This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?
As human beings, when we first hear this quote we instantly agree to it and make a correlation with science. But when we actually listen to this quote and ponder about it, we figure we cannot entirely agree with this quote or disagree with it completely. This quote brings about various knowledge issues and in some cases you agree and some cases you cannot. The knowledge issues that come up are – science, history, human science, religion, belief, and faith.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Apparently, not all things asserted without evidence are dismissed, although, they, certainly, can be. Perhaps, evidence is needed when we seek factual truth, but we often seek other things - justice, comfort, safety, trust. Often, there is no evidence other than words. Often requiring evidence would undermine our goals (e.g. when we seek trust with someone). Often, dismissing an assertion is unacceptable for safety reasons (e.g. a bomb threat).
The saying is nothing but rhetoric, IMHO.
Nicole Holland
max golding
Michael Roberts 10+
William Lewis
Alan Wynne
Taking the Statement at face value I have to agree with it. I don't pretend to be as smart as all the other commentators that are trying to tear the statement apart piece by piece.
I would like to amend the statement by Mr. Hitchens to "That which can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed with the reasoning being that there is no evidence to support the assertion". In order to make an assertion please first present the evidence and then draw the conclusions, that make the assertions.
The question I would like to ask, does logical reasoning constitute evidence?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
if we take the literal meaning of "can", the statement carries no relevance. we also could say "that which can be asserted on monday, can be dismissed with an umbrella in hand". anything can be asserted or dismissed in a multitude of ways.
the other meaning, the implied meaning is indeed relevant, but it is false. it suggests that if a statement has no proof, the negation of that statement is just as good as the original statement. the story goes back to logical positivism. it states that every statement can be one of two categories: either verifiable by observation (synthetic), or logical statements that are tautologies and axioms (analytic). analytic statements bear no relevance about the world, axioms are freely chosen, and tautologies are just rehashing of axioms. hitchens taps into that territory, redefining analytic as useless, and synthetic as the way to go. and it is wrong on two levels.
first, logical positivism is self-contradicting. take the statement "all statements are either analytic or synthetic". is this analytic or synthetic? it can be neither, since there is no evidence to it, but supposed to bear relevance.
second, bearing no relevance about the physical world does not mean useless. one would not call logic or math useless, just because they are abstract. we do have to deal with analytic statements, and they can be wrong, only the definition of wrong comes from other sources than observation. using the usual definitions, 2+2=5 is wrong, 2+2=4 is right, though none can be proven experimentally. but the first leads to a logical contradiction, while the second can be shown to be in line with the axioms. we have logical arguments on the side of creationism. they need to be shown incorrect, not dismissed
Gord G 30+
As a side note ... I find it curious you've listed yourself as an Agnostic and an atheist. I would be interested in hearing why you've included both. It seems like it would be an intriguing explanation (no sarcasm intended).
Gord G 30+
The evident is scarce in the universe, so the statement supports faith in scientific theories and religious beliefs.
Comment deleted
Christopher Halliwell
Gord G 30+
A theory can be an apodictic proposition or an assertoric proposition. The vast possibilities of the universe would suggest the latter is prevalent , and represents significant questions regarding our existence.
Christopher Halliwell
Costan B.
Also, this statement exists as a Latin proverb, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur." (What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously.), preceding Hitchens with a couple of thousand years. Therefore, what are we discussing here: the statement alone or Hitchens' views?
Jared Kirschner
Krisztián Pintér 200+
natasha nikulina 50+
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
What is common about those two is the idea , that evidence ( on our own definition of evidence ) is of primary importance for our rational mind.
Gil Laroya
To me it is nothing more (or less) than a philosophical view of what an idea is - an active thought process that can have legs, or wither away.
In the most basic sense, the quote is self-supporting. Period.
It is an idea not meant to be analyzed or taken apart.
As innovators we must resist the urge to tear down or "de-risk" things, and see them at face value, with the emphasis being on "value".
Dan F 50+
This comment does have context. The comment was made in response to believers and promoters of blind religious faith.
Hitchens was not a scientist, but a journalist and an author. His position on biology was that of an atheist. Ideally, a journalist is expressing opinions based on the weight of the evidence to justify an honest judgement. It is possible for those looking at the same empirical evidence to disagree. Most reasonable people accept this fact in a democracy. There are biologist who are religious, but it is the exception far from the rule. There is a reason for this. They are all playing by the same rules. It is possible to analysis the same physical evidence differently, but the facts have a way of floating to the top.
