To what extent do we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas of knowledge?
Intro:
I think every area of knowledge required a varied amount of evidence. There are two areas of knowledge. One is about the abstract, such as art, ethics, and human sciences. The other is more defined and logical, such as history, mathematics, and natural sciences.
Abstract
Art
When it comes to talking about things that are abstract, there is no point in bringing up evidence because people want to believe what they believe regardless of what is put in front of them. If you put the Fountain by Duchamp in front of a art historian and a regular bystander, they are bound to have different opinions. The art historian would see the beauty in the piece, while the bystander would think of it as a backwards urinal with a signature on it. There is no physical evidence to sway a persons opinion when it comes to art because many criticisms and comments are based off of emotion and feelings. A persons emotions cannot be altered no matter how many art historical facts and statistics are told to them, so in the case of art there is not much of an importance in supporting your opinion with evidence because it is a very personal thing that cannot be altered easily.
Ethics
Ethics is also an abstract area of knowledge because there is never a right answer when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. People normally base their ethical actions on their gut feeling or beliefs, and no amount of evidence can prove or disprove if a persons gut feeling or belief system is valid. What is right to one person could be completely wrong to another person, so ethics is very individualistic and depends on a matter of things. A common ethical dilemma in America is the problem of gay marriage. Many people would say it is ethically wrong to deny a person the right to marriage in America, which is supposed to be a free country where all men are equal. On the other side, people argue that it goes against social norms and it is defying the word of God. Neither side is right or wrong, and neither side could come up with legitimate evidence to prove that gay marriage is right or wrong. Ethics is very situational and solely based on a persons intuitive perspective, so no evidence would not be necessary to support someone's beliefs.
Human Sciences
Human sciences are also somewhat abstract and can be interpreted in different ways. Some human sciences, such as psychology or economics, need a certain amount of evidence. In economics, if a claim was made that the United States was in a recession, there would need to be a fair amount of statistical data to back up that claim. In psychology, there would need to be psychological tests to prove a claim that someone was crazy. The only setback with these various tests are that it is difficult to quantify accurate measurements. The tests are based off of human choices of whether or not people are willing to pay money or if people take a psychology test seriously. Many tests are not subject to controlled experiments, so the results could vary, therefore skewing the evidence used to prove or disprove the human sciences. At a certain point people have to exercise free will, which cannot be fully supported by evidence. A test may say one thing but people are allowed exercise belief perseverance and believe something else. If they happen to agree with the results of the test they can use the test to back up their argument, but if they disagree with the test it would be just as valid because none of the tests are one hundred percent true, so there is leeway for various positions to be taken. For example, if a psychological test proved someone to be crazy not everyone would need to believe in that because it is someone's opinion whether to abide by the results of the test.
Intro:
I think every area of knowledge required a varied amount of evidence. There are two areas of knowledge. One is about the abstract, such as art, ethics, and human sciences. The other is more defined and logical, such as history, mathematics, and natural sciences.
Abstract
Art
When it comes to talking about things that are abstract, there is no point in bringing up evidence because people want to believe what they believe regardless of what is put in front of them. If you put the Fountain by Duchamp in front of a art historian and a regular bystander, they are bound to have different opinions. The art historian would see the beauty in the piece, while the bystander would think of it as a backwards urinal with a signature on it. There is no physical evidence to sway a persons opinion when it comes to art because many criticisms and comments are based off of emotion and feelings. A persons emotions cannot be altered no matter how many art historical facts and statistics are told to them, so in the case of art there is not much of an importance in supporting your opinion with evidence because it is a very personal thing that cannot be altered easily.
Ethics
Ethics is also an abstract area of knowledge because there is never a right answer when it comes to what is right and what is wrong. People normally base their ethical actions on their gut feeling or beliefs, and no amount of evidence can prove or disprove if a persons gut feeling or belief system is valid. What is right to one person could be completely wrong to another person, so ethics is very individualistic and depends on a matter of things. A common ethical dilemma in America is the problem of gay marriage. Many people would say it is ethically wrong to deny a person the right to marriage in America, which is supposed to be a free country where all men are equal. On the other side, people argue that it goes against social norms and it is defying the word of God. Neither side is right or wrong, and neither side could come up with legitimate evidence to prove that gay marriage is right or wrong. Ethics is very situational and solely based on a persons intuitive perspective, so no evidence would not be necessary to support someone's beliefs.
Human Sciences
Human sciences are also somewhat abstract and can be interpreted in different ways. Some human sciences, such as psychology or economics, need a certain amount of evidence. In economics, if a claim was made that the United States was in a recession, there would need to be a fair amount of statistical data to back up that claim. In psychology, there would need to be psychological tests to prove a claim that someone was crazy. The only setback with these various tests are that it is difficult to quantify accurate measurements. The tests are based off of human choices of whether or not people are willing to pay money or if people take a psychology test seriously. Many tests are not subject to controlled experiments, so the results could vary, therefore skewing the evidence used to prove or disprove the human sciences. At a certain point people have to exercise free will, which cannot be fully supported by evidence. A test may say one thing but people are allowed exercise belief perseverance and believe something else. If they happen to agree with the results of the test they can use the test to back up their argument, but if they disagree with the test it would be just as valid because none of the tests are one hundred percent true, so there is leeway for various positions to be taken. For example, if a psychological test proved someone to be crazy not everyone would need to believe in that because it is someone's opinion whether to abide by the results of the test.
