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?

[Tcg]

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

Here's a pretty good tutorial on BBCcode: https://www.phpbb.com/community/help/bbcode. Check out the "Quoting and outputting fixed-width text" section. That should get you started.


Tcg

[William]

"Are claims evidence?" is an incomplete question.

It is like asking

"Are stars evidence?"

"Are grandmothers evidence?"

"Are rocks evidence?"

All claims are evidence of assertion - not evidence of truth or fiction.

But all claims at least have to be assertion.

Thus, "Are all claims evidence of assertion?" might be the complete question. Trivial.

If the implied end of the sentence is "...evidence of the claim's truth?" — then Dillahunty is right. Claims are not evidence.

If the implied end is "...evidence that an assertion was made?" — then historia is right. Claims are evidence.

[historia]

If the implied end of the sentence is "...evidence of the claim's truth?" — then Dillahunty is right. Claims are not evidence.

Anyone saying that "Claims are not evidence for the claim itself," as Dillahunty does, or "Claims are not evidence of the claim's truth," as you have here, is conflating testimony with propositions.

In fact, what would go a long way in dispelling this confusion would be for everyone here to stop using the word "claim" altogether, and instead use either: (a) testimony, when referring to someone telling us something, or (b) proposition, when referring to the question (or fact about the world) that we are considering.

So, when Pat tells us he bought a car today, his testimony is evidence for the proposition 'Pat bought a car today'. Likewise, when Eric tells us he owns a soccer ball, his testimony is evidence for the proposition 'Eric owns a soccer ball'.

If it helps, you can use the word hypothesis here instead of proposition. That underscores the fact that the proposition/hypothesis is a feature of our logical reasoning -- it's something we form in our own minds -- and is therefore not the same thing as someone else saying (= claiming) something.

[William]

"Are claims evidence?" is an incomplete question.

It is like asking

"Are stars evidence?"

"Are grandmothers evidence?"

"Are rocks evidence?"

All claims are evidence of assertion - not evidence of truth or fiction.

But all claims at least have to be assertion.

Thus, "Are all claims evidence of assertion?" might be the complete question. Trivial.

If the implied end of the sentence is "...evidence of the claim's truth?" — then Dillahunty is right. Claims are not evidence.

If the implied end is "...evidence that an assertion was made?" — then historia is right. Claims are evidence.

[Replying to historia in post #33]

The opening post and question were explicitly about claims — "Are claims evidence?" — using Dillahunty's slogan as the target. The word "claim" was central.

Now, you propose abandoning the word "claim" entirely, replacing it with "testimony" and "proposition."

This is a significant shift. The original question becomes almost unrecognizable under the new terminology:

Original: "Are claims evidence?"

Revised: "Is testimony evidence for a proposition?"

Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.

So, you have effectively solved the debate by redefining the terms away from the point of contention. But in doing so, you have moved the goalposts. The original slogan "claims aren't evidence" was specifically about claims as evidence for their own truth. Your new framework avoids that issue by relabeling and separating testimony from proposition.

This is not a response to my critique but an evasion of it. The incompleteness I identified remains. "Is testimony evidence for a proposition?" still begs the question: evidence for what aspect of the proposition? Its truth? Its existence as a report? The framework assumes the answer without addressing the ambiguity.

[Difflugia]

Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.

That's what I thought, but then watched the earlier video. Dillahunty's confused about this very distinction. Changing the vocabulary might have helped him see his confusion, but as it stands, historia's shift in vocabulary isn't changing the nature of the discussion. At most, it helps us (and might have helpded Dillahunty) clarify things.

[William]

Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.

That's what I thought, but then watched the earlier video. Dillahunty's confused about this very distinction. Changing the vocabulary might have helped him see his confusion, but as it stands, historia's shift in vocabulary isn't changing the nature of the discussion. At most, it helps us (and might have helpded Dillahunty) clarify things.

Your proposition under consideration that Dillahunty is "confused about this very distinction" is false. The video transcript shows Dillahunty clearly separates the claim from the proposition and explicitly argues that testimony alone is not evidence for the proposition's truth. He understands the distinction perfectly. He rejects it deliberately. Changing vocabulary would not resolve anything - it would only relabel the same disagreement.

