That might be true for you, but its not true for me
(fix flow, plus a couple of wording fixes) |
BunniRabbi (Talk | contribs) (edited for neutrality of tone and factual veracity) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Dawkins retorts, "You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?" | Dawkins retorts, "You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?" | ||
| − | In this response, Dawkins means that to say something is "true for you" is to deny the existence of facts independent of anyone's beliefs. If O'Reilly's statement is a true reflection of what he thinks, he must necessarily reject of the concept of objective realities ( | + | In this response, Dawkins means that to say something is "true for you" is to deny the existence of facts independent of anyone's beliefs. If O'Reilly's statement is a true reflection of what he thinks, he must necessarily reject of the concept of objective realities (usually considered synonymous with the term "[[facts]]") and dismiss [[methodological empiricism]] (i.e. observational [[science]]). |
| − | + | Though O'Reilly's statement itself was likely made without consideration of its implications, the argument in general infers that the person considers his own reasoning and [[intuition]] more valid a foundation for belief than reason, and empirical evidence. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | Though O'Reilly's statement itself was likely made without consideration of its implications, the argument in general infers that the person considers his own | + | |
Revision as of 02:19, 11 November 2010
This argument was made famous by Bill O'Reilly on his show The O'Reilly Factor, in an interview with Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins retorts, "You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?"
In this response, Dawkins means that to say something is "true for you" is to deny the existence of facts independent of anyone's beliefs. If O'Reilly's statement is a true reflection of what he thinks, he must necessarily reject of the concept of objective realities (usually considered synonymous with the term "facts") and dismiss methodological empiricism (i.e. observational science).
Though O'Reilly's statement itself was likely made without consideration of its implications, the argument in general infers that the person considers his own reasoning and intuition more valid a foundation for belief than reason, and empirical evidence.
