You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree?
Pages 5 (1255 words)
HITCHENS’ PHILOSOPHY ON EVIDENCE BY NAME: COLLEGE: PRESENTED TO: Date: Hitchens’ Philosophy on Evidence In determining Logic, Kant ones said that in order to judge the truth of cognition, it has to be compared to its objects; this calls for more cognition on the same object, which may not be true…
They tried to prove that the correspondence truth is unknowable or unthinkable as it would call for comparison between cognition with its uncognized object which would be impossible (Net Industries, 2012). Moreover, Peire, the American Pragmatist proposed that the only way a concept can be indentified is from its practical effects of its objects. This implies that when this proposal is applied to definition of truth, a belief can only be true so far as it satisfies practicality of its objects. The fact that truth can only be sustained through inquiry implies that for truth to be indentified there has to be evidence to support such truth, which has to be practical and verifiable. However, knowledge can be attributed as evidence: to the extent that such known concept is true, inconsistency with the knowledge of an individual would amount to inconsistencies with some form of truth (Kelly, 2006). This applies to both normative and indicative evidence. Stating that smoke is the evidence of fire implies that whenever smoke is sighted there must be presence of fire. Therefore, Hirtchens assertion “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is true in justifying the truth. Kelly (2006) defines evidence to be the kind of thing which makes a difference in what one has justifications in believing, or what is perceived to be reasonable for one to believe. ...
Not exactly what you need?