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?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Well I'm wildly late to this party

I think the question for debate is a misrepresentation of what Matt is saying in the video. I think the previous 20 pages or so could have been avoided if the debate question and what Matt actually is saying were the same thing.

I watched the video. Matt is saying (over and over) that claims are not evidence FOR THE CLAIM ITSELF. I'm not sure how that is controversial or was missed. I guess one could lambaste Matt for not properly titling his video.

The entire video seems to be about trying to clear up the difference between a proposition (claim) and supporting evidence for that claim.

There are all kinds of different evidence that can be used to support a claim. They are NOT all equal in their convincing power. Many things are evidence for a given claim, but that doesn't mean they are 'good' evidence, proof, or even very convincing. Often we need a variety of different evidence to really convince ourselves of any given claim. Matt also talks about that over and over. Our life experience to this point has given us a pool of evidence that we draw on in everyday life.

Claim: Joey bought a car.

Evidence: Joey's testimony that he bought a car.

Joey's testimonial evidence is certainly evidence, but that doesn't mean it's good or convincing or proof. In fact, given all the exchanges I've seen on this forum, I would (perhaps wrongly) assume our dear brother Joey lives in a rural setting. I would be more apt to believe he bought a TRUCK. At this point, since it's a mundane claim and I don't take Joey as a liar, I would conditionally accept his testimony and call it a day. I know cars exist and people buy them and then talk about it. Good enough for me. Does this mean Joey ACTUALLY bought a car? No, of course not.

For those unconvinced by testimonial evidence, further evidence would be required. Perhaps the purchase contract, seeing the registration, seeing the car with Joey in it, etc.

Now, why are we debating all this on a Christianity forum? Probably because some would like to claim (which fits nicely with this topic) that the Bible is evidence for God, Jesus, the resurrection, etc.

You know what? It is evidence, but some of the weakest kind. At best, it is first hand testimonial evidence from the people who actually witnessed the events described. At worst, it is far removed (non first hand), copied, modified, stories to simply promote a theology. How might we find out which parts of it hold any water? That, I think, is the crux of the matter.

"Testimonial evidence" is labelled as such because it is different from "evidence".

In a court of law, they accept "testimonial evidence": "I didn't kill those people," said OJ Simpson.

They accept that as a data point.

But he did kill them, didn't he?

That's why actual evidence is different. For example, the blood in his car, the dna evidence, the timeline, etc.

In fact, it was the lawyers claims that got OJ free.

(And, so we don't get bogged down if someone thinks OJ is innocent, we could refer to any case in which a person testifies to something that is not true.)

To wit, your example of Joey testifying that he bought a car. What if Joey is lying?

Wouldn't the evidence be a reciept of the car and associated bank records, or the car itself?

I don't think Matt's comment that "claims are not evidence FOR THE CLAIM ITSELF" is helpful.

Claims are, in fact, "evidence" that the claim has been made - for the claim itself having been made. They are not evidence of what is claimed in the claim - to be pedantic.

The point is, Claims and Evidence are two different things. Period.

For example, we get so much ink spilled on the idea that if a "claim is from a reliable source, and under the threat of perjury, and fits with all known evidence, etc." then it shjould be considered reliable. (Think how Christians want the testimony of John to be true). But they forget a very simple idea:

If a reliable claim, with all the promises of truthfulness and accuracy, is made - one bit of solid, physical evidence can throw it all out.

If I swear to you, in court, that I am physically 30,000 miles away, my mere presense is enough to contradict that claim. No matter how pious I am, no matter how much I swear to God that I'm telling the truth, no matter if I die for my claim. It doesn't make it true. It's not evidence.

I doubt any of the people here who deperately want "Claims=Evidence" would argue this...
(actually, they will. They will try to argue some supernatural ability, heretofore unknown to us, is the reason...)

Again, the only people arguing that claims and evidence even remotely synonomous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true. They will obsfucate and mislead forever until they get people to walk away - then they'll declare victory and continue to claim the Bible=Evidence.

