Presuppositions and Evidence

Ok, so I hang out a lot with debaters and know a thing or two about debate. One of the things that debaters do a lot is use evidence. Having a brother who went to nationals in debate, I know how much evidence can be used, even on a single topic.

However, one thing that many debaters forget is that evidence alone does not prove anything. Any piece of evidence can be read multiple ways: the evidence itself is just there. It is the interpretation of the evidence that matters. The interpretation of evidence is related directly on the presuppositions of the interpreter.

At this point I am going to define what I mean by a presupposition. A presupposition is a preconceived notion that a person brings to any discussion. Everyone has presuppositions: they may be rational (ie: logical consistency is best) or arational (aesthetic values). No one can leave their presuppositions aside when they enter a situation.

Now, as a Christian, I have distinctly Christian presuppositions as a part of my worldview. My friend Joe, however, is a materialist. He, therefore, will see a biological organism differently than I, regardless of my stance on evolution. Why? Because I see the world differently than he does. Therefore if I am to convince him from evidence, I have to take his presuppositions into account, maybe even taking them to a logical conclusion (order in a random universe, for example). I might even take his presupposition of evolutionary biology and use it as an argument for God's existence (yes, it can be done).

Evidence and logic is of utmost importance in convincing someone of anything, yet I must also know my audience. It's just common sense: if I take presuppositions into account (and maybe even find common ground) I will be much more convincing. I also have to examine my own presuppositions when approaching a topic, being careful that I'm not being overly closed-minded.

~Roccondil