Claims aren't evidence?

[historia]

This is a video from Matt Dillahunty, an atheist activist, in which he addresses some criticisms he has received -- including, in his own words, "from some otherwise reasonable people" -- regarding his sweeping assertion that "claims are not evidence." The video is nearly 20 minutes long, but worth the watch.


Question for debate: Are claims evidence?

[TRANSPONDER]

Not in that form as it is a proposition "I walked on the moon" is not evidence for that claim in itself, but if someone else claimed it, then 'you confirming that you did would be evidence. This is as simple as 2+2 = 4, but as we know "If the Bible said 2+2 = 5, I would try to find some way of making that look true.". I am sure the idea is here to try to make claims look like evidence or, if that doesn't work,try to make it look like nobody knows what claim and evidence really are. The old tricks and shenanigans.

The trick here being "Transistor said this! You don't agree with that, do you?" Dirty tricks. That's what.

[historia]

Historians consider the gospels to be evidence for the proposition that Pontius Pilot was governor of the Roman province of Judaea. So it appears that "the Bible" is evidence for some propositions.

Historians have a different metrix for assessing claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by "metrix." Maybe methodology? And different from what?

Mostly, historians deal with claims and have to simply make a judgment call on whether the claims are relaible

I would rephrase this a bit, as it seems a little simplistic.

I would say that historians deal with historical sources, which they treat as evidence. They don't "simply" decide that some sources are "reliable," but rather critically analyze all available sources, and then form various hypotheses, in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

If a hypothesis greatly exceeds other competing hypotheses in terms of having greater explanatory scope, greater explanatory power, being more plausible, and less ad hoc, then historians conclude that that explanation describes what most likely happened in the past.

- until they get actual evidence.

Curious. What would be the "actual evidence" that Pontius Pilate was governor of the Roman province of Judaea?

[boatsnguitars]

Historians consider the gospels to be evidence for the proposition that Pontius Pilot was governor of the Roman province of Judaea. So it appears that "the Bible" is evidence for some propositions.

Historians have a different metrix for assessing claims.

I'm not sure what you mean by "metrix." Maybe methodology? And different from what?

Mostly, historians deal with claims and have to simply make a judgment call on whether the claims are relaible

I would rephrase this a bit, as it seems a little simplistic.

I would say that historians deal with historical sources, which they treat as evidence. They don't "simply" decide that some sources are "reliable," but rather critically analyze all available sources, and then form various hypotheses, in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.

If a hypothesis greatly exceeds other competing hypotheses in terms of having greater explanatory scope, greater explanatory power, being more plausible, and less ad hoc, then historians conclude that that explanation describes what most likely happened in the past.

- until they get actual evidence.

Curious. What would be the "actual evidence" that Pontius Pilate was governor of the Roman province of Judaea?

Good question, right? Maybe he wasn't. It's possible he wasn't, after all. He may not have lived at all.

[JoeyKnothead]

Curious. What would be the "actual evidence" that Pontius Pilate was governor of the Roman province of Judaea?

Good question, right? Maybe he wasn't. It's possible he wasn't, after all. He may not have lived at all.

Wicked return.

I've come to rely on ice for most of my swelling reduction needs.

[historia]

"I walked on the moon" is not evidence for that claim in itself, but if someone else claimed it, then 'you confirming that you did would be evidence.

Let's give this a whirl, then:

I claim Joey walked on the moon.

And, since Joey already said he walked on the moon, then his claim is now evidence he walked on the moon.

Or does it only work if I make the claim first and then Joey makes his claim?

In either case, it's not clear how my saying "Joey walked on the moon" suddenly converted Joey's claim into evidence, especially when I have no knowledge of Joey's astronautical adventures.

[historia]

Curious. What would be the "actual evidence" that Pontius Pilate was governor of the Roman province of Judaea?

Good question, right?

Well, it's an easy one, anyway. The actual evidence are the relevant historical sources, including the gospels.

Maybe he wasn't. It's possible he wasn't, after all. He may not have lived at all.

Lots of things are merely possible, that's not saying much at all.

Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Pontius Pilate likely didn't exist? Or that he likely wasn't the governor of Judaea?

[JoeyKnothead]

"I walked on the moon" is not evidence for that claim in itself, but if someone else claimed it, then 'you confirming that you did would be evidence.

Let's give this a whirl, then:

I claim Joey walked on the moon.

And, since Joey already said he walked on the moon, then his claim is now evidence he walked on the moon.

Or does it only work if I make the claim first and then Joey makes his claim?

In either case, it's not clear how my saying "Joey walked on the moon" suddenly converted Joey's claim into evidence, especially when I have no knowledge of Joey's astronautical adventures.

Okay, so you and Joey claim there was some walking on the moon.

What evidence can either of y'all provide, that we might confirm there's some truth going on along with all that walking?

[historia]

"I walked on the moon" is not evidence for that claim in itself, but if someone else claimed it, then 'you confirming that you did would be evidence.

Let's give this a whirl, then:

I claim Joey walked on the moon.

And, since Joey already said he walked on the moon, then his claim is now evidence he walked on the moon.

Or does it only work if I make the claim first and then Joey makes his claim?

In either case, it's not clear how my saying "Joey walked on the moon" suddenly converted Joey's claim into evidence, especially when I have no knowledge of Joey's astronautical adventures.

Okay, so you and Joey claim there was some walking on the moon.

What evidence can either of y'all provide, that we might confirm there's some truth going on along with all that walking?

Well, according to TRANSPONDER, Joey's claim is now evidence.

I take it, though, you disagree, otherwise you wouldn't have made your request.

He seems to think it's a "dirty trick" for me to point out that you -- and likely others here -- disagree with his assessment that my claim now makes your claim evidence (assuming I uttered the right words at the right time). But it seems to me that scheme is in no way obvious. So, even if he's right, he's got some 'splainin' to do -- hopefully with fewer ad hominem attacks.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well, according to TRANSPONDER, Joey's claim is now evidence.

I'm not responsible for arguments others may present.

I take it, though, you disagree, otherwise you wouldn't have made your request.

As I take it you have no evidence to support the claim of Joey's moon travels, per my request.

He seems to think it's a "dirty trick" for me to point out that you -- and likely others here -- disagree with his assessment that my claim now makes your claim evidence (assuming I uttered the right words at the right time). But it seems to me that scheme is in no way obvious. So, even if he's right, he's got some 'splainin' to do -- hopefully with fewer ad hominem attacks.

Fuss at him.

I'm having a time enough trying to get you to present evidence of Joey's doing the moonwalk.

[historia]

Fuss at him.

I was! You butted into our conversation.

I'm not responsible for arguments others may present.

No, but you're a useful foil in my arguments, so thank you.

BTW, how's the new car?