidence, avoiding misrepresentations, and recognizing the role of empirical methods in knowledge acquisition. Encouraging an evidence-based approach to belief verification can foster more rational and coherent discussions on contentious issues.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.