This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Van Inwagen's case seems to rely on the assumption that if two people disagree, one or both of them can't have sufficient evidence for their belief.I think the example of the innocent defendant contradicts this. A juror may hear a litany of unrebutted evidence and testimony that leads him to believe that the defendant is guilty of murder. But the defendant knows on the basis of his experience that he did not commit murder. I think both have sufficient evidence for their belief but they disagree. And I don't think the defendant's evidence is private or a matter of intuition or insight. Anybody else who was with him at the time of the murder would also know that he didn't commit murder.So I don't believe that it is the case that if two opposing parties on a question both have sufficient evidence that they will agree, as the article seems to suggest. I'm obviously no philosopher though, as I've proven on this forum countless times.
Post a Comment