Is a claim evidence of truth?

[Chriliman]

Wasn't sure wether to put this in physical science or philosophy because it bridges both topics, so decided to put it here in physical science since I haven't posted here in awhile, might be nice to get fresh thoughts from different people.

When it comes down to the basics of evidence, a claim is evidence of truth. It's evidence of the truth that the claim is either true or false. Claims generally come with supporting reasons or logic that act as further evidence that the claim is true. Physical evidence can be provided to further support the claim as being true, but we don't always have physical evidence to support our claims, but we do always have reason and logic to support our claims.

When someone denies the reasons and logic behind a claim, they are also more likely to deny any physical evidence that arises that supports the same claim. Not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.

When someone only looks for physical evidence and ignores the sound reasoning and logic behind a claim, they are more likely to fabricate false and illogical ideas in order to justify their denial of the original claim. Again, not saying this happens all the time, but it does happen.

This is what I've gathered from many discussions on these forums and seems true of theists, atheists, humanists and agnostics.

What do you think? Would you agree that a claim is evidence of the truth that the claim is either true or false?

 

[JackRT]

You are becoming confused with words. A claim is either true or false. It is evidence that enables one to decide whether or not the claim is true.

 

[Chriliman]

You are becoming confused with words. A claim is either true or false. It is evidence that enables one to decide whether or not the claim is true.

Agreed.

I don't think I'm confused with words, but maybe you misunderstood my point.

 

[Armoured]

I have fairies at the bottom of my garden. That's my claim. You decide if my claiming it is evidence of it being true.

 

[Chriliman]

I have fairies at the bottom of my garden. That's my claim. You decide if my claiming it is evidence of it being true.

I'm saying the claim "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden" is evidence that the claim is either true or false. You can back your claim by using sound reasoning and logic and you can go even further by providing physical evidence. However, if the claim is false, then eventually your reasoning will become illogical or contradictory and you won't be able to provide physical evidence that supports your claim.

 

[Michael]

I'm saying the claim "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden" is evidence that the claim is either true or false. You can back your claim by using sound reasoning and logic and you can go even further by providing physical evidence. However, if the claim is false, then eventually your reasoning will become illogical or contradictory and you won't be able to provide physical evidence that supports your claim.

I think you're misusing the term "evidence". The claim can be true or it can be false. One may or may not be able to provide "evidence" to support any particular claim. In the case in question, the existence of fairies requires actual supporting "evidence", none of which is likely to be "empirical" (cause/effect justified) in nature, even if the claim is logically consistent.

 

[Michael]

I should add that "science" doesn't deal in absolute "truths". It does deal with both empirical evidence, and other forms of "evidence", but even scientific 'laws' can and might be overturned if future observations somehow defy those laws. Most concepts in "science" don't even typically fall into the "law" category of "science". They typically range from the purely hypothetical, to the "theoretical", and the amount of empirical justification typically determines the "strength" of the theory. You really can't even apply the term "truth" to "science". The only thing close to the term "truth" in science would be something akin to empirically demonstrated cause/effect processes in physics.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you're misusing the term "evidence". The claim can be true or it can be false. One may or may not be able to provide "evidence" to support any particular claim. In the case in question, the existence of fairies requires actual supporting "evidence", none of which is likely to be "empirical" (cause/effect justified) in nature, even if the claim is logically consistent.

If Armoured (or anyone else for that matter) had not made the claim about fairies, you would not have considered whether fairies could be physically real in the first place. Therefore, the claim itself was new evidence of the truth of whether or not fairies are physically real. IOW, it's either true that fairies are real or its true that they are not real, but if no one ever claims their real, then no one would ever be skeptical about fairies because there would be no evidence at all, not even evidence in the form of a claim.

 

[Chriliman]

I should add that "science" doesn't deal in absolute "truths". It does deal with both empirical evidence, and other forms of "evidence", but even scientific 'laws' can and might be overturned if future observations somehow defy those laws. Most concepts in "science" don't even typically fall into the "law" category of "science". They typically range from the purely hypothetical, to the "theoretical", and the amount of empirical justification typically determines the "strength" of the theory. You really can't even apply the term "truth" to "science". The only thing close to the term "truth" in science would be something akin to empirically demonstrated cause/effect processes in physics.

I agree with this. Science cannot reveal the absolute truth, it can only reveal true things that point to the absolute truth.

 

[Michael]

If Armoured (or anyone else for that matter) had not made the claim about fairies, you would not have considered whether fairies could be physically real in the first place.

That is conceivably true if I'd never heard the term before.

Therefore, the claim itself was new evidence of the truth of whether or not fairies are physically real.

I would argue that the "claim" is simply a "claim" that at the moment remains entirely devoid of empirical "evidence" to support the claim. The claim itself is not "evidence", it's simply a claim that may or may not be true. I can only determine the validity of the claim based upon actual "evidence" that might somehow support that claim.

IOW, it's either true that fairies are real or its true that they are not real, but if no one ever claims their real, then no one would ever be skeptical about fairies because there would be no evidence at all, not even evidence in the form of a claim.

I still think you're misusing the term "evidence" in this example. There is no evidence that faeries exist, or that they exist anywhere near his garden. In fact without something else to go by, besides just the claim itself, I don't even have any physical evidence that he even has a garden!

 

[Chriliman]

That is conceivably true if I'd never heard the term before.



I would argue that the "claim" is simply a "claim" that at the moment remains entirely devoid of empirical "evidence" to support the claim. The claim itself is not "evidence", it's simply a claim that may or may not be true. I can only determine the validity of the claim based upon actual "evidence" that might somehow support that claim.



I still think you're misusing the term "evidence" in this example. There is no evidence that faeries exist, or that they exist anywhere near his garden. In fact without something else to go by, besides just the claim itself, I don't even have any physical evidence that he even has a garden!

So if I told you something true like the fact that my house is brown. You would not be able to accept what I say as true unless I provided further evidence other than my word?

 

[expos4ever]

I'm saying the claim "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden" is evidence that the claim is either true or false.

But the word "evidence" is not the right word to use here, and it introduces needless confusion.

A claim is a claim is a claim. Evidence then supports or refutes the claim.

You can back your claim by using sound reasoning and logic and you can go even further by providing physical evidence.

I certainly agree that some claims can be supported through means other than the provision of "evidence", at least in the sense that the word "evidence" is normally used.

 

[Michael]

So if I told you something true like the fact that my house is brown. You would not be able to accept what I say as true unless I provided further evidence other than my word?

From a scientific perspective, yes.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You are becoming confused with words. A claim is either true or false. It is evidence that enables one to decide whether or not the claim is true.

There is always a standard. If I contract a job to repair someones home then there is a basic assumption that I am going to do at least as good of work as the people that built the home. They set the standard which is usually pretty easy to duplicate. This is based more on the time & effort that people put into their work then it is on their actual skill or ability. Like handwriting: you can scribble or you can take your time and do neat work. From this perspective true means: to shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately: to make even, symmetrical, level. There is a corner stone and we go by level and plumb. Everything needs to properly fit together. If the parts and pieces do not fit then they are not true.

 

[Chriliman]

From a scientific perspective, yes.

Sorry this response is slightly confusing.

Do you mean yes you would accept my word as evidence of the truth that my house is brown or no you would not accept my word as evidence of the truth that my house is brown, from a scientific perspective?

How about from a personal perspective? Do I have any reason to lie to you about the color of my house? It is actually brown.

 

[Soyeong]

Evidence is information that indicates to someone that something is true and it is the minimum requirement to form a belief. Someone can take a claim that something as true as sufficient reason to form the belief that it is true, therefore the claim is evidence for that belief. For example, when you're at work and another employee claims that there is a meeting starting, you can take that claim in itself as sufficient reason to believe that there is a meeting starting, so it is evidence for that. He might hand you a schedule where it lists the meeting as starting, which would be corroborating evidence that supports his claim, but it is not necessary for him to do so to form your belief. Furthermore, such a schedule is in itself just another claim in written form.

 

[Soyeong]

I have fairies at the bottom of my garden. That's my claim. You decide if my claiming it is evidence of it being true.

Of course it is evidence that it is true. I don't personally find it to be sufficient evidence, but if someone did form that belief after hearing your claim wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place if it were not evidence of it being true.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course it is evidence that it is true. I don't personally find it to be sufficient evidence, but if someone did form that belief after hearing your claim wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place if it were not evidence of it being true.

I kind of agree - surely most claims people make are (1) made without intent to deceive; (2) generally likely to be true.

In short, when someone claims something, on average, it is probable that the claim would indeed be found to be supported by evidence.

But this strikes me as rather obvious and I do not see where this thread is going.

 

[Michael]

Sorry this response is slightly confusing.

Do you mean yes you would accept my word as evidence of the truth that my house is brown or no you would not accept my word as evidence of the truth that my house is brown, from a scientific perspective?

From a scientific perspective, your claim is not a form of actual "evidence". In terms of a purely scientific perspective, it would need additional evidence to support the "claim" that you're making.

How about from a personal perspective? Do I have any reason to lie to you about the color of my house? It is actually brown.

I could of course simply 'personally' choose to believe you, but I still could not testify in court that I was scientifically certain of the color of your house, or certain for that matter that you even have a house. Same deal with the faerie in the garden. For all I know "scientifically", both the faerie *and* the garden are fictional.

 

[Michael]

Of course it is evidence that it is true.

How so? What actual physical evidence do you have that he even has an actual "garden" in the first place?