Are claims evidence?

[historia]

This is a video from Matt Dillahunty, an atheist activist, in which he addresses some criticisms he has received from Alex O'Connor, among others, for his oft-repeated slogan "claims are not evidence." This issue came up a few years ago -- discussed in an earlier thread -- when Dillahunty addressed similar criticisms.

Question for debate: Are claims evidence?

[hERICtic]

Tcg,

My apologies if I'm not understanding your stance on this topic...

If I claim I own a soccer ball, are you saying it's evidence I own a soccer ball?

Not necessarily. I don't know whether or not you generally provide reliable testimony. I also don't know if you have the means, opportunity, and interest in owning a soccer ball.

Keep in mind I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition being true. Let's consider this example. My wife and I have a friend we'll call Pat who is certified master mechanic and has as a hobby bought and sold collectible cars for decades. On any given day, consider the odds that Pat bought another car on that specific day. My wife jokingly answered 50%. Knowing that Pat has the means, interest and often the opportunity to do so, let's say it's more realistically 5%.

Now let's say that Pat who is consistently reliable and truthful called and claimed he bought a 1965 Shelby GT 350 that day. The proposition under consideration is - Pat bought another car today. Would his claim increase the likelihood of this proposition being true for that given day compared to any other day? I think so. It'd push it to maybe 95%.

Does this explanation help? Do you agree or have I perhaps overlooked something?

Regards.


Tcg

Tcg,

My apologies, I missed your response before I responded to Historia.

In my initial post, I mentioned I have a soccer ball. Thats an assertion. In reality, I dont. So the fact I made the claim that I have one, isnt evidence I have one.

The scenario you mentioned is that Pat bought another car. To me this is an assertion. Not evidence is any sense.

The fact that you know Pat-that he has the means, the interest, the opportunity, hes reliable, truthful and collects cars... would be the evidence that the claim most likely is true. Without all the other information you provided, its just an empty claim. All the other facts are needed to make a determination.

Since we are in a religious forum...

The Quran makes hundreds upon hundreds of claims. I would assume you and I would both agree most if not all are not based upon facts. That they are not true. To me again, those claims would be assertions. Until other information is gathered to determine the reliability of those claims, they're just that...claims. Not evidence of anything. Maybe I'm still missing something...

[historia]

Wouldn't the statement I have a soccer ball just be an assertion?

It's testimony. Testimony is someone asserting that something is the case.

I say this because although I made the claim I have a soccer ball..in reality, I don't.

So how is making a claim evidence?

Your testimony that you own a soccer ball increased the probability of the proposition that you own a soccer ball -- that's what we mean by evidence.

However, it didn't prove you own a soccer ball. In the video that Dillahunty is critiquing here, Schmid notes this specifically: "My friend claimed that he bought a new soccer ball. This provides pretty strong evidence he did, in fact, buy a soccer ball. It doesn't prove it. He could be lying [or mistaken] . . . but, still, it provides strong evidence he did, in fact, buy a soccer ball."

What about two people with conflicting stories?

Consider how a court of law works. In a criminal trial, the prosecution and the defense can only bring evidence before the jury. Here is the definition of evidence, according to the Wex legal dictionary (emphasis mine):

Evidence: an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

So, clearly, testimony is evidence, right?

If two people give conflicting testimonies in a trial that is still evidence.

[historia]

Maybe I'm still missing something...

One thing we can do here to perhaps clear up some confusion is to clearly delinieate between:

(a) the proposition under consideration
(b) someone's testimony
(c) our background knowledge.

When we talk about "claims," what we are often referring to is someone's testimony. But, especially when someone starts talking about "the claim," what they really mean is the proposition under consideration.

Let's keep that in mind as we review your and Tcg's earlier comments:

On any given day, consider the odds that Pat bought another car on that specific day. My wife jokingly answered 50%. Knowing that Pat has the means, interest and often the opportunity to do so, let's say it's more realistically 5%.

Now let's say that Pat who is consistently reliable and truthful called and claimed he bought a 1965 Shelby GT 350 that day. The proposition under consideration is - Pat bought another car today. Would his claim increase the likelihood of this proposition being true for that given day compared to any other day? I think so. It'd push it to maybe 95%.

The scenario you mentioned is that Pat bought another car. To me this is an assertion. Not evidence is any sense.

The fact that you know Pat-that he has the means, the interest, the opportunity, hes reliable, truthful and collects cars... would be the evidence that the claim most likely is true. Without all the other information you provided, its just an empty claim.

Notice that Tcg carefully delineates between Pat's "claim" (that is, his testimony) and the proposition under consideration. Whereas you seem to be conflating the two, as if Pat's testimony is simply the proposition under consideration.

Propositions are a feature of our logical reasoning. The proposition "Pat bought another car today" is a logical statement about the world that could be true or false. We can also put it in the form of a question: Did Pat buy another car today?

We can give consideration to that proposition at any time for any reason. You can ask yourself right now: Did Pat buy another car today? You can ask the same question tomorrow, or the day after. We don't need Pat to say anything in order for us to consider whether the proposition "Pat bought another car today" is true or not.

