TOK essay (Christopher Hitchens's quote) do you agree?
It is more of a TOK question but i want some expert's ideas and help me structure my argument:
"that Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence, Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence." Do you agree?
I have come up with some of the points that might be of interest in writing the tok essay but i'm pretty confused about what should i include in my tok essay and what not.
- While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive. "Since there is no evidence to disprove God exists, then She/He/It must exist because it sure cannot be denied without evidence."
- Can “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” be denied without evidence?
- We can search for alien’s fossils because we know where and how to look for it however this cannot work for atheists in order to deny the existence of God because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right direction, thus they cannot know where, when and how to look. Whereas when someone who asserts his belief in God through faith, why does he demand the atheists to provide an evidence of god's existence?
- “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself. (this is sort of a negative sided argument)
Any tips on what i should base my argument on and how should i tackle the question?
"that Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence, Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence." Do you agree?
I have come up with some of the points that might be of interest in writing the tok essay but i'm pretty confused about what should i include in my tok essay and what not.
- While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive. "Since there is no evidence to disprove God exists, then She/He/It must exist because it sure cannot be denied without evidence."
- Can “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” be denied without evidence?
- We can search for alien’s fossils because we know where and how to look for it however this cannot work for atheists in order to deny the existence of God because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right direction, thus they cannot know where, when and how to look. Whereas when someone who asserts his belief in God through faith, why does he demand the atheists to provide an evidence of god's existence?
- “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself. (this is sort of a negative sided argument)
Any tips on what i should base my argument on and how should i tackle the question?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by shad0wboss
It is more of a TOK question but i want some expert's ideas and help me structure my argument:
"that Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence, Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence." Do you agree?
I have come up with some of the points that might be of interest in writing the tok essay but i'm pretty confused about what should i include in my tok essay and what not.
- While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive. "Since there is no evidence to disprove God exists, then She/He/It must exist because it sure cannot be denied without evidence."
- Can “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” be denied without evidence?
- We can search for alien’s fossils because we know where and how to look for it however this cannot work for atheists in order to deny the existence of God because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right direction, thus they cannot know where, when and how to look. Whereas when someone who asserts his belief in God through faith, why does he demand the atheists to provide an evidence of god's existence?
- “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself. (this is sort of a negative sided argument)
Any tips on what i should base my argument on and how should i tackle the question?
"that Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence, Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence." Do you agree?
I have come up with some of the points that might be of interest in writing the tok essay but i'm pretty confused about what should i include in my tok essay and what not.
- While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive. "Since there is no evidence to disprove God exists, then She/He/It must exist because it sure cannot be denied without evidence."
- Can “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” be denied without evidence?
- We can search for alien’s fossils because we know where and how to look for it however this cannot work for atheists in order to deny the existence of God because they cannot assert that they are looking in the right direction, thus they cannot know where, when and how to look. Whereas when someone who asserts his belief in God through faith, why does he demand the atheists to provide an evidence of god's existence?
- “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself. (this is sort of a negative sided argument)
Any tips on what i should base my argument on and how should i tackle the question?
1 - what is a TOK essay?
2 - the points you raise are ok, but they need to be developed a bit more fully. Perhaps you'd like to go into them some more?
3 - Hitchens assumes materialism as the basis for existence. I think this is one of the major weaknesses running throughout his critiques. There is no model for understanding the social impacts of that which has no material being (i.e. the idea of God exists even if it is wrong, and as such merits discussion in some terms - anthropological, psychological, philosophical.) All he can say meaningfully is that where something is asserted and there ought to be physical evidence then the lack of said evidence is a cinclusive result to ontological inquiry. But this is essentially a tautological restatement of very basic science; so it kind of boils down to "my discipline is better than yours"
4 - Surely something which is reasonable and plausible but without "evidence" cannot be dismissed? (Otherwise how would scientists ever form hhypotheses?)
EDIT; to clarify I'd suggest a critical standpoint that shows the epistemic blindness in Hitchen's approach.
Original post by ThePhilosoraptor
1 - what is a TOK essay?
Theory of knowledge.. it's an IB thing.
Original post by Futility
Theory of knowledge.. it's an IB thing.
I really fail quite hard at acronyms...
IB = International Baccalaureate?
Original post by ThePhilosoraptor
I really fail quite hard at acronyms...
IB = International Baccalaureate?
IB = International Baccalaureate?
..Yes.
Original post by ThePhilosoraptor
4 - Surely something which is reasonable and plausible but without "evidence" cannot be dismissed? (Otherwise how would scientists ever form hhypotheses?)
EDIT; to clarify I'd suggest a critical standpoint that shows the epistemic blindness in Hitchen's approach.
