Hi, need to submit a 1250 words paper on the topic That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree.

Hi, need to submit a 1250 words paper on the topic That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Christopher Hitchens). Do you agree. They tried to prove that the correspondence truth is unknowable or unthinkable as it would call for comparison between cognition with its uncognized object which would be impossible (Net Industries, 2012). Moreover, Peire, the American Pragmatist proposed that the only way a concept can be indentified is from its practical effects of its objects. This implies that when this proposal is applied to definition of truth, a belief can only be true so far as it satisfies practicality of its objects. The fact that truth can only be sustained through inquiry implies that for truth to be indentified there has to be evidence to support such truth, which has to be practical and verifiable. However, knowledge can be attributed as evidence: to the extent that such known concept is true, inconsistency with the knowledge of an individual would amount to inconsistencies with some form of truth (Kelly, 2006). This applies to both normative and indicative evidence. Stating that smoke is the evidence of fire implies that whenever smoke is sighted there must be presence of fire. Therefore, Hirtchens assertion “that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is true in justifying the truth. Kelly (2006) defines evidence to be the kind of thing which makes a difference in what one has justifications in believing, or what is perceived to be reasonable for one to believe. Therefore, one’s justification in believing is barely a matter which can be traced to one’s evidence (Kelly, 2006). This implies that two individuals with the same types of evidence would be exactly the same according to what they are justified in believing regarding a particular issue. Therefore, the main question is if believing requires evidence, and whether the object believed can be proved beyond any doubt regarding its identity and hence truth. According to Dunwoody (2009), belief is matter of judgment and decision making. Evidence is more related to facts. evidence leads to justification in believing something as the truth. However, a fact is by itself subjective in nature as one has individual evidence to believe in a particular object, which to them represents the truth. Schmitt (2004) explains that to apprehend a fact by itself is an act of judgment and perception. this is directly related to the belief held by a particular individual. Therefore, facts which would amount to evidence that can sustain inquiry is also a belief as nothing is knowable in the world. everything is mediated by an individual’s senses and it is only a representation of objects in the world. Therefore beliefs are constructions of individual’s evidence and lead to construction of truth through consistency of these beliefs (Schmitt, 2004). Therefore, to establish the truth there are definite evidences required to support such beliefs, implying that evidence is critical in attaining any truth. According to James (1907) the truth of an idea is far from the stagnant property inherent within the idea, but truth happens to an idea. In other words, and idea is made true by events through a process which an idea verifies itself. The process of making an idea to be true is composed of a series of evidences, which justifies the truth in such an idea. Therefore, the fact that people seek evidence to believe or to assert the truth of a specific idea is thus correct.