That might be true for you, but it's not true for me

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(edited for neutrality of tone and factual veracity)
(added a link)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
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 reasoning and [[intuition]] more valid a foundation for belief than reason, and empirical evidence.
 +
 +
This argument can be interpreted as an assertion of [[relativism]].

Revision as of 01:22, 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.

This argument can be interpreted as an assertion of relativism.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox