-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
prove it
Proofs are just reasons. You’re quite literally demanding proof for why proof should be demanded. And you can’t “prove” proof itself, not at least without first taking “proof” for granted.
If you want to call it the “principle of sufficient *proofs*” that’s fine, but you’re relying on reasons either way.
Comment by Shield_Lyger at 02/02/2025 at 18:14 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
You’re quite literally demanding proof for why proof should be demanded.
No. I'm not. I am, quite literally, demanding proof, from you, that I *always*, as **you claim**, demand proof. Your contention is that I demand proof (or expect they exist) for *every* belief that I have. I dispute your claim. And since you are making a claim about my beliefs, I request that you give me any evidence whatsoever that you know enough about me, as an individual, to make that claim.
A simple assertion from you that "but you’re relying on reasons either way," does not do that. If your claim is that I don't believe in brute facts, then I expect you do demonstrate how you *know* that to be true.