I think we can all agree that the Bible is certainly evidence that some number of authors wrote something down. I can pick up one of my copies and indeed verify that there are words in it that someone must have written. Where some people like to go though is assuming that just because somebody wrote something down and it landed in a holy text, it must therefore be true. Many of us need better supporting evidence of any given testimony than just the fact it ended up in a compendium of literature.

Yes, claims are evidence of claims being made. That is the one thing I will concede.

And I totally agree with your latter statements.

[benchwarmer]

"Testimonial evidence" is labelled as such because it is different from "evidence".

Sure, it has an adjective in front of it just like "physical evidence" does. They are both still types of evidence.

From dictionary.com
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

noun
1 that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2 something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3 Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

In a court of law, they accept "testimonial evidence": "I didn't kill those people," said OJ Simpson.

Agreed. They accept this type of evidence. They also accept physical evidence such as "the knife that committed the crime", written reports from labs on DNA analysis, video footage of the crime, etc.

They accept that as a data point.

Agreed. All evidence is just data in the end. Some of it is useless and some of it is practically iron clad.

But he did kill them, didn't he?

No clue. I wasn't there to witness the crime. The accumulated evidence doesn't look good for him so I can probably make a conditional assessment based on what I've heard, but I would never be able to say with 100% certainty.

That's why actual evidence is different. For example, the blood in his car, the dna evidence, the timeline, etc.

I would phrase that as "physical evidence" is different than "testimonial evidence". They are both data. We know that some data is more useful than others. It sounds like you are trying to say that testimonial evidence is only useful in court rooms and is otherwise not actually evidence of any kind?

I counter that with:

Claim: Joey doesn't speak a word of English.

Evidence: Joey gives the following testimony "Hi everyone! I'm sorry, but I only speak German. In fact, if you want to debate me, please use High German as I prefer the formal tone. Have a pleasant day".

Are we saying the above testimony is not evidence to the contrary of the claim? It seems some people might be stuck on the idea that evidence has to be a positive affirmation of a given claim. The above would be a data point that shows the claim is false. Joey, at least in the above testimony, spoke some English.

To wit, your example of Joey testifying that he bought a car. What if Joey is lying?

Then we have evidence (Joey's testimony), that Joey is a liar if we can prove he didn't buy a car with other evidence. Maybe the pretty thing shows us a video of Joey BBQing ribs all day when he supposedly "bought a car". She also shows us the GPS tracking on his phone that places him firmly in the backyard all day further solidifying the video evidence.

Wouldn't the evidence be a reciept of the car and associated bank records, or the car itself?

All of these things would be evidence, but still don't PROVE Joey bought a car. Maybe Joey has a printer and knows how to make fake receipts and bank records. Maybe he borrowed his buddy's car and took some pictures with it. Maybe Joey is sitting in the car talking with you explaining how this new car "he bought" is so fantastic. Meanwhile his buddy is hoping Joey is having a pleasant day driving around in his borrowed car.

What we seem to be revolving around is the QUALITY of any given evidence. For many things, testimony is weak or even useless. However, I just showed above it can be the solid proof depending on the claim it's being paired with.

I don't think Matt's comment that "claims are not evidence FOR THE CLAIM ITSELF" is helpful.

Claims are, in fact, "evidence" that the claim has been made - for the claim itself having been made. They are not evidence of what is claimed in the claim - to be pedantic.

I think you are missing the point.

Claim 1: Joey bought a car.

Claim 2: A claim has been made that Joey bought a car.

Claim 1 is not evidence for Claim 1. Claim 1 is evidence for Claim 2. i.e. it's not evidence for itself, but could be evidence for something else.

The point is, Claims and Evidence are two different things. Period.

Agreed. Yet one claim can in fact become evidence for another claim as shown above.

I think at this point we are just debating for the sake of it I'm pretty sure we both understand that it's the quality of any given data point (evidence) that really matters.

For example, we get so much ink spilled on the idea that if a "claim is from a reliable source, and under the threat of perjury, and fits with all known evidence, etc." then it shjould be considered reliable. (Think how Christians want the testimony of John to be true). But they forget a very simple idea:

If a reliable claim, with all the promises of truthfulness and accuracy, is made - one bit of solid, physical evidence can throw it all out.

