"I Don't Need Evidence, I Have an Argument"

[00:00:00][music] [music] >> Do you know what a Morion defeater is?

[00:00:09]Have you heard of that before?

[00:00:11]>> A worrying?

[00:00:13]>> Morion Morion.

[00:00:14]>> Morion? I don't think I've ever heard that before.

[00:00:19]>> So, obviously you're familiar with like arguments and how there exists like valid arguments.

[00:00:25]Right?

[00:00:26]Are you familiar with like that terminology?

[00:00:28]>> Yeah.

[00:00:29]>> Well, just like for the audience if no one's familiar.

[00:00:33]Um an argument an argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises necessarily. So, if all the premises of the argument is true are true or like or yeah, the conclusion must follow.

[00:00:46]So, for example >> That's >> If I eat >> That's soundness. That's not validity.

[00:00:53]Validity just means >> If it's if it's valid, the conclusion the it valid just means does the conclusion follow from the premises?

[00:01:03]But, the premises can be completely made up.

[00:01:06]>> Dude, an example of like a >> No, that's that's that's >> I'm aware.

[00:01:11]>> I'm aware. Dude, I know that an argument Okay, when you negate an argument um Okay, I might have gotten mixed up.

[00:01:20]Yeah, validity is when the conclusion must follow from the premises.

[00:01:23]>> Yes.

[00:01:25]But, the premises don't have to be true.

[00:01:26]You can just say all ding dongs are are zip zops, all zip zops are shoop da doops, therefore all I forgot what I said the first time.

[00:01:37]>> presumably presumably if the two premises are true then the conclusion must follow. The way to defeat uh >> That's >> like a I'm pretty sure that is how it's defined in like any logic textbook, right?

[00:01:51]>> I will just say sure.

[00:01:54]>> Sure. So, um a Morion defeater is basically saying like "Yeah, I agree. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must follow. But the conclusion is false, therefore one of the premises must be false."

[00:02:05]That's called a Moorean defeater.

[00:02:09]>> So, a Moorean defeater is just diagnosing an argument, showing that one of the premises is not necessarily uh true.

[00:02:17]>> basically, let me let me give you an example.

[00:02:20]If one were to argue like uh "The resurrection happened, therefore Christianity is true, right?" So, you would say, "Okay, that's true, but Christianity is not true, therefore the resurrection couldn't have happened."

[00:02:34]So, it's basically sort of like a modus tollens, if you're familiar with what that is.

[00:02:38]>> Uh that doesn't sound like modus tollens, but I know what modus tollens is.

[00:02:45]Modus tollens is not Modus tollens is not Q, therefore not P, but I mean, the resurrection could have happened and Christianity is still not true. So, it's like it's not a perfect example, but I I I'm pretty sure I understand what you're telling me. So, how does this work for evolution?

[00:03:03]>> Yeah, right. So, I'm basically saying like, "Yeah, okay, all your evidence for evolution, if all that evidence is true, then evolution is true. But evolution is not true, therefore one of the pieces of the evidence must also be false or like a sufficient portion of it must be false, right?"

[00:03:20]>> That's called not a >> No, no, no, that's called a >> you didn't you didn't deal with any of the evidence. You just said the conclusion is false, therefore therefore not a And the internet here uh my AI overlords, uh bless them, are telling me that a Moorean defeater is a piece of common sense knowledge that blocks or undercuts a skeptical hypothesis, not by proving it false, but by outweighing it epistemically.

[00:03:50]>> That's fair phrasing what I said.

[00:03:52]>> Oh, I I mean, if that's paraphrasing what you said, then you skipped so many things. But anyways, so what is your Now that you framed what what this is, what's your what is your defeater?

[00:04:13]>> Uh so, my argument against evolution would be that um Judaism is true, therefore evolution must be false.

[00:04:24]>> Uh why would that be the case?

[00:04:27]>> Because Judaism contradicts evolution.

[00:04:30]>> Uh so, you'd have to necessarily adopt a strict literalist interpretation of uh God creating life on the planet.

[00:04:39]>> I do.

[00:04:40]I'm an Orthodox Jew.

[00:04:41]>> Okay. Well, since we're since we're since this is a Amorian defeater, then you have to undercut with uh evidence. So, >> Right.

