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?

[William]

He is not saying that the claim is not evidence . . .

Just a reminder that the slogan is "claims are not evidence."

. . . but that what makes the evidence substantial (or not) has to do with the extenuating elements (or lack thereof)

I'm not sure what you mean by making the evidence "substantial." Every time he addresses this topic, Dillahunty shifts to talking about how one assesses testimony, particularly in relation to our background knowledge -- perhaps that's what you mean here.

But that is a separate issue from whether testimony is evidence in the first place. And, in fact, that shift to assessing someone's testimony is itself a tacit admissions that the testimony is evidence -- otherwise, why assess it?

While the soccer ball analogy was used, I think the resurrection claim was the central issue? Not sure as I did not finish watching the whole video but I will get AI to summarize the transcript in case there is more information I missed.

Forget about Dillahunty for a second, and just tell us how you would approach this: My friend claimed that he bought a new soccer ball. How is that not evidence that he bought a new soccer ball?

The slogan is at the center of the debate: whether it's a useful epistemological heuristic, an oversimplification that invites misunderstanding, or simply wrong depending on how one defines "evidence."

I think the slogan falls short and that is what invited the criticism he now finds himself defending.

I also understand that claims should be treated differently - meaning not all claims are equal. The soccer ball claim ought be treated differently than the resurrection claim. Do you agree?

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

If we define evidence as that which increases the likelihood of a proposition being true, then in the soccer ball example, certainly the claim is evidence. Now if one's friend was known to be a habitual liar and they claimed to have broken the speed of sound while driving on flat level ground simply by adding Red Bull to the gas tank of an otherwise stock 1972 Toyota Corolla, then that claim would not be evidence for the claimed feat.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me in these examples. Of course, there certainly would be examples which would be much harder to determine. In any case, it seems Matt D. is clearly wrong in this assertion that no claims are evidence.


Tcg

[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?

[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

[historia]

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

Yes, your claim is evidence you own a soccer ball.

[historia]

I also understand that claims should be treated differently - meaning not all claims are equal. The soccer ball claim ought be treated differently than the resurrection claim. Do you agree?

It depends on what you mean by that.

We need to be consistent in how we treat testimony (or any other type of evidence), otherwise we're guilty of special pleading.

But different hypotheses (or propositions) have different prior probabilities. So, naturally, the posterior probability of any hypothesis given a specific person's testimony will be different depending on our background knowledge.

[William]

I also understand that claims should be treated differently - meaning not all claims are equal. The soccer ball claim ought be treated differently than the resurrection claim. Do you agree?

It depends on what you mean by that.

We need to be consistent in how we treat testimony (or any other type of evidence), otherwise we're guilty of special pleading.

But different hypotheses (or propositions) have different prior probabilities. So, naturally, the posterior probability of any hypothesis given a specific person's testimony will be different depending on our background knowledge.

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

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

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?

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?

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?

Does that sound strange?

[Tcg]

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

Yes, your claim is evidence you own a soccer ball.

How are you defining evidence to make this determination?


Tcg

[historia]

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

Yes, your claim is evidence you own a soccer ball.

How are you defining evidence to make this determination?

The same way you are, actually: Something that increases the likelihood of a proposition being true.

[hERICtic]

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

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?

What about two people with conflicting stories? It seems more likely they're just assertions and evidence is then needed to back up the assertion.