If I swear to you, in court, that I am physically 30,000 miles away, my mere presense is enough to contradict that claim. No matter how pious I am, no matter how much I swear to God that I'm telling the truth, no matter if I die for my claim. It doesn't make it true. It's not evidence.

Hold on. It IS evidence. It's evidence that you are lying. You say you are 30,000 miles away but I can see you standing in front of me. I now have evidence that you are willing to lie to me. I will keep this in my body of accumulated life knowledge the next time you tell me something. Example, the following week I see you again and you tell me that last week you were in India learning how to make authentic Naan on the same day we were actually in court. Now I have more evidence you are fine lying to me. The next time I see you, I'll likely not believe a word out of your mouth unless you show me physical evidence since I have good evidence you are a liar.

Again, the only people arguing that claims and evidence even remotely synonomous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true. They will obsfucate and mislead forever until they get people to walk away

Agreed!

- then they'll declare victory and continue to claim the Bible=Evidence.

The Bible IS evidence. Though it's usually NOT (good) evidence for what many Christians are hoping for. The example I keep bringing up a lot is textual analysis of the gospels gives us the "Synoptic Problem". There is strong evidence in the Bible that shows some gospel authors were copying previous text word for word. This is fantastic evidence that we don't have disconnected witnesses writing their testimony. We in fact have evidence that people where taking someone else's work and modifying it to fit their desired theology. It's early Christian apologetics in action with each apologist giving their own twist on the 'facts' as they wish them to be portrayed.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...Maybe the pretty thing shows us a video of Joey BBQing ribs all day when he supposedly "bought a car". She also shows us the GPS tracking on his phone that places him firmly in the backyard all day further solidifying the video evidence.

The tracker's on my ankle, but anyway...

[historia]

Ok, let's be careful. I'm pretty sure Matt isn't saying that all of the testimony in the Bible isn't evidence of any kind.

Right, I mean he has previously said that it's not evidence for the resurrection.

Perhaps I missed that in the video. Timestamp?

He's made this assertion elsewhere, including a debate he had with a Christian named Mike Winger.

In Winger's opening statement, he surveys the documentary evidence we find for the resurrection, primarily from the New Testament.

In his own opening statement, Dillahunty then objects to Winger's use of the word "evidence" to describe this material (starting at 27:59), arguing:

No, these are the claims about a resurrection, the evidence for the resurrection is something else other than a whole bunch of people say they saw it happen or had an experience afterward.

But people saying they saw something happen is what we call eyewitness testimony. So it seems Dillahunty is saying that he doesn't think eyewitness testimony should be classified as evidence. But, then, Googling around last night, I found a recent tweet of his where he says explicitly that he does consider a witnesses to be evidence.

So, I think it's pretty clear that there is some level of confusion in Dillahunty's thinking, which Goose and I have already documented above.

I'm pretty sure he would say something like a given claim isn't evidence for itself. However, someone's testimony about that claim would be one piece of evidence to take into account.

Yeah, look, I think Dillahunty is a smart guy. And, if we pressed him to more clearly define his terms, and perhaps clarify his thinking a bit, I have little doubt that he would likely come to this conclusion as well. In particular, if we replace the word "claim" here with "proposition," then it would be even clearer.

Let me just note again that claims and propositions are not precisely the same thing. A proposition is a statement about the world that could be true or false. A claim is an assertion that a particular proposition is true. And, when people are claiming that they themselves did something or they saw someone else do something, we often refer to that as "testimony."

Keep that in mind for the next post:

[historia]

Again, the only people arguing that claims and evidence even remotely synonomous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true. They will obsfucate and mislead forever until they get people to walk away

Agreed!

Wait a second, benchwarmer, you are among the people here arguing that eyewitness testimony -- that is, someone claiming what they themselves did or what they saw someone else do -- is evidence, which means you're saying claims can be evidence.

This is the essential problem with using the word "claim" to loosely refer to both propositions and testimony.

