Are claims evidence?
Moderator: Moderators
-
historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 297 times
- Been thanked: 467 times
Are claims evidence?
Post #1This 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?
-
historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 297 times
- Been thanked: 467 times
Re: Are claims evidence?
Post #41So, this takes us back to what I said in post #33: Anyone saying this is conflating claims with propositions.
Recall what evidence is: It's something that increases the probability of a proposition being true. Things are only "evidence" with regard to propositions. So anyone saying "X is not evidence for its own truth" necessarily thinks X is a proposition.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: Are claims evidence?
Post #42[Replying to historia in post #41]
Under your framework, a "claim" (testimony) is not a proposition. It is an event - someone said something. That event can be evidence for a proposition (e.g., the proposition "Pat bought a car"). But the claim itself is not the proposition. So saying "claims are not evidence for their own truth" makes no sense because a claim has no "own truth" to be evidence for. Only propositions have truth values.
Is this to say then that "Testimony alone is not sufficient evidence for the truth of the proposition it asserts."
Where does this place the resurrection story as event?
The resurrection is a proposition. It is a statement about the world that can be evaluated as true or false. Specifically: "Jesus rose from the dead."
The biblical accounts are testimony (claims). They are events in which someone said something. Those testimony events can serve as evidence for the proposition that the resurrection occurred.
Evidence is something that increases the probability of a proposition being true. So the testimony of the Gospels either increases the probability of the resurrection proposition or it does not.
If testimony is always evidence, then the Gospel accounts must count as evidence for the resurrection - however weak or strong. If the testimony does not increase the probability, then by your own definition it is not evidence.
Under your framework, a "claim" (testimony) is not a proposition. It is an event - someone said something. That event can be evidence for a proposition (e.g., the proposition "Pat bought a car"). But the claim itself is not the proposition. So saying "claims are not evidence for their own truth" makes no sense because a claim has no "own truth" to be evidence for. Only propositions have truth values.
Is this to say then that "Testimony alone is not sufficient evidence for the truth of the proposition it asserts."
Where does this place the resurrection story as event?
The resurrection is a proposition. It is a statement about the world that can be evaluated as true or false. Specifically: "Jesus rose from the dead."
The biblical accounts are testimony (claims). They are events in which someone said something. Those testimony events can serve as evidence for the proposition that the resurrection occurred.
Evidence is something that increases the probability of a proposition being true. So the testimony of the Gospels either increases the probability of the resurrection proposition or it does not.
If testimony is always evidence, then the Gospel accounts must count as evidence for the resurrection - however weak or strong. If the testimony does not increase the probability, then by your own definition it is not evidence.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
