Is the Evidentialist Principle itself self-evident?

Question

The Evidentialist Principle states that:

"It is irrational for anyone, anywhere, to believe anyting without sufficient evidence."

The allowable support for this evidence can come from the evidence of the senses (ex. I see that the cat has 4 legs, therefore the cat has 4 legs) or self-evident principles (ex. 4 > 2 and 5 > 4, therefore 5 > 2).

Now, what exactly is the evidence for the Evidentialist Principle? Is it self-evident? Does it pass its own test?

Ummm, anyone?

Actually, evidentialists themselves claim that this principle is self-evident, since the other method (i.e. evidence through senses) doesn't apply here. The question is whether this principle can be viewed as a non-inferable basic principle, or is it something that can be dissected further.

Answer 1

I only see more questions where I am trying to find answers. Principles in any forum require definition and structure. Definitions and structure in turn, require measures and standards. Without this protocol, empirical assessment isn't possible. Am I in error in assuming this?
Take the word 'believe.' The majority of society has the ability and inclination to believe a fantastic amount of things which haven't empirically attested to their own existence. Yet, they stand steadfastly by their own convictions and create social structure based on these beliefs.
The unspoken communication among people which cannot be proved, yet we see as tangible evidence. We can sense strong feeling in individuals, yet, to prove this would take a few weeks in a courtroom. Does our inability to prove intangibles make us irrational?
The principle, while meaning well I'm sure, fails to address the existence of intangibles which have proven time after time to embody Man's existence. Until we adopt new standards and measures of empirical evidence, the debate continues.

Answer 2

The principle isn't self-evident, but then has anyone ever claimed that it is? The principle itself doesn't restrict evidence to self-evidence.

You do see the distinction between evidence and self-evidence, don't you?

So what would constitute sufficient evidence for the principle? That could only be the evidence that people who do not apply the principle are those who are most likely to exhibit *other* irrational behavior.

In other words, if people who do not apply the principle are also otherwise irrational people, then that is sufficient evidence that not applying it is characteristic of the irrational personality.

Later: Okay, you're saying that the 'evidentialists' claim there are only two 'allowable' sorts of evidence for *any* belief: the evidence of the senses, and self-evidence. And that they further claim that the 'evidentialist principle' is self-evident.

If this is correct, the evidentialists need to 'allow' some other sort of evidence, because their principle is decidedly not self-evident. That is, unless they also claim there are degrees of self-evidence, which would surely be a self-defeating claim.

If a principle is indeed self-evident there should be no need to argue for its self-evidence - that is, it should not need FURTHER EVIDENCE, because if it does it is surely not self-evident.

Answer 3

I can see the appeal for this. It motivates individuals to explore the unknown.

200 years ago, an Evidentialist would not recognize splitting atoms, or gravity based upon this theory. Guess since the theory challenges, one to seek stuff through the senses, then it does not say that they don't exist, it simply says we can't prove it exists now.

However, it becomes dangerous when an Evidentialist says, "It's not in the senses therefore, I will not even try to explore it."

Love (as in charity) is not qualified by this theory yet, but is a platform out there to be discovered ... BTW ... God is Love ... so, guess that's still something that needs to be discovered. Also, just like 300 years ago, when they thought the world was flat because they couldn't see past the horizon ... we are just getting a small preview of outer space. For us to limit our minds and imaginations only to the senses will keep us from seeing past the horizon in space if we stick to only the senses.

Answer 4

Yes,it is obviously self-evident.The laws of rationality make it necessary for believing something to have at least a reason to believe it,this is how rationality works,by inference.This/these reasons when it comes to believing can only be logical proofs,these are what rationality works with.If our inference which results in believing something is not based on logical proof perceived as such by our own brain,then it is not the result of rational reasoning.So the principle is valid,because it does not state it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to believe etc...,but only that it is IRRATIONAL.For those who think that accepting such a principle would be the end of discoveries and inventions,they should bear in mind that man's search for proof in order to be able to believe is the true incentive of such discoveries,not dumb believing.

Answer 5

The concept of rationality is not necessarily a rational concept. To be rational does not mean to be reasonable. Some people believe many things without proof. Rational thinking is very mechanical, as if to say that this causes that and in so doing enlarges on something else in a certain time frame etc. Rationality proves itself with words but words are so variable in there interpretation that the same thing can be said in many different ways. Read some books on rhetoric and you will have a fair concept of what you can do with rationality.

Answer 6

It seems like a combination of greek terms (rationality, existence), and a modern tendency to understand things as a work in progress. The greeks invented ideas... thats something right there. But they also gave them a bit of an exaggerated importance. Along with some difficulties they had to see time and progression.

"Be true to yourself, do your best." might be a better version (perhaps) of that principle.

Answer 7

that each and every person adult males are created equivalent (in the previous God and the regulation) that they are endowed by utilising their author with specific inalienable (unsure of that word i'm doing this from reminiscence) rights, that between those are (yet no longer constrained to) life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. extra: Sarah M,you acquire that suitable approximately ol' TJ

Answer 8

Maybe it's another manifestation of what Godel used to talk about, namely, that no system of axioms can ever prove its own completeness, and no system of axioms can be both consistent and complete.

Or maybe not. I don't know.

Answer 9

Semantics and sophistry is what this is, evidently.

Answer 10

no we can't be certain of anyrthing, there would be no America,
No inventions.nothing evident except death