Blind religious faith is just that. It can be asserted as true, but in doing so effectively, the promoters play by different set of rules. The new rules for evidence is... the word of God, authority figures, tradition, popularity, influence and power, etc. Rather that accept these new rules as deserving special recognition, Hichens responded with the classic comment cited above.
Hichens actually took his evaluation of the facts a step or two beyond atheism in the publication of "God is Not Great" by expressing how religion poisons everything. He was not exactly a neutral figure in search of a mystical belief system. He was clear in message and was an articulate debater and obviously controversial.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
This is a very good point. Religion and science operate in completely different domains. Applying rules of science to religion or rules of religion to science just does not work. Debating against religion as a whole using science does not seem reasonable to me.
Dan F 50+
If you get completely elemental for a mystical claim, I agree - more. The problem is religion is elaborate in its description and in its explanation of how it is and why things are the way they are, and that slops into being contentions that have been shown to be factually untrue, or subject to differing views in a more enlightened and modern real world.
Hitchens dismissed religions (all religions) as man made. He didn't debate this subject as a scientist, but as a journalist. To some extent he fought fire with fire and in my mind that explains this clever response during a debate on the subject.
An old saying comes to mind, "You can't cheat an honest man." Anyone that questions the discipline of the thought process regarding Hitchens intellect owes it to themselves to tune into his many debates on this subject on Youtube. This was one cerebral individual no matter your convictions.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Whether a statement *should* be accepted or dismissed is a whole different question.
This statement seems to be made by a person fairly ignorant of how and why people accept or reject various statements. By far, it has nothing to do with evidence, reason, or logic.
What is counted as evidence? Should we accept any evidence or should we reject some evidence? Why? Should we ask for evidence that the evidence is authentic? To what degree? Where should we stop and believe the evidence? Why? Why shouldn't we accept the assertion itself in the first place?
Andy Hood
And as to your frankly child-like questions as to evidence... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But this doesn't have any bearing on the question at hand: is it correct to say that in a debate any imbecile who presents ideas without any logic, reason or evidence OUGHT to expect to be told that they are an imbecile and their thoughts worthless? Unfortunately, though, by simple appeal to feelings and instinct and emotions, such arguments are ofttimes given too much weight instead of being soundly dismissed.
I not only agree with the statement but also feel that the World would be a better place if we taught this to children instead of laughable intelligent design!
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
The statement I made is not emotional. Here is a good start to understand the complexity of this question: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/
I do not promote intelligent design and I think religion needs to be kept out of science and science out of religion. You better keep them separated. Yes, in natural science, evidence is needed. Note the limited scope.
As for Hitchens' quote, I did not say I disagree with it. Note that it is worded carefully "...can be dismissed..." It does not mean "should be dismissed".
Andy Hood
I read your original comments as partially facetious, largely pretentious, wholly patronising and completely missing the point.
This is not what you said but it IS how I read it. Forgive (and correct) me if I'm wrong:
1. I agree with the statement
2. I will now reword the original, subtly changing the meaning
3. I will now pontificate about a completely trivial reading of the quotation that I have helped to manipulate you into seeing by my clever rewording of the original phrase.
4. I will now make it clear that my agreement with the statement is conditional on the statement being read the wrong way.
5. I will now criticise the author (damn his Hitchy britches!) with slanderous abandon.
6. Having knocked the (now dead) competition, I shall demonstrate my incredible intelligence by displaying what a deep philosopher I am... let me ask you some solipsistic questions and show you what a deep thinker I am.
I don't know where to begin, really. Let me have a go:
Christopher Hitchens was a great many things; he was a great man; what he was not, however, was ignorant on how and why people accept or reject various statements. He was a great writer, a great thinker, a great philosopher and a great speaker. He understood more about why people accept or reject various statements than you, my young philosopher, will likely ever do. Well done for noting that human brains tend not to make decisions without emotional or cognitive bias. How clever you are. Really. Pat yourself on the back for stating the bleeding obvious.
The questions you pose at the end of your comments are... ironic! The GENIUS of the original quotation is just that it asks (and answers) those same questions, if you would but read it properly... only he doesn't get bogged down with "should"... he just relates to the reality of what people will accept or reject.
Now I cannot rest until you bow to the genius that was Hitch!
