That might be true for you, but its not true for me
BunniRabbi (Talk | contribs) (edited for neutrality of tone and factual veracity) |
m ({{Common objections}}) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| 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 | + | 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]] | ||
Latest 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
- Richard Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly, Youtube
