• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The Need for Evidence to Support Claims

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What if there was someone planning to kill you? What if that person was somewhere within ten yards of your current position at this moment? Would you believe this claim and run away for fear of your life or dismiss it as nonsensical?  The answers all rely on your opinion (and more importantly, your paranoia). One of the most logical routes would be to ask for evidence or dismiss it as ridiculous; how would you know if the other party was lying or not? Claims can undergo a series of shifts from a state of truth to being untrue. This can be applied to religious beliefs.  I personally don’t believe in a god of any sort but people who do tend to focus more on proving their ideas through the lack of evidence against the idea of God or a god. If there is an absence of evidence, this is only proof of an absence.When the evidence for a belief is the absence of proof from the opposers, there is no argument that can be made for this: there is no base for this belief that will solidly support the claim. ...read more.

Middle

Perhaps it is possible that this scenario might take place but with longer, more drawn-out thought process it must take more than a mere change of heart to reverse these decisions. It took time to create decisions on any subject, with or without evidence and it could have started with an all too simple question of ?What do I think?? that developed into a long discussion on opinion. If the ultimate end of that thought was to be simply discarded on a small whim or conviction, what was the point of even trying to complete the choice of deciding? The choice may not have any evidence (maybe it was intuitive to man and had no method to identify the evidence) but can the faith connected to that decision so easily be shattered? I don?t believe that the creation of a belief without evidence proves either one of the following: A). absence of evidence is proof of absence, and B. because there is no burden of proof there is no reason to be upset that such a built up decision was thrown away in a short instance. ...read more.

Conclusion

The knowledge thus became formally true and was discarded after a sharp, painful realization. What was once true on the sole basis of the absence of another reality resulted in the creation of another idea with greater physical evidence. The idea behind evidence is that it is supposed to help support claims and ideas of truth so that they might express more meaning. If there is no base to logically prove the idea and create meaning so if there is nothing to support the house, what house is left behind to stand? It is a very unstable house. However, ideas without evidence cannot be supported for long because in many cases the basis of their ?evidence? is the fact that there is a lack of evidence to prove the idea?s nonexistence. Because of this, it may be dismissed without evidence. Ideas created on assumptions can be dismissed and may naturally extinguish themselves because of the severe fault of having ?blind faith? as the only source pulling the statement into the ?granted as true? section of the brain. Without evidence claims lack sufficient strength to sustain their own arguments. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. People Need To Believe that order can be glimpsed in the chaos of events

    of events since we would very well be able to survive and manage quite long without making a scientific revolution even if we would desire one. In order to see how applicable the knowledge claim is in the area of knowledge of history there is a need to slightly further

  2. To what extent do we need evidence to support our beliefs in different areas ...

    in non-empirical knowledge there is no need for experience, testing or observation. The conclusion depends on the validity of the theory and the logic used. Mathematics relies mainly on reason and logic to prove its validity to the world. Now reason is an interesting way of knowing as it incorporates

  1. TOK Evidence

    Instead of lashing out at my neighbor for making a foolish mistake, I discussed the issue and he explained to me the reason for his mistake. I also went to the office and provided government documents to prove my address. My reason prevailed over my emotions and over my problems.

  2. Reliability of Sigmund Freud's claims

    Rather it can be seen as a guide that applies sometimes, which then can be used to explain different concepts. In other words, Freud's ideas can be useful. Not to forget, the movie gave an insight into the life and times of Sigmund Freud, which is subject to debate from time to time.

  1. If facts themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in the ...

    Their beliefs were strong. They had some evidence for this belief. Water on the surface of a ball falls off, sailors who were foolish enough to explore beyond the horizon never returned, how could the world be round - people at the bottom would fall off!

  2. If facts by themselves never prove or disprove anything, what else is involved in ...

    When people look back at history, major events such as World War I, World War II, September 11th event and other major and minor wars, many people have different views on the war, therefore leading to many different "proofs". Difference in religion and race will lead to many different conclusions as to who really won the war.

  1. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). ...

    This claim seems very absurd, according to common sense. It could not be justified by reason and it was against the view of everyone. It was going to be dismissed; however Max Planck, one of the greatest scientists ever, did not let this happen. He believed that the theory could be right.

  2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens). ...

    Whether a math problem is solved by my predecessors or my successors, the formula and the answer shall essentially remain the same- even though the methods may differ somewhat. And this is simply because they are not baseless assumptions but claims that can be asserted with evidence.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work