CDZ Can anyone here help me determine the origin of the "Claims, Reasons, Evidence" paradigm?

[RandomPoster]

Can anyone here help me determine the earliest known specific reference to the Claims, Reasons, Evidence paradigm? The reason I ask is that the articles I have been reading about it, or at least the author's interpretation, are disturbing.

Also, is there any branch of philosophy that considers reason to be a subset of evidence, as opposed to a separate category?

It's true that not all evidence has explanatory value. However, having potential explanatory value does not diminish the requirements of certainty for evidence that also serves as a potential reason. It is not a license to sneak hypothetical evidence into the conversation. The only part of your argument that is immune to being dismissed as weak speculation is your base hypothesis. Is there any branch of philosophy that holds views compatible my viewpoints on this?

 

[G.T.]

Can anyone here help me determine the earliest known specific reference to the Claims, Reasons, Evidence paradigm? The reason I ask is that the articles I have been reading about it, or at least the author's interpretation, are disturbing.

Also, is there any branch of philosophy that considers reason to be a subset of evidence, as opposed to a separate category?

It's true that not all evidence has explanatory value. However, having potential explanatory value does not diminish the requirements of certainty for evidence that also serves as a potential reason. It is not a license to sneak hypothetical evidence into the conversation. The only part of your argument that is immune to being dismissed as weak speculation is your base hypothesis. Is there any branch of philosophy that holds views compatible my viewpoints on this?

I think you're mistaken, and it's a malformed question.

Evidence doesn't prove anything, in and of itself. It requires reasoning to interpret, and if it can be refuted then it also cant prove anything.

For example, the way my brain works is both evidence for, AND against a deity. Therefore, its not evidence we could use to CONCLUDE a deity, and its in the trash.

Teeth-marks in the milk-jug are evidence the dog did it. But, since I have teeth as well this evidence is non conclusive and cannot, alone, prove the dog did it.

 

[RandomPoster]

Can anyone here help me determine the earliest known specific reference to the Claims, Reasons, Evidence paradigm? The reason I ask is that the articles I have been reading about it, or at least the author's interpretation, are disturbing.

Also, is there any branch of philosophy that considers reason to be a subset of evidence, as opposed to a separate category?

It's true that not all evidence has explanatory value. However, having potential explanatory value does not diminish the requirements of certainty for evidence that also serves as a potential reason. It is not a license to sneak hypothetical evidence into the conversation. The only part of your argument that is immune to being dismissed as weak speculation is your base hypothesis. Is there any branch of philosophy that holds views compatible my viewpoints on this?

I think you're mistaken, and it's a malformed question.

Evidence doesn't prove anything, in and of itself. It requires reasoning to interpret, and if it can be refuted then it also cant prove anything.

For example, the way my brain works is both evidence for, AND against a deity. Therefore, its not evidence we could use to CONCLUDE a deity, and its in the trash.

Teeth-marks in the milk-jug are evidence the dog did it. But, since I have teeth as well this evidence is non conclusive and cannot, alone, prove the dog did it.

The way your brain works is not evidence for or against a deity. Teeth marks on a milk jug suggest that it was bitten at some point in time. You speculating that it must have been your dog is something else entirely.

Reason is a subset of evidence. It inherits from evidence. It is evidence that also has explanatory value. No reason that can not also stand as evidence is much of a reason at all.

This is the type of argument you typically get these days:

Making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes [claim] because it would result in a more enlightened and tolerant society [hypothetical reason, actually an entirely different claim] and here is an anecdotal example of someone who changed their worldview after taking a cultural diversity course for evidence.

This is how the "Claims, Reason, Evidence" paradigm is often implemented and that implementation is garbage.

Have you ever been faced with an argument like that and been asked for a critique? Notice how they are shifting the burden of proof onto skeptics rather than proponents of the claim. If so, you likely stood there like a deer in headlights, thought for a few seconds and wanted to scream in their face "YOU'RE ******* GUESSING!".

The "reason" provided in many of these cases is merely another claim that you simply made up. Claim A is "backed up" by claim B. Your reason is actually an entirely different argument altogether that you, again, simply made up. It is an attempt to sneak hypothetical evidence into the discussion as an argument and act like you actually said something rather than simply killing the entire conversation. You hypothesize that making cultural diversity courses mandatory would reduce the number of hate crimes BECAUSE YOU HYPOTHESIZE that it would result in a more enlightened society and you further hypothesize that this in turn would result in fewer hate crimes. You are attempting to use an unproven theorem in a mathematical proof. In other words, your only evidence is speculation and a cherry-picked anecdote. That is called guessing.

Here is a valid example:

Drinking a cup of bleach will increase the likelihood that you miss the meeting tonight [hypothesis] because bleach is toxic and will likely land you in the hospital or morgue [reason that can double as evidence].

Being sent to prison will increase the likelihood that you contract HIV [hypothesis] because it has been proven that male prisoners ARE sexually assaulted at a higher rate than the overall population and being a victim of male homosexual assault DOES put you at a higher risk of contracting HIV. Notice the lack of words like "would" or "could" or "if" or "think" or "suppose" when it comes to my reasons and evidence.

It is really quite simple. If you are doing a mathematical proof and you invoke a well established mathematical theorem in the process, you do not have to prove that theorem as you invoke it. However, if you attempt to use a theorem you made up, you have to prove it before you can use it. Calling it your "reason" does not exempt you from that. We need to remember to emphasize the phrase "That is a fact and that is merely an opinion". Every school child should be forced to write it on the chalkboard 100 times on occasion.

 

[jwoodie]

Can anyone here help me determine the earliest known specific reference to the Claims, Reasons, Evidence paradigm? The reason I ask is that the articles I have been reading about it, or at least the author's interpretation, are disturbing.

Also, is there any branch of philosophy that considers reason to be a subset of evidence, as opposed to a separate category?

It's true that not all evidence has explanatory value. However, having potential explanatory value does not diminish the requirements of certainty for evidence that also serves as a potential reason. It is not a license to sneak hypothetical evidence into the conversation. The only part of your argument that is immune to being dismissed as weak speculation is your base hypothesis. Is there any branch of philosophy that holds views compatible my viewpoints on this?

Hypothetical evidence?