EDIT; to clarify I'd suggest a critical standpoint that shows the epistemic blindness in Hitchen's approach.
Well, you can form theories after you obtain data...
I find it a problematic statement, not least because the first question I'd have is what is his criteria for good evidence? I'd go ahead and say that it's whether the thing is somehow verifiable through scientific means but that in itself is troublesome because the history of science is full of red herrings.
For that question, what i have to do is to have a look at knowledge issues within Areas of knowledge (natural science, math, history, arts etc...) and Ways of knowing (sense perception, emotion, reason, language) and try to provide my opinion in the end whether i agree or not based on those knowledge issues and claims/counter claims
I need to structure it though and i need solid arguments...
I need to structure it though and i need solid arguments...
Original post by Zedd
Well, you can form theories after you obtain data...
I find it a problematic statement, not least because the first question I'd have is what is his criteria for good evidence? I'd go ahead and say that it's whether the thing is somehow verifiable through scientific means but that in itself is troublesome because the history of science is full of red herrings.
I find it a problematic statement, not least because the first question I'd have is what is his criteria for good evidence? I'd go ahead and say that it's whether the thing is somehow verifiable through scientific means but that in itself is troublesome because the history of science is full of red herrings.
Way to be redundant there!
Original post by viriol
Way to be redundant there!
Care to expand?
Original post by Zedd
Care to expand?
good evidence = verifiable by scientific means ?
Original post by viriol
good evidence = verifiable by scientific means ?
Well, it's just that evidence that is verifiable by scientific means is itself problematic. For instance, the experimenters' regress says that we don't have an strict criteria to decide when an experiment is working or not.
(edited 11 years ago)
Scientific means = reason
and that's only one of the ways of knowing, it is not the only one to provide evidence; sense perception, emotion and language are the other three which can also be used to provide evidence.
I am confused about what kind of positive evidence i should have for some of the issues such as God's existence in order to express my opinion towards the question "do you agree?"
By positive evidence i mean something that's not like “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself.
and that's only one of the ways of knowing, it is not the only one to provide evidence; sense perception, emotion and language are the other three which can also be used to provide evidence.
I am confused about what kind of positive evidence i should have for some of the issues such as God's existence in order to express my opinion towards the question "do you agree?"
By positive evidence i mean something that's not like “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself.
Original post by shad0wboss
Scientific means = reason
and that's only one of the ways of knowing, it is not the only one to provide evidence; sense perception, emotion and language are the other three which can also be used to provide evidence.
I am confused about what kind of positive evidence i should have for some of the issues such as God's existence in order to express my opinion towards the question "do you agree?"
By positive evidence i mean something that's not like “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself.
and that's only one of the ways of knowing, it is not the only one to provide evidence; sense perception, emotion and language are the other three which can also be used to provide evidence.
I am confused about what kind of positive evidence i should have for some of the issues such as God's existence in order to express my opinion towards the question "do you agree?"
By positive evidence i mean something that's not like “You don’t have evidence” is an evidence of reason itself.
I don't think that's a strong way to go. If you can have "positive evidence" of God (at least in scientific terms) then either
a) He must exist materially (so lack of material evidence is evidence of absence)
or
b) He is not a being at all, but a process which can eventually be measured and anticipated (Like Thor, God of Thunder, who eventually became meteorology.)
Also, most positive evidence in terms of experience comes from personal encounters which tend to fall into 3 categories
1 - outright lies
2 - people who are a bit unstable
3 - things that make sense, but nobody else saw it happen (convenient, huh?)
So I wouldn't run with that line either.
Why not run with a derivative theory of knowledge (If you want to argue from a theist perspective Richard Swineburn is pretty good)?
I.e. it is possible to have logical evidence that is not actual.
(Because science uses the tools of reason, but is not actually reason itself)
By starting from premises we can know (We exist, the universe exists etc.) and advancing to reasonable deductions (Our existence is so unlikely that there is probably a reason behind it - there is a physics theory that deals with this but I can't remember it; can anybody help me out?) we can arrive at logical conclusions that may or may not be actual (the existence of God) and this is a reasonable approximation of knowing whilst living in an indefinite state of suspense.
Original post by shad0wboss
While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive.
This isn't true.
1. If a nuclear bomb had just exploded outside my flat, I would not be typing this
2. It is not the case that I am not typing this
3. Therefore, a nuclear bomb has not just expoded outside my flat
There's a sound argument for a negative.
Another:
1. All cats are mammals.
2. No mammals are birds.
3. No cats are birds.
In the context of God (which I assume Hitchens is talking about) there are attempts to prove a negative (ie. that God doesn't exist). For example, the paradox of the stone, or the logical problem of evil. Are these arguments good? That's another question.