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
E G 10+
Martin Herrigan
Juliette Zahn 50+
while it applies to everything man-made,
it holds that absence is not proof.
And an assertion, as many here have pointed out, by definition is not fact.
ALL assertions are MAN-MADE.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
Henry Woeltjen 10+
However, everybody's opinion about most everything was given to them. I think it's important to reach a state where you can not only absorb information, but you can also analyze this information correctly. You can believe something and still stay open to new information.
That which can be asserted without evidence should not become the only option.
Ehis Odijie 10+
I agree with Christopher Hitchens
Gail . 50+
The statement is true
Daryl Roche
verb [ reporting verb ]
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully: [ with clause ] : the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development | [ with obj. ] : he asserted his innocence | [ with direct speech ] : “I don't know why she came,” he asserted.
• [ with obj. ] cause others to recognize (one's authority or a right) by confident and forceful behavior: the good librarian is able to assert authority when required.
• (assert oneself) behave or speak in a confident and forceful manner: it was time to assert himself.
dismiss -
verb [ with obj. ]
order or allow to leave; send away: she dismissed the taxi at the corner of the road.
• treat as unworthy of serious consideration: it would be easy to dismiss him as all brawn and no brain.
• deliberately cease to think about: he suspected a double meaning in her words, but dismissed the thought.
• Law refuse further hearing to (a case): the judge dismissed the case for lack of evidence.
"That which can be stated as fact or belief confidently and forcefully without evidence, can be treated as unworthy of consideration without evidence".
In spite of your quibbling over semantics the statement in it's entirety stands true….
Barry Palmer 50+
Andy Hood
Dwell on "can". That doesn't mean "should" or "will".
You CAN assert anything you like.
(Many people may agree with you)
But without evidence behind your assertion IT IS POSSIBLE THAT (can) one person in your audience will dismiss what you say.
I actually take it further, though, as it suggests (and you may have read it this way) that in a rational World where we seek truth we probably OUGHT to dismiss all assertions without evidence. I go with the weak and strong readings of this statement completely but actually the weak version is all he said, as you can see by substituting "it is possible to" for "can":
Would you agree with
Anything that it is possible to assert without evidence is by its nature possible to dismiss without evidence.
?
Barry Palmer 50+
The word "can" has too many meanings. The phrase "can be asserted" can be interpreted in different ways. "Can be dismissed" does not mean "can be refuted". In any case, whatever meaning you might like to give these phrases, every interpretation is obvious and trivial.
I fully agree with Edward. The quote is a linguistic train wreck.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Dwell on "dismissed". As Barry mentioned, it does not mean "refuted".
Re: "World where we seek truth we probably OUGHT to dismiss all assertions without evidence."
We do not always seek truth. Sometimes we seek safety, comfort, trust, or justice, for example. When someone yells "Fire!" or calls in with a bomb threat, such statements are taken seriously and the dreaded burden of proof is NOT on the one who makes the statement. Nobody questions the famous "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..." and no evidence is required to prove this statement.
Sometimes we OUGHT to do the opposite - believe without evidence. It's not just about religion. Regarding when we ought to believe what, I would refer you again to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ .
Linda Taylor 50+
edward long 100+
pat gilbert 50+
edward long 100+
Robert Winner 50+
I had to look it up ..... good one.
pat gilbert 50+
Lejan . 30+
This goes for your 'dismiss' perception as well, if you agree to Pats suggestion of the use of a tautology, as which I took this quote right away. So you may rethink your well phrased agreement for the sake of your arguments... :o)
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
Yup, that's a very wise quote. Do keep in mind though that evidence can be anything from a smoking gun to statistical analysis.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
...to another assertion without evidence... or something completely irrelevant to the assertion which still has some emotional impact on our thinking.
Roy Bourque 20+
The second is when evidence is not observable or comprehensible. There are people of faith who have had spiritual experiences that are so profound that they cannot dismiss it. It has brought them to a realm of consciousness that is not common to all. They cannot provide evidence other than in personal testimony.
On the same note, there are many stories of paranormal experience. The people who encountered these experiences admit that they were in total denial at first. It was not until all explanations failed that they had to consider the plausibility of realities that fall outside the physical realm. Many still deny that any of these stories are true.
By the same token, there are many people of faith who deny evolution because the evidence is incomprehensible to them. It isn't that there is no evidence, it is that they are incapable of seeing it for what it is, which to them, makes it no evidence, and therefore, easy to dismiss.