If everyone in this thread simply stopped using the word "claim" altogether and instead used either the word proposition or testimony, I think we'd find that easily 80% of the confusion and disagreement here would disappear.

Let's consider boatsnguitars's accusation again, but replacing 'claim' with 'proposition':

the only people arguing that propositions and evidence are even remotely synonymous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true.

This is simply false. No one is arguing that propositions are evidence.

Let's run it again, this time using 'testimony':

the only people arguing that testimony and evidence are even remotely synonymous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true.

This is also false. The people here arguing that eyewitness testimony is evidence includes both Christians and atheists.

Moreover, I think we could clear-up the remaining 20% of the confusion and disagreement in this thread if, instead of using any of the terms above, we instead use the terms hypothesis and data, as benchwarmer and I have sometimes done.

An hypothesis is an explanation that you form in your mind to explain things you discover in the word. Data is all the things you discover in the world, including physical objects, people's claims about things they've done or things they've seen other people do, documents describing all kind of things, and so on.

Our job is simply to determine which hypothesis best explains the available data in the light of our background knowledge.

[boatsnguitars]

Again, the only people arguing that claims and evidence even remotely synonomous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true. They will obsfucate and mislead forever until they get people to walk away

Agreed!

Wait a second, benchwarmer, you are among the people here arguing that eyewitness testimony -- that is, someone claiming what they themselves did or what they saw someone else do -- is evidence, which means you're saying claims can be evidence.

This is the essential problem with using the word "claim" to loosely refer to both propositions and testimony.

If everyone in this thread simply stopped using the word "claim" altogether and instead used either the word proposition or testimony, I think we'd find that easily 80% of the confusion and disagreement here would disappear.

Let's consider boatsnguitars's accusation again, but replacing 'claim' with 'proposition':

the only people arguing that propositions and evidence are even remotely synonymous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true.

This is simply false. No one is arguing that propositions are evidence.

Let's run it again, this time using 'testimony':

the only people arguing that testimony and evidence are even remotely synonymous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true.

This is also false. The people here arguing that eyewitness testimony is evidence includes both Christians and atheists.

Moreover, I think we could clear-up the remaining 20% of the confusion and disagreement in this thread if, instead of using any of the terms above, we instead use the terms hypothesis and data, as benchwarmer and I have sometimes done.

An hypothesis is an explanation that you form in your mind to explain things you discover in the word. Data is all the things you discover in the world, including physical objects, people's claims about things they've done or things they've seen other people do, documents describing all kind of things, and so on.

Our job is simply to determine which hypothesis best explains the available data in the light of our background knowledge.

See what I mean? Obsfucation.

[benchwarmer]

Again, the only people arguing that claims and evidence even remotely synonomous are people who need the claims of their religious text to be true. They will obsfucate and mislead forever until they get people to walk away

Agreed!

Wait a second, benchwarmer, you are among the people here arguing that eyewitness testimony -- that is, someone claiming what they themselves did or what they saw someone else do -- is evidence, which means you're saying claims can be evidence.

This is the essential problem with using the word "claim" to loosely refer to both propositions and testimony.

Agreed. We do seem to be crossing our wires with the terms.

First, I was agreeing with boatsnguitars general assessment that some will assume a given claim can also be evidence of itself, but that is me reading into what I think he is saying.

I like the breakdown of propositions (a statement about the state of the world), claims (a positive assertion of a given proposition), and evidence (the support for determining the truth of a given claim).

It does get a bit confusing and probably why some of us are talking past each other. If I have some evidence that counters a claim, I'm basically making a new claim that the original claim is false and then supporting my NEW claim about the OLD claim with this evidence. OR, I'm simply making the opposite assertion regarding the proposition.

Proposition: There is a glass of water on BW's desk as of 1pm, Tuesday, May 7, 2023.

Claim A: The above proposition is TRUE.

Claim B: The above proposition is FALSE. (Or restated as: Claim A is false)

Evidence 1 in support of Claim A: BW's wife told her friend via text message that there is a 2 week old glass of water on BW's desk. This statement was made at 2pm, on Tuesday, May 7, 2023.