As for the main statement, it depends what you mean by "evidence". If it means something like scientific evidence, the it's false that that which there is no scientific evidence for is on shaky epistemic ground. For example, there is no scientific evidence (that I am aware of) that the external world exists. But it doesn't follow, from that fact alone, that non-sceptics are on shaky epistemic ground.
It's also the case, as you note in your OP, that "that for which there is no evidence can be denied without evidence" is self-referentially inconsistent.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Zedd
Well, it's just that evidence that is verifiable by scientific means is itself problematic. For instance, the experimenters' regress says that we don't have an strict criteria to decide when an experiment is working or not.
When you speak of scientific verification you don't speak of individual experiences, but rather of the combined efforts of many independent ones. This way, theories supported by it are correct in the conditions you can apply them to.
Don't talk about God in your essay. It won't progress far.
He doesn't have evidence for his own claim
He doesn't have evidence for his own claim
Original post by chickenonsteroids
Don't talk about God in your essay. It won't progress far.
He doesn't have evidence for his own claim
He doesn't have evidence for his own claim
I mean, i'm doing this kind of essay first time so i need ideas about the structure, content, sub knowledge issues etc...
Original post by shad0wboss
I mean, i'm doing this kind of essay first time so i need ideas about the structure, content, sub knowledge issues etc...
You're on IBSurvival. there's a whole thread on how to structure the essays properly.
don't bother with sub knowledge issues. they're just knowledge issues.
Original post by ThePhilosoraptor
1 - what is a TOK essay?
2 - the points you raise are ok, but they need to be developed a bit more fully. Perhaps you'd like to go into them some more?
3 - Hitchens assumes materialism as the basis for existence. I think this is one of the major weaknesses running throughout his critiques. There is no model for understanding the social impacts of that which has no material being (i.e. the idea of God exists even if it is wrong, and as such merits discussion in some terms - anthropological, psychological, philosophical.) All he can say meaningfully is that where something is asserted and there ought to be physical evidence then the lack of said evidence is a cinclusive result to ontological inquiry. But this is essentially a tautological restatement of very basic science; so it kind of boils down to "my discipline is better than yours"
4 - Surely something which is reasonable and plausible but without "evidence" cannot be dismissed? (Otherwise how would scientists ever form hhypotheses?)
EDIT; to clarify I'd suggest a critical standpoint that shows the epistemic blindness in Hitchen's approach.
2 - the points you raise are ok, but they need to be developed a bit more fully. Perhaps you'd like to go into them some more?
3 - Hitchens assumes materialism as the basis for existence. I think this is one of the major weaknesses running throughout his critiques. There is no model for understanding the social impacts of that which has no material being (i.e. the idea of God exists even if it is wrong, and as such merits discussion in some terms - anthropological, psychological, philosophical.) All he can say meaningfully is that where something is asserted and there ought to be physical evidence then the lack of said evidence is a cinclusive result to ontological inquiry. But this is essentially a tautological restatement of very basic science; so it kind of boils down to "my discipline is better than yours"
4 - Surely something which is reasonable and plausible but without "evidence" cannot be dismissed? (Otherwise how would scientists ever form hhypotheses?)
EDIT; to clarify I'd suggest a critical standpoint that shows the epistemic blindness in Hitchen's approach.
Is there anything else? Mind/body duality has been shown to be absolute nonsense, what else is there other than the materialist perspective?
And scientific hypotheses have to be supported by at least a modicum of evidence before anyone will take them seriously, not to mention that they are deduced from pre-existing evidence, and are therefore based on evidence to start with.
Original post by Publius
Is there anything else? Mind/body duality has been shown to be absolute nonsense, what else is there other than the materialist perspective?
And scientific hypotheses have to be supported by at least a modicum of evidence before anyone will take them seriously, not to mention that they are deduced from pre-existing evidence, and are therefore based on evidence to start with.
And scientific hypotheses have to be supported by at least a modicum of evidence before anyone will take them seriously, not to mention that they are deduced from pre-existing evidence, and are therefore based on evidence to start with.
Can I ask you who has shown it to be nonsense?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- ToK exhibition
- English lit ocr a level - how to revise, and what resources to make
- UCAS EE predicted grades
- OU plagiarism policy and application
- Dartford boys sixth form
- gsce 2023 predicted papers
- My University Applications
- What do compare Dorian Gray with? (A2 Eng Lit)
- Politics 25 mark extract question structure
- My University Applications
- IB
- English literature revision
- I need help for College
- A level Spanish Writing
- IB TOK Essay
- Politics a level REVISION HELPP
- How do you like to revise for english lit and lang?
- Edexcel English Literature Drama
- Warwick Undergraduate Global Excellence Scholarship
- English GCSE AQA
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
