Thread by @EveKeneinan

You give your game away when you have to stipulate something beyond “evidence.”

Someone: I believe X on the basis of evidence.
You: But is it TESTABLE evidence?
S: No, but it is evidence. That’s all I need to justify belief. That is what evidence IS.

https://twitter.com/Conserberal/status/1197607538864410624

There are many things which are perfectly well evidenced without the evidence being “testable.”

Each of us is conscious of the fact we are conscious and we are aware we are aware. The awareness of awareness is not only EVIDENCE we really are aware, but INCORRIGIBLE evidence.

No argument made to me that I do not exist can have any force, since I am directly aware that I do. I SEE DIRECTLY that I do; hence the VID in E-VID-ENCE.

And yet I cannot demonstrate to anyone else I am not an automaton or NPC.

Yet my belief I am conscious is FULLY JUSTIFIED.

1 Some beliefs, for example, that I am conscious, are both fully rationally justified by evidence and yet completely unjustifiable by “testable, scientific evidence.”

2 It is foolish to reject a fully rationally justified belief because it is not justified by one particular and inappropriate to the case KIND of evidential justification.
3 Therefore it is foolish to tether one’s beliefs to “scientific justification” instead of justification.

1 “If science can’t demonstrate it, it should be rejected”
2 But science cannot demonstrate, and we should not reject: belief in our own existence, logic, mathematics, perception, etc. etc. etc.
3 ∴ premise 1 is false.