Given all that, does our background knowledge by itself give us sufficient evidence to think that the proposition "Pat bought another car today" is likely to be true?

[historia]

The equation therefore is Testimony is a claim, and a claim is evidence.

As I mentioned in my last post, by "claim" we often mean someone's testimony. But sometimes -- and especially when someone starts talking about "the claim" -- what they really mean is the proposition under consideration.

Therefore, to treat testimony consistently means to always treat it as evidence - regardless of the content of the claim.

Testimony is evidence if it raises the probability of a proposition being true.

Would you agree then that content of any evidence is required to help determine truth of claim and in that we need to be consistent to avoid special pleading?

I don't know what you mean by "content of any evidence is required to help determine truth of claim."

Or does your interest only go as far as answering the question "Are claims evidence?" and avoiding argument on differences any claim has from any other?

I think the question we are considering here is whether claims are evidence. Can we bring them into our analysis at all.

Also, if claim are evidence why don't we just call them that? If That Tanager say's to me "That is your claim now what support do you have for you claim?" why not just write "That is your evidence now what extra evidence do you have for you evidence?

What you and the Tanager are debating is whether a particular proposition (P) is true. Your claim that P is true in most cases doesn't meaningfully raise the probability of P being true, and so is not evidence for that proposition.

If, on the other hand, you cite a relevant expert -- or, better yet, the consensus of relevant experts -- saying that P is true, their testimony is evidence for that proposition.

[Tcg]

Tcg,

My apologies if I'm not understanding your stance on this topic...

If I claim I own a soccer ball, are you saying it's evidence I own a soccer ball?

Not necessarily. I don't know whether or not you generally provide reliable testimony. I also don't know if you have the means, opportunity, and interest in owning a soccer ball.

Keep in mind I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition being true. Let's consider this example. My wife and I have a friend we'll call Pat who is certified master mechanic and has as a hobby bought and sold collectible cars for decades. On any given day, consider the odds that Pat bought another car on that specific day. My wife jokingly answered 50%. Knowing that Pat has the means, interest and often the opportunity to do so, let's say it's more realistically 5%.

Now let's say that Pat who is consistently reliable and truthful called and claimed he bought a 1965 Shelby GT 350 that day. The proposition under consideration is - Pat bought another car today. Would his claim increase the likelihood of this proposition being true for that given day compared to any other day? I think so. It'd push it to maybe 95%.

Does this explanation help? Do you agree or have I perhaps overlooked something?

Regards.


Tcg

Tcg,

My apologies, I missed your response before I responded to Historia.

In my initial post, I mentioned I have a soccer ball. Thats an assertion. In reality, I dont. So the fact I made the claim that I have one, isnt evidence I have one.

Remember that I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition being true. I'm going to throw out some numbers just for explanations sake. I have no idea if they are accurate. Also remember that I know next to nothing about you personally.

Let's say the odds of someone owning a soccer ball are 1 in 10,000. The likelihood of any given person owning one then is 0.01%. Now we have to figure the odds of someone claiming to own one when they don't. I can't think of many reasons one would misrepresent this or be mistaken about it. Let's say 2 in 10 would. That leaves an 80% likelihood of someone being correct when they do so. So, your claim would increase the likelihood of you owning a soccer ball therefore it is evidence given the definition above.

If upon investigation, we found that you don't actually own a soccer ball, that evidence would over-ride the previous evidence. and we could safely conclude your earlier claim was false.

Now, let's say you claimed to have kicked a soccer ball so hard that it traveled through space and orbited the moon. The odds of that are close to being 0% and we could conclude safely that that claim would not be evidence of the claimed feat.

The scenario you mentioned is that Pat bought another car. To me this is an assertion. Not evidence is any sense.

The fact that you know Pat-that he has the means, the interest, the opportunity, hes reliable, truthful and collects cars... would be the evidence that the claim most likely is true. Without all the other information you provided, its just an empty claim. All the other facts are needed to make a determination.

As I explained earlier, his claim would increase the likelihood that he bought another car that day and thus would be evidence. Perhaps we are using different definitions of the word evidence.

Since we are in a religious forum...

The Quran makes hundreds upon hundreds of claims. I would assume you and I would both agree most if not all are not based upon facts. That they are not true. To me again, those claims would be assertions. Until other information is gathered to determine the reliability of those claims, they're just that...claims. Not evidence of anything. Maybe I'm still missing something...

I know next to nothing about the Quran so my opinion wouldn't have much value. Sorry.


Tcg

[hERICtic]

Wouldn't the statement I have a soccer ball just be an assertion?

It's testimony. Testimony is someone asserting that something is the case.

I say this because although I made the claim I have a soccer ball..in reality, I don't.

So how is making a claim evidence?

Your testimony that you own a soccer ball increased the probability of the proposition that you own a soccer ball -- that's what we mean by evidence.