Historia opened with a debate about whether claims are evidence, using Dillahunty's slogan as the target. Now, when pressed on the ambiguity of "evidence for what?", they propose abandoning the word "claim" altogether. That changes the question.

"Testimony is evidence for a proposition" is not the same as "claims are evidence." The former is trivial and widely accepted. The latter - the actual slogan in dispute - is what needs defending or refuting.

If historia wants to reframe the debate, fine. But they should acknowledge that shift explicitly, not pretend it's a clarification of the original terms. The ambiguity I identified - evidence of what? - remains unresolved in their new framework. Is testimony evidence for a proposition's truth, or merely evidence that the testimony occurred?

Until that's answered, we're just moving words around.

It seems to be a case where Historia has brought into debate something which is out of context...and the critics in the video accompanying the OP are doing the same...so the fair way to resolve the conflict is to agree that Dillahunty's slogan requires its own full context. "Claims are not evidence for their own truth."

[Difflugia]

Original: "Are claims evidence?"

Revised: "Is testimony evidence for a proposition?"

Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.

The video transcript shows Dillahunty clearly separates the claim from the proposition and explicitly argues that testimony alone is not evidence for the proposition's truth.

What is your argument? First, you claimed that Dillahunty would say "yes," then you claimed that he'd say "no."

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #37]

What is your argument?

My argument at this moment is that your proposition under consideration that Dillahunty is "confused about this very distinction" is false.

That is what you said when you linked his first video, isn't it? When I wrote "Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.", you replied with:

That's what I thought, but then watched the earlier video. Dillahunty's confused about this very distinction.

My argument is

It seems to be a case where Historia has brought into debate something which is out of context...and the critics in the video accompanying the OP are doing the same...so the fair way to resolve the conflict is to agree that Dillahunty's slogan requires its own full context. "Claims are not evidence for their own truth."

[historia]

The opening post and question were explicitly about claims — "Are claims evidence?" — using Dillahunty's slogan as the target. The word "claim" was central.

Now, you propose abandoning the word "claim" entirely, replacing it with "testimony" and "proposition."

This is a significant shift.

No, it's simply clarifying that claims are testimony. Tcg and I have been clearly delineating between claims (= testimony) and propositions since the first page of the thread, so this isn't shifting anything.

The problem here is that some folks conflate claims with propositions, and so using different terminology here can help surface that confusion in their argument.

Revised: "Is testimony evidence for a proposition?"

Most people — including Dillahunty, likely — would answer "yes" to the revised question, at least in the weak sense. Testimony is routinely treated as evidence in courts, history, and daily life. The entire controversy dissolves.

One might think so. But you directly contradicted this in your very next reply, saying that Dillahunty does not think testimony is evidence for a proposition. So I guess the controversy is very much alive.

Dillahunty clearly separates the claim from the proposition

He does not. Consider, for example, in the earlier video, starting at 5:12, he gives three examples of claims, and then says, "each of these claims is the proposition in question." That is literally conflating claims with propositions.

He makes the same conflation in the video posted in the OP.

"Is testimony evidence for a proposition?" still begs the question: evidence for what aspect of the proposition? Its truth?

Well, yeah. Propositions are statements about the world that can be either true or false. When we say something is evidence "for" a proposition, we mean for it being true. I would have thought that was obvious.

[William]

To Difflugia and historia:

I need to apologize. I was wrong.

I claimed that Dillahunty "clearly separates the claim from the proposition" based on the longer transcript I had seen. But after reviewing the transcript of the earlier video (the one Difflugia linked), I see that at 5:12-5:14 Dillahunty explicitly says: "each of these claims is the proposition in question." That is not separating them. That is conflating them.

You were right to call me out on that. Dillahunty has been inconsistent across his videos. My refutation of Difflugia's point about confusion was therefore incorrect. I apologize for the error.

That said, I still believe the fair resolution to the overall debate is to agree that Dillahunty's slogan requires its full context: "Claims are not evidence for their own truth."

Even if Dillahunty has been unclear at times, that formulation captures what he is trying to say in his more careful moments (as seen in the longer transcript about the Raven's Paradox). It resolves the ambiguity between "evidence of assertion" and "evidence of truth." And it allows both sides to move forward without talking past each other.

So again, my apologies for the mischaracterization. But I hope we can still agree on that core resolution.