[00:04:52]>> If if Orthodox Judaism were true, what would the evidence look like?

[00:04:58]>> If Orthodox Judaism were true, well, it is true.

[00:05:01]>> Yeah, if it were true, what would the evidence look like?

[00:05:06]>> The evidence for it were if it if it were true, I wouldn't have to give evidence.

[00:05:10]>> Okay. So, unfortunately, the way that the way this actually works is Orthodox Judaism isn't true because evolution is true.

[00:05:24]>> Right, but the evidence for Orthodox Judaism is stronger than the evidence for evolution, right?

[00:05:29]>> You just said you don't even need evidence.

[00:05:33]>> No, I said that if you grant Orthodox Judaism is true, then I won't argue for it cuz it's granted.

[00:05:39]>> So, you don't need to provide any So, even though you came up here with a Amorian defeater, which is something where you need to outweigh a competing claim epistemically, you are claiming that you don't need to do any of that epistemic work because you just declare that yours is true.

[00:06:00]>> No, dude. I'm saying evolution is false because Orthodox Judaism is true. And then you're saying, "Okay, well, if Orthodox Judaism is true, what's the evidence for it?" Well, if it's true, I won't have to argue for it, right?

[00:06:09]>> Yes, you do.

[00:06:11]>> Why would I argue for a position that's true? That's just weird.

[00:06:15]>> Because how is anybody else supposed to know whether or not it's true?

[00:06:19]>> You said you said that you're granting that it's true.

[00:06:21]>> I No, I never I didn't say that at all.

[00:06:26]>> You did.

[00:06:27]>> No, no, I I promise you that I never said that.

[00:06:31]>> Dude, wallahi on my future children's lives, you said that.

[00:06:35]>> I uh the aloha snack bar to you, too, or whatever, but I I just I didn't say that. So, you to be clear, you're not going to present any evidence?

[00:06:47]>> No, you want an argument for Orthodox Judaism?

[00:06:50]>> Uh no, I want evidence because you are proposing a Morion defeater.

[00:06:56]>> Well, I could I mean, do don't you think like arguments can be evidence?

[00:07:01]>> Uh no.

[00:07:03]>> Arguments aren't evidential?

[00:07:05]>> Uh no.

[00:07:07]Because if that's the case, then I'll just argue that they aren't, and then you have to accept it.

[00:07:12]>> Wait, wait. What do you think What do you think evidence is real quick? Like just your standard definition.

[00:07:17]Um okay. So, how it's defined in like any philosophical literature is going to be that which raises the probability of a thesis, right?

[00:07:26]That's called evidence. Compelling evidence is that which would convince any rational >> No, don't Mere words don't do that. An argument is mere words. So, I don't I don't care about any arguments.

[00:07:38]Produce some Produce something.

[00:07:40]>> dialogue, then? What?

[00:07:41]>> There is no point of dialogue with you guys. Yeah, it's it's pointless. It's mostly funny, but it is also pointless.

[00:07:48]You know that you've been defeated by naturalism and the sciences. You've known it for thousands of years. And so, what you do is you just come up with all these philosophical word games to like, well, here's how I can argue that my view has to be true by playing games with definitions. Therefore, I can protect myself. I can be willfully ignorant. I can be horny for the ignorance and claim that it is a virtue and preserve my Bronze Age beliefs.

[00:08:17]Or Iron Age beliefs, whatever.

[00:08:18]>> you don't believe real quick, real quick.

[00:08:20]>> I don't believe in magic.

[00:08:22]>> I wasn't going to ask you if you believe in magic.

[00:08:25]>> Whatever it is you believe in necessitates believing in magic, so I don't believe whatever you believe in.

[00:08:30]>> Wait, what? You do know the whole point of magic is that it's like it's unexplainable, right?

[00:08:36]Like the whole point of magic is that you can't analyze it any any further.

[00:08:38]That's why it's magical and it's theories.

[00:08:41]But that these aren't my beliefs, right?

[00:08:42]So.

[00:08:42]>> Yes, they are.

[00:08:45]You believe like let there be light is literally an incantation.

[00:08:52]>> [laughter] >> Okay. Um wait.

[00:08:59]>> It is.

[00:09:00]I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:09:05]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links.

[00:09:14]Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.