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

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m ({{Common objections}})
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This argument was made famous by [[Bill O'Riley]] on his show when interviewing [[Richard Dawkins]].
+
This argument was made famous by [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his show The O'Reilly Factor, in an interview with [[Richard Dawkins]].
It is flawed because truth is independant of what someone thinks, its reality. As queried by dawkins -- "you mean true for you is different from true for anybody else?", something such as emperical truth cannot be true for someone and not true for someone 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 (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==
 +
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ Richard Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly], Youtube
 +
 
 +
{{Common objections}}
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Revision as of 19:35, 24 December 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


v · d Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics
Personal   Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith? · Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs? · What are your qualifications? · Atheists believe in nothing · You are a communist · Why do atheists inspire such hatred? · That's not my God
Religious   That's not in my Bible · They're not true Christians · You just want to sin · Atheists know there is a God · It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe · God doesn't believe in atheists · Science is a faith · Atheism is a religion · Atheists worship materialism · Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays · Atheism is based on faith · Religious belief is beneficial
Science and logic   You can't prove God doesn't exist · Science can't touch god · God can't be defined · So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys? · If God didn't create everything, who did? · That might be true for you, but its not true for me · Religion is another way of knowing · God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones · Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones · Tides come in, tides go out
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox