That might be true for you, but its not true for me

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(excess verbiage deletion)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
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]]).
 
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 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]].
 
This argument can be interpreted as an assertion of [[relativism]].

Revision as of 00:16, 19 June 2011

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 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.

External links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox