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?

[Goose]

So all someone has to do is promise that what they are about to say is true and presto that makes it evidence. Gotchya.

Sure.

That would imply the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke are evidence.

This is the disciple who is testifying about these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. – John 21:2

Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. – Luke 1:1-4

Those are implied promises that it’s true. Thus, by your reasoning, presto, they are both now evidence.

Well you asked explicitly in the context of a legal setting. However, testimony is also used in broader contexts.

Yep, and you should know I've already done my research. Have you?

Not my first rodeo my friend.

Were the books of the Bible written in a court of law, with a person there to attest to the person swearing to tell the truth, etc? Do we have a written recording of that process - you know, evidence that that happened?
Then, under the law, the Bible is not evidence. It's a claim.
I'll assume you agree.

Your argument is trivial. I can concede the Bible wasn’t written in a court of law and therefore isn’t evidence, in as much as a court might accept it as evidence, just as you must concede neither was Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. That fact alone doesn’t preclude either from being evidence. Nor does it preclude either from containing testimony.

I'll take that as we agree on the former areas.

Well, you’ve left quite a bit of unfinished business on the table. Such as your unwillingness (or inability?) to explain why the following group of words is not a sentence if sentences are made of words alone.

boats guitars

You can continue to ignore answering but it doesn’t go unnoticed. It’s important that you do because it speaks to the coherency of your argument that sentence are made of words alone. Also you claimed the following was tautologically true:

Senetences are made of words, Goose.

You left that on the table too, among other things.

To recap:
1. Words are referents, they aren't physical objects, like evidence.

Trivial. Testimony can be evidence. That’s been widely established.

For true beliefs to count as knowledge, it is necessary that they originate in sources we have good reason to consider reliable. These are perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony. – Epistimology, Stanford

2. Claim, Testimony, Evidence are all different words and not considered in any rigorous way to be synonmous, though, I'm sure many people casually refer the them as the same thing - especially Christians.

That’s been shown patently false over and over. It’s been widely established that testimony can be evidence. That you would still make such an assertion after all that has been argued by historia and I (for example, here and here), suggests you are either not paying attention to what’s being argued or are willfully ignoring it.

3. Under the law, certain conditions must be in place for a person claim to be accepted as, or considered, evidence.

Trivially true in a legal context. And let's not forget that evidence is called testimony. Thus, contra (2) above testimony and evidence can be synonymous.

Further, within Philosophy, testimony is a means to acquire knowledge.

Testimony differs from the sources we considered above because it isn’t distinguished by having its own cognitive faculty. Rather, to acquire knowledge of p through testimony is to come to know that p on the basis of someone’s saying that p. “Saying that p” must be understood broadly, as including ordinary utterances in daily life, postings by bloggers on their blogs, articles by journalists, delivery of information on television, radio, tapes, books, and other media. So, when you ask the person next to you what time it is, and she tells you, and you thereby come to know what time it is, that’s an example of coming to know something on the basis of testimony. And when you learn by reading the Washington Post that the terrorist attack in Sharm el-Sheikh of 22 July 2005 killed at least 88 people, that, too, is an example of acquiring knowledge on the basis of testimony. – Epistimolgy - Testimony, Stanford

In philosophy, a claim is "an assertion or statement that something is the case or not the case" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

I’m glad historia called you out on this because it looks like you got that backwards. It should read, “Asserting is the act of claiming that something is the case...” Assertion, Stanford

Consider the case where historia has come to think you took a cookie. He is considering the proposition that, boatsnguitars took a cookie. He asks me if I have information to share on that proposition because, let's say we live together, and I answer in the affirmative that, “I saw boatsnguitar take a cookie.” With that statement I have made a claim. I have also provided testimony. That testimony provides historia a reason to believe (evidence) that the proposition in question, boatsnguitars took a cookie, is true. Thus my testimony is both a claim in and of itself and evidence. Therefore, claims can be evidence. It’s pretty simple, really. Let me spell it out more explicitly.

1. Reliable testimony* is evidence.
2. Some claims are reliable testimony.
3. Some claims are evidence (from 1&2)
4. If some claims are evidence, then Dullahunty et al. are mistaken.
5. Dillahunty et al. are mistaken (from 3&4 via modus ponens).

*Note: this is on a Reductionist view of testimony

A claim requires justification or proof to be considered true or false. For example, "God exists" or "There is no such thing as objective morality" are claims.

That’s fine.

On the other hand, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" (Oxford Dictionary). Evidence can take many forms, including empirical observations, logical arguments, and expert testimony. As the philosopher Bertrand Russell famously said, "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."

The discipline of Philosophy is far more permissive in what constitutes evidence than in the legal context. Generally speaking Philosophy regards evidence, in its broadest sense, as a reason to believe something.

Indeed, it is natural to think that ‘reason to believe’ and ‘evidence’ are more or less synonymous, being distinguished chiefly by the fact that the former functions grammatically as a count noun while the latter functions as a mass term. – Evidence – Stanford

In that same link, while discussing defeaters to evidence, testimony is treated as evidence.

Thus, evidence which suggests that you are a pathological liar constitutes an undercutting defeater for your testimony: although your testimony would ordinarily afford excellent reason for me to believe that your name is Fritz, evidence that you are a pathological liar tends to sever the evidential connection between your testimony and that to which you testify. In contrast, a rebutting defeater is evidence which prevents E from justifying belief in H by supporting not-H in a more direct way. Thus, credible testimony from another source that your name is not Fritz but rather Leopold constitutes a rebutting defeater for your original testimony. It is something of an open question how deeply the distinction between ‘undermining’ and ‘rebutting’ defeaters cuts.

The important distinction between a claim and evidence is that a claim requires justification or proof, while evidence is the information or data that supports or refutes that claim. As the philosopher Peter Singer notes, "To make an ethical judgment about a particular action, we must have evidence about its likely consequences." Without evidence, claims are merely unsubstantiated assertions, and evidence without a claim is meaningless without context.

Okay.

Non-Christian:
David Hume argued that the Bible should not be taken as a source of evidence because it lacks empirical support. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume wrote, "The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity" (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X).

Speaking of Hume, though he had a Reductionist view of testimony, he also accepted testimony as a form of evidence. Granted, in Hume’s view, testimony is not sufficient to establish a miracle, but he seemed to take it for granted that one can reason from testimony:

No kind of reasoning is more common or more useful—even necessary—to human life than the kind derived from the testimony of men and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators.
---
Because the evidence derived from witnesses and human testimony is based on past experience, it varies with the experience, and is regarded either as a proof or as a probability, depending on whether the association between the kind of report in question and the kind of fact it reports has been found to be constant or variable. - Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 10: Miracles, part 1

Shall we continue, or do you see now why the Bible isn't evidence - unless you are a Christian in need of pretending it is, since your whole world view is based on the claims in the Bible?

historia already addressed this. But really, by pointing to some people who don't regard the Bible as evidence, what you are supporting is the trivial point the Bible isn't evidence to some people. You've yet to even come close to establishing the much broader assertion that "the Bible isn't evidence."

[historia]

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?

it's probably reasonable to claim he existed

And, surely, you would have to say that what makes any belief reasonable is that it's based on evidence, no? So it seems to me at some level you are treating historical documents as evidence, or at least accepting that they contain enough evidentiary value that historians can reach reasonable conclusions.

Let me ask you, why is it important to YOU that he existed?
. . .
What's at stake?

I think the truth matters. I think history matters (see my username).

The work of historians, investigative reporters, our intelligence agencies, detectives, and many, many others are important to me -- and I would contend to all of us -- since they (even if imperfectly) give us knowledge about the world that just can't be extracted from physical objects alone.

I'm not willing to throw any of that out the window just because some of it isn't of immediate importance to my person life.

Ultimately, you probably don't really care - you are willing to simply conclude with a reasonable certainty, meaning if some evidence (Hrothulf's body found buried with a few dragon skulls) was found, you'd shift your beliefs.

Sure, I'd also shift my beliefs if new documentary evidence was found that caused me to change my opinion, too. That's because I care about the truth.

What would a document need to say for you to be evidence one way or another?

For historians, all documents are evidence. Or, if you're investing the word 'evidence' with connotations beyond how historians use it, then feel free to substitute 'information' or 'data' instead. The more important thing for the historian is determining which hypothesis best explains the available data in the light of our background knowledge.

You previously said that historians are somehow "different," but I would content to you that my last sentence broadly describes how most human inquiry works.

[Goose]

Let's just end this. We know there is a difference between actual evidence and claims. Claims can be wrong, claims about evidence can be wrong - but actual evidence can't be wrong.

So what you are saying is that actual evidence is not a truth-bearer. I mean if it can't be wrong, it can't be right either, yes? Or can it only ever be right, but never wrong?

In fact, name an instance where evidence (not the claim about it) was wrong?

Interesting. I suppose we could put the question the other way around and also ask you to name an instance where evidence (not the claim about it) was right? That might help us understand how it could be wrong. What would you say about DNA evidence planted at a crime scene to incriminate an innocent person? Is the evidence wrong in that case? Or is it the claim that it proves the innocent person is guilty that's wrong? Or something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

I have never heard such a lot of convoluted nonsense. I have never heard such simple concepts fudged into pseudo logic in order to confuse, really.I have never heard such misrepresentation of what Matt (et al) were saying in order to - not say anything about evidence or claims - but to argue that an atheist was wrong. That's the only point here.

It's as simple and as misrepresented as 'atheism is non -belief'.

Claim "I bought a new car"

Evidence "Well - I bought a new car". That is the claim, not evidence

Showing the car, others saying that you bought a new car, documentary evidence...all evidence.

Some Red herrings.

Saying that 'I bought a new car" in court could be called 'giving evidence' or a testimony. But it is still a claim. Someone coming in as a witness 'Johnny bought a new car' IS evidence in support of Johnny but itself is a claim which would require evidence.

The other red herring is the logical form where "I bought a new car" is the same claim put as a proposition "Johnny bought a new car" but because it is not used to support a previous proposition (as it can't in a logical form) it is never going to act as evidence.

Thus a claim can be evidence (normally) but a claim is never evidence for the same claim. It is simple and any one of the attempts to wrongfoot Matt et al in the endlessly long posts above are going to be wrong. I'll take any one you care to posit.


Just one at random

(historiae)I think the truth matters. I think history matters (see my username).

The work of historians, investigative reporters, our intelligence agencies, detectives, and many, many others are important to me -- and I would contend to all of us -- since they (even if imperfectly) give us knowledge about the world that just can't be extracted from physical objects alone.

I'm not willing to throw any of that out the window just because some of it isn't of immediate importance to my person life.

Total strawman. Who is trying to do that? Pontius Pilate? There was no Passover release custom. It makes no sense as a narrative. The Blasphemy charge is nonsense. The discrepancies are bothersome. The 'history' turns against the story. There is no way John, Mark and Matthew ALL ignored the intervention of Antipas. There is no way the leg - breaking and spear - stab can have been ignored by all but John. And it gets worse after dark.

This is where history is rejected by the Believers because it does not support the narrative. Historiae, by the believers, is only wanted when it is convenient.

But, getting back to Matt and Claims, what is any of this about other than trying to pin a spurious credibility on plonking claims with no evidence, by trying to wrongfoot Matt who says claims can't be evidence for themselves (which is obvious) and supposing that this will allow unsupported claim in the Bible to pass by calling them 'Evidence'? That's what this is about, isn't it?

The funny thing is, they are evidence, for 'The Bible/Christianity is true. But they are also claims 'Jesus said this, did that, looked at the other', and they need evidence, too. Just tinkering with semantics doesn't really get you anywhere.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's just end this. We know there is a difference between actual evidence and claims. Claims can be wrong, claims about evidence can be wrong - but actual evidence can't be wrong.

So what you are saying is that actual evidence is not a truth-bearer. I mean if it can't be wrong, it can't be right either, yes? Or can it only ever be right, but never wrong?

In fact, name an instance where evidence (not the claim about it) was wrong?

Interesting. I suppose we could put the question the other way around and also ask you to name an instance where evidence (not the claim about it) was right? That might help us understand how it could be wrong. What would you say about DNA evidence planted at a crime scene to incriminate an innocent person? Is the evidence wrong in that case? Or is it the claim that it proves the innocent person is guilty that's wrong? Or something else?

Here's another spurious arguments trying to ...I dunno, debunk evidence where it isn;t wanted while demanding it be accepted where it is.

DNA as evidence? Solved a lot of crimes. You want to discredit that? On what grounds? Planted on the suspect? You'll have to prove that. You see, you are making the classic Theist apologetic fail - assuming what you are trying to prove. You plonk down that the DNA is invalid evidence, because it was planted, but you haven't shown that it was planted, you assumed that a a given, just as you assume that God, Jesus and the Bible are true as a given, and that is why all the excuses, far fetched explanation and dismissals are supposedly valid because you assume it's true On Faith.

P.s Look, I know. In court the possibility of planted or contaminated DNA is raised. It's the lawyers' job.But the Jury can't either accept the claim or dismiss it. The lawyer has to validate the suggestion. Not Just say 'The DNA could have been planted therefore my Client is innocent. There has to be some proof, or some persuasive evidence.

[benchwarmer]

[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.

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #206]

Yes.The Other and irrelevant though actually the intended point is the quality of evidence. What is a claim and what is presented as evidence and which can also be a claim that needs evidence as a claim can be evidence for an earlier claim is perfectly clear and simple But these bods seem fixated on words so a claim can't be anything but a claim, except when Matt says so and he must be disproved because he's an atheist - or that's the only modus O that seems to make any sense here.

But the validity of evidence is a different discussion and a valid one (1); epistemology, science denial and 'How do we know what we know' plus Bible apologetics claiming to love science and logic all the time it can be used to support the faith, but when it doesn't, it's 'just 'Man's opinions'.

(1)science has a whole system of ongoing debate, peer review and new evidence rewrites the Books. Religious dogma doesn't.

[historia]

Well I'm wildly late to this party

Welcome to the party!

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.

I completely agree! That's almost verbatim what I (and Goose) have been saying over the past 20 pages.

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.

Actually, it's the other way around. Like some others here, Dillahunty thinks that the testimony we find in the Bible concerning the resurrection simply isn't evidence, contrary to your view that it is at least weak evidence.

I also think your assessment of Dillahunty's argument in the video is wrong, and would be happy to go over that in more detail, if you have the time and interest.

[benchwarmer]

Actually, it's the other way around. Like some others here, Dillahunty thinks that the testimony we find in the Bible concerning the resurrection simply isn't evidence, contrary to your view that it is at least weak evidence.

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. Perhaps I missed that in the video. Timestamp? (Does asking for evidence of a claim in a video titled "Claims aren't evidence" in a thread discussing claims and evidence make anyone else giggle a little?)

I don't want to put words into Matt's mouth, but 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.

Example:

Claim: Jesus was crucified

Evidence: Testimony from an anonymous author in Matthew at Matthew 27:35. "When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

So I would say the Bible is littered with testimonial evidence, it's just that much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Let's take this case. We have an anonymous author which is later attributed to Matthew. Right there we have a trust issue with this testimony. It's a data point. That's it. I don't think most people are convinced based on a single anonymous data point.

I can hear some of the apologists screaming already "We have multiple sources giving the same testimony!". My response here is: Do we? Have multiple sources/testimonies? Many are anonymous and textual analysis shows there is coping going on in some of this text from one gospel to another. There may actually only be one source and different authors (who again are anonymous) just retelling the same story.

It's certainly all evidence for something. Christians will see the gospels as evidence for the resurrected Christ. I process the evidence differently and see it as evidence that people were promoting a religion that may or may not have been based on some events in history. With no external (to the Bible) evidence to support this story, it's up to the reader to critically examine everything and come to their own conclusion. Hopefully not blinded by any need to "keep the faith" or even to "avoid the faith".

I also think your assessment of Dillahunty's argument in the video is wrong, and would be happy to go over that in more detail, if you have the time and interest.

I appreciate your opinion, but no thanks. I watched the video and feel I have a good understanding about what he was trying to convey. Whether he made some mistakes or didn't manage to convey that to everyone properly is not really a rabbit hole I want to dive into. I think the point of the video was to say that claims aren't evidence of themselves. Something else must support the actual claim.

This gets confusing if all we have is a single sentence like "Joey bought a car". Is that the claim or is this someone's testimony about the claim? A testimony (evidence) would have some qualifiers on it that let us evaluate the 'weight' of this testimony. For example, the testifiers name (or anonymous), when was the testimony made (or unknown), how the testimony was transmitted (written, in person to a judge, heard it in passing, etc), relation between the testifier and the person making the claim, etc.

[boatsnguitars]

This is a great example of how Christian Apologetics creates personified Dunning-Kruger effects...

This, after we were talking about testimony specifically in a court of law, and that I acknowleged that Christians use the term "testimony" loosely...

That would imply the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke are evidence.
....
I can concede the Bible wasn’t written in a court of law and therefore isn’t evidence, in as much as a court would accept it as evidence...

He then chats about something else:

boats guitars

You can continue to ignore answering but it doesn’t go unnoticed. It’s important that you do because it speaks to the coherency of your argument that sentence are made of words alone. Also you claimed the following was tautologically true:

Senetences are made of words, Goose.

Because this is stupid. Do you really not understand sentences? I'm at a loss as to what you think you achieve by this? Perhaps be more explicit?

3. Under the law, certain conditions must be in place for a person claim to be accepted as, or considered, evidence.

Trivially true in a legal context. And let's not forget that evidence is called testimony. Thus, contra (2) above testimony and evidence can be synonymous.

Not trivial in the legal sense. It's critical. This is why I can safely say you don't understand.
At the time we were specifically addressing legal testimony and how it is considered evidence. Considered, not actual evidence.

I thought we were done with that? You are now trying to get the Bible involved, etc... It's painful to watch.

Further, within Philosophy, testimony is a means to acquire knowledge.

Sure, words are great. They do a lot. They are wonderful. They can help in all kinds of ways, even acquire knowledge..
or lie...
or mislead...
or be mistaken...

Please don't tell me you need to be alerted to this.

Testimony differs from the sources we considered above because it isn’t distinguished by having its own cognitive faculty. Rather, to acquire knowledge of p through testimony is to come to know that p on the basis of someone’s saying that p. “Saying that p” must be understood broadly, as including ordinary utterances in daily life, postings by bloggers on their blogs, articles by journalists, delivery of information on television, radio, tapes, books, and other media. So, when you ask the person next to you what time it is, and she tells you, and you thereby come to know what time it is, that’s an example of coming to know something on the basis of testimony. And when you learn by reading the Washington Post that the terrorist attack in Sharm el-Sheikh of 22 July 2005 killed at least 88 people, that, too, is an example of acquiring knowledge on the basis of testimony. – Epistimolgy - Testimony, Stanford

And if there was no physical evidence of the terrorist attack?

I'd suggest you keep reading the Standford Plato site - with understanding. How you've misunderstood Hume is mind-boggling. The rest of your post supports my position (the quotes you've provided, especially in their proper context), except for your commentary which seems to be intent on showing how little you understand what you read...