Evidence 2 in support of Claim B: BW posted a picture of his desk on DC&R showing a clean desk with no glasses of water. The photo is timestamped with 12:45pm, Tuesday, May 7, 2023.

So, what's really going on? Can we say with any confidence whether there was a glass of water on BW's desk at 1pm, Tuesday, May 7, 2023? Was BW's wife lying? Was the picture doctored? Could both pieces of evidence be solid and true representations with respect to all details? Inquiring minds need to know!

Can a positive assertion about a proposition be evidence in support of the positive assertion itself? No. That, I think, is the whole point we are circling around. Is Claim A above SUPPORT for Claim A? No. Is Claim B support for Claim B? No.

Does anyone care if there was water on BW's desk? Likely no.

If everyone in this thread simply stopped using the word "claim" altogether and instead used either the word proposition or testimony, I think we'd find that easily 80% of the confusion and disagreement here would disappear.

I have to agree. Or at least give a clear example of what is meant in each case. I think another part of all the confusion is that a positive assertion of a proposition can be contained in a testimony.

Example:

Fred said: "I saw BW running down the stairs and trip on his shoelaces".

We can create many propositions and assertions from the above:

Proposition 1: BW wears shoes with laces.
Proposition 2: BW uses stairs.
Proposition 3: BW can run.
Proposition 4: It's possible to trip on shoelaces.
etc.

Fred's testimony is data to support positive assertions of all of the above propositions. Fred could also be a liar and his testimony is useless, but it's a data point.

Our job is simply to determine which hypothesis best explains the available data in the light of our background knowledge.

Agreed.

[historia]

See what I mean? Obsfucation.

Since benchwarmer agreed with all of my clarifying comments, it would seem that he doesn't share your assessment.

And that once again demonstrates the essential problem with all of these ad hominem arguments you are making. There is no reason why an atheist couldn't agree with everything I said in that post.

[historia]

Can a positive assertion about a proposition be evidence in support of the positive assertion itself?

I think you meant to say: Can a positive assertion about a proposition be evidence in support of the proposition itself?

If so, consider this scenario: Let's say you come home from work to find grape juice spilled on your sofa. As you're surveying the damage, your son, Jose, comes out of his room and says, "Dad, I spilled grape juice on the sofa."

I think we would all accept that Jose's positive assertion that he spilled grape juice on the sofa is evidence in support of the proposition that Jose spilled grape juice on the sofa. And, not only that, but that his assertion (= claim) is convincing enough evidence that we'd accept that the proposition is most likely true. We encounter examples like this all the time in our daily lives.

Maybe you had in mind a different scenario when you answered the question negatively.

Let's say someone today says, "Cleopatra secretly married Octavian after Mark Antony's suicide."

I guess in some technical sense we might say this is "evidence," if by that we mean it's data or information we can consider. But, since this person has no first-hand knowledge of the events, I think we'd all dismiss it out-of-hand as inconsequential data when considering the hypothesis that Cleopatra secretly married Octavian after Mark Antony's suicide.

[boatsnguitars]

See what I mean? Obsfucation.

Since benchwarmer agreed with all of my clarifying comments, it would seem that he doesn't share your assessment.

And that once again demonstrates the essential problem with all of these ad hominem arguments you are making. There is no reason why an atheist couldn't agree with everything I said in that post.

I was correct. You are obfuscating with all the 'claims vs testimony vs proposition' - these are all things said, through language in one form or another. They all use referents to talk about things that may or may not be true.

you are trying to twist this into some phrase or collection of phrases that get someone to agree that 'words, put in a certain form, are equal to evidence'. Again, let's be clear, we aren't trying to provide evidence that "Joey bought a car", but that "Jesus rose from the dead." That's the end goal.

It's patently obvious to everyone that words aren't the same as physical evidence. It's painfully obvious to everyone that solid, physical evidence would nullify even the most reliable person's testimony.
Except Christians. William Lane Craig has famously said that if he went back in time to see Jesus die on the cross, and didn't see him come back to life, he would question his vision - not his belief that Jesus rose form the dead because of the accounts in the Bible.

That's what we are dealing with here.