Is a claim evidence of truth?

[quatona]

The statement "Claims are evidence of truth" can be interpreted in at least 2 obvious ways:

And you tip toed between even more than two ways, in the course of this thread.

1. It could be interpreted as "The fact that a claim has been made means it's a fact that the claim is true" (obviously not true)

2. It could also be interpreted as "The fact that a claim has been made means there is truth to be known about the claim, i.e. the truth of whether it is true or false"

Well, this is just the trivial "Claims are either correct or not" with some noise added.
And note how "evidence" doesn´t even appear, in either of these statements. Simply because it doesn´t belong there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry, I thought I made it obvious that all 4 saw the same event when I said "Is this enough to accept what they're saying as true, since they are 4 different people who are claiming to have witnessed the same event?"

Yes, but the claims you described, i.e. 4 people saying they have, "seen a person save another person from being hit by a car" don't contain information that allows that conclusion, as I explained. You may assume they're referring to the same event, but I'm not going to unless the claims allow that inference. Maybe you should have been more specific with the claims...

A simple "Yes, I would accept what they're saying as true based on the fact that all 4 people are making the same truth claim about the same event" would have sufficed here.

No, it wouldn't; because that's not what I meant. Provisionally accepting the claim depending on how credible I think it is, is not the same as accepting it as true because 4 people claim it, as I explained. I already told you that the number of claims alone doesn't increase the likelihood they are true.

I already understand everything else you're saying.

Clearly not.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not shifting, but you continue to shift what I'm actually saying. I've never said that the existence of a claim is evidence that the claim is in fact true. I did say that the existence of a claim is evidence that should be comprehended and analyzed just like any other kind of evidence because all evidence points to the truth. It's just that some claims are easier to believe by themselves because they're more common than others.

Again, never said that.

You made a number of statements to that effect. If you didn't want to imply that, you should have been more careful. But ok. If you want to reduce that whole thread to "claims are either true or false", I won't disagree.

But you have to have to admit that all of your posts regarding how you believe claims as true because solely because it was claimed (and you did made posts saying exactly that) are unbased.

And you have to accept that the justified reaction that this thread then has to be: "Yes? So what?"

The statement "Claims are evidence of truth" can be interpreted in at least 2 obvious ways:

1. It could be interpreted as "The fact that a claim has been made means it's a fact that the claim is true" (obviously not true)

2. It could also be interpreted as "The fact that a claim has been made means there is truth to be known about the claim, i.e. the truth of whether it is true or false"

I think many have used interpretation #1, which has lead to much confusion, but that isn't what I'm saying, I'm saying interpretation #2 and I thought I made that clear in my OP, but apparently not. So I apologize if it wasn't clear to you.

I won't go back over the 480+ posts in this thread and pick out each and every of your posts where you did exactly that No.1 interpretation (in the previous form of "claim is evidence for the truth of the claim")... but I have read and responded to such posts. Well, