Hitchens Philosophy on Evidence - Essay Example

? HITCHENS’ PHILOSOPHY ON EVIDENCE BY COLLEGE: PRESENTED 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. This assertion implies that the judgment of truth may in fact not be truth (Net Industries, 2012). Hence according to Kant, the definition of an object cannot be taken for determining its truth. However, most followers of Kantian philosophy perceived difficulties in this assertion. 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. Therefore, one’s justification in believing is barely a matter which can be traced to one’s evidence (Kelly, 2006). This implies that two individuals with the same types of evidence would be exactly the same according to what they are justified in believing regarding a particular issue. Therefore, the main question is if believing requires evidence, and whether the object believed can be proved beyond any doubt regarding its identity and hence truth. According to Dunwoody (2009), belief is matter of judgment and decision making. Evidence is more related to facts; evidence leads to justification in believing something as the truth. However, a fact is by itself subjective in nature as one has individual evidence to believe in a particular object, which to them represents the truth. Schmitt (2004) explains that to apprehend a fact by itself is an act of judgment and perception; this is directly related to the belief held by a particular individual. Therefore, facts which would amount to evidence that can sustain inquiry is also a belief as nothing is knowable in the world; everything is mediated by an individual’s senses and it is only a representation of objects in the world. Therefore beliefs are constructions of individual’s evidence and lead to construction of truth through consistency of these beliefs (Schmitt, 2004). Therefore, to establish the truth there are definite evidences required to support such beliefs, implying that evidence is critical in attaining any truth. According to James (1907) the truth of an idea is far from the stagnant property inherent within the idea, but truth happens to an idea. In other words, and idea is made true by events through a process which an idea verifies itself. The process of making an idea to be true is composed of a series of evidences, which justifies the truth in such an idea. Therefore, the fact that people seek evidence to believe or to assert the truth of a specific idea is thus correct; truth is verified through a process and by events, which constitutes a series of evidences to prove the belief. This assertion is in accordance with the pragmatic theory of truth, which explains that concepts proved useful are true and can be known and learned through subjective experiences with these concepts, which would amount to evidence that such concepts are really useful. To pragmatists, the truth is dependent upon experience and is not an absolute situation. For example, a Christian might say that “God exists and there is no doubt about this premise.” Such a premise is true as through experience where such a Christian has proof that God works to them gives a meaning to their lives and actions, is a source of comfort, moral uprightness among other beliefs, all which could be readily proved through a series of evidences as narrated by such a Christian. The statement is true not because there are justifiable facts to prove the evidence beyond any doubt, but because of subjective experience, which makes such a Christian portray these attributes in their lives. These are thus normative evidences, which still may be used to prove the assertions of such a Christian. On the other hand, in Pythagoreans theorem, it is well known that the square toot of the third side of 90 degree triangle is equal to the sum of the square roots of the other two. Such factual theorem can be indeed proven through a mathematical process and calculations, and leads to factual evidence in accepting this theorem. Both types of evidences are therefore necessary in justifying the truth through experience and scientific concepts. Plato in his argument regarding truth and reality stresses that the world is made of replicas that our senses can perceive, and which replicate ideas which are eternal and immutable and absolute our senses can therefore only give us opinions, whereas our intellect results to true knowledge (Horigon, 2005). Therefore, evidences are required to affirm our beliefs or perceptions in such a world, though such evidence is prone to opinions and subjectivity. The coherence theory explains that a concept or proposition is true when consistent with other truths that are established and accepted as true and coheres to these beliefs (Dorsey 2006). However, beliefs have been explained as convictions that are formed over time through a series of normative evidences, which make such a belief true. Therefore, a group of Christians believing that God exist have this belief not because of factual evidence, but because this premise is accepted by many other Christians all who share common beliefs that are held to be true though a series of concepts which function as the evidence to hold such beliefs. Thus fitting in the system of Christianity entails evidences deeply held in faith, which guide such religion as being true and makes all such believers to cohere within such a system. Similarly in the correspondence theory of truth as Dorsey (2006) explains it would be impossible to have objective reality regarding God as a supreme entity. However, the facts advanced to justify such beliefs and which cohere the believers together would amount to evidence that can be presented to justify the belief in God. These proves on existence of God are enough evidence to hold such a religion together in a well defined system. Both James and Pierce share the pragmatism opinion that it is the functional value of beliefs that makes these beliefs true; true beliefs are thus functional (Kirkham, 1992). Thus truths that correspond to reality are helpful in aiding one to achieve a certain goal. Baron (2004) on the other hand explains that utility is equivalent to good, as good is the extent to which we achieve goals. Therefore, it is the use of evidences that have value regarding a concept that make such a concept justifiable. This implies that without any functional value in belief or concept, there would be no evidence to support existence of such a concept. Since such concept would not be proved through any evidence, it would as well be dropped as it would have no value. Thus evidence to support the functional value of any concept is important and as Hitchens asserts, such a concept should be dismissed. Evidence in justifying any concept leads to practicality and utility that such a concept has. In order to hold any belief or attribute any practicality to a concept, there has to be evidence, which supports the existence of such a concept and which may be verified either normatively or otherwise. Therefore, as Hitechens explain that which can be asserted without any justification or evidence can also be dismissed without evidence as it would have no practicality. References List Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 19–36). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dorsey, D., 2006. A Coherence Theory of Truth In Ethics. Philosophical Studies, 127, 493-523. Dunwoody P.T., 2009. Theories of Truth as assessment Criteria in Judgment and Decision Making. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(2), 116-125. Horigon, P.G.,2005. Philosophy of Knowledge. http://www.horrigan.angelcities.com/knowledge.htm [Accessed 28th Oct. 2012] James, W., 1907. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longman Green and Co Kelly T., 2006. Evidence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/ [Accessed 28th Oct. 2012] Kirkham, R. L. (1992). Theories of truth: A critical introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Maritain, J., 1979. An Introduction to Philosophy, Sheed and Ward,pp45-46. Ney Industries, 2012. Truth-Pragmatist And Coherence Theories. http://science.jrank.org/pages/11520/Truth-Pragmatist-Coherence-Theories.html [Accessed 28th Oct. 2012] Schmitt, F. F. (2004). Truth: An introduction. In F. F. Schmitt (Ed.), Theories of truth (pp. 1–38). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Read More