However, it didn't prove you own a soccer ball. In the video that Dillahunty is critiquing here, Schmid notes this specifically: "My friend claimed that he bought a new soccer ball. This provides pretty strong evidence he did, in fact, buy a soccer ball. It doesn't prove it. He could be lying [or mistaken] . . . but, still, it provides strong evidence he did, in fact, buy a soccer ball."

What about two people with conflicting stories?

Consider how a court of law works. In a criminal trial, the prosecution and the defense can only bring evidence before the jury. Here is the definition of evidence, according to the Wex legal dictionary (emphasis mine):

Evidence: an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

So, clearly, testimony is evidence, right?

If two people give conflicting testimonies in a trial that is still evidence.

It seems to me your definition backs up my point though. The "fact" is the claim. The evidence is presented after the fact to support the claim. Or disprove it.

An item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact (which is the claim) more or less probable.

I agree testimony can be evidence. Just not from the initial claim.

A person is presented to a court accused of a crime. The prosecution makes the claim he is guilty. The defense makes the claim he is innocent. From there, evidence is presented to support either viewpoint. The mere claim isnt evidence of guilt or innocence.

[hERICtic]

Tcg: "Remember that I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition being true. I'm going to throw out some numbers just for explanations sake. I have no idea if they are accurate. Also remember that I know next to nothing about you personally."

Here is where we are having our disagreement. A proposition is the claim. So you're stating," ...I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition/claim being true."

To me at least, your very definition implies that the proposition/claim isnt the evidence. The evidence comes after that, to prove/disprove the proposition/claim.

To use the silly analogy of the soccer ball.

I own a soccer ball. You're stating this is evidence. But in reality, I dont own a soccer ball.

It seems you're stating since I mentioned that I own a soccer ball its evidence I own a soccer ball even though I dont own a soccer ball. This makes no sense to me.

My claim of owning a soccer ball to me is just a claim. Your scenario with the probabilities would be the evidence to prove or disprove the claim.

(I really need to take some time and learn how to quote on here, my apologies for this mess)

[William]

AI Overview
Evidence is information, facts, or objects used to prove or disprove a claim, or to support a conclusion, belief, or hypothesis. In legal contexts, it consists of admissible testimony, documents, or physical items (exhibits) presented in court to establish the truth of a matter.

Key Aspects of Evidence:
Purpose: To establish facts, support arguments, and guide decisions, particularly in investigations or judicial proceedings.
Types:
Oral Testimony: Statements made under oath in court.
Documentary Evidence: Documents, records, and electronic data.
Physical/Real Evidence: Physical objects.
Affidavits: Written, sworn statements.
Standards of Proof:
Balance of Probabilities: Typically used in civil cases (more likely than not).
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Required for criminal convictions.
Relevance: Evidence must directly relate to the facts at issue in a case.

Evidence serves as the foundation for rational belief and decision-making, ensuring that conclusions are based on verifiable facts rather than speculation.
_______________
Re the question for debate

A claim appears to be nothing much on its own. Even if claims are thought of as evidence, that doesn't mean much more than that. The question is perhaps trivial.

Evidence is but one thing - what kind of evidence is another, and does the evidence support the claim depends on the kind of evidence.
So, while claims can be evidence, they are of themselves not the only kind of evidence one requires to get closer to the truth of something.

Claim = evidence
supporting the claim = more evidence (not just claims of more evidence).

With that in mind...

Claims = evidence
Claims do NOT equal supported evidence


Therefore IF claims are to be regarded as evidence on their own (in their own right), THEN they must be considered to be unsupported evidence.

Weak evidence.

[historia]

Evidence: an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects.

So, clearly, testimony is evidence, right?

If two people give conflicting testimonies in a trial that is still evidence.

It seems to me your definition backs up my point though. The "fact" is the claim.

In law, a fact is, per Wex, "something that actually occurred."

Facts exist independent of anyone saying (= claiming) anything about them. We can represent facts using propositions -- which, as a function of our logical reasoning, also exist independent of anyone saying (= claiming) anything about them.

In your argument, you seem to be conflating propositions with claims/testimony.

I agree testimony can be evidence.

Cool.

Just not from the initial claim.

That's going to pose some serious problems for our legal system.

But, before we get into that, it would be useful if you could first address my argument and question in post #23, as the example Tcg gave earlier illustrates this issue really well.

[Tcg]

Here is where we are having our disagreement. A proposition is the claim. So you're stating," ...I am defining evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition/claim being true."

While they are related, the claim and the proposition are not the same:

Your claim: I own a soccer ball.

The proposition: It is true that hERICtic owns a soccer ball.

Using my numbers from earlier, consider two classes of people:

N - Those who make no mention of owning a soccer ball. Members of this group have a 0.01% chance of owning a soccer ball.

C - Those who claim to own a soccer ball. Members of this group have an 80% chance of owning a soccer ball.

Your claim - "I own a soccer ball", moves you from class N into class C where the odds of owning a soccer ball are much greater thus making the proposition - "It is true that hERICtic owns a soccer ball" much more likely.

Hope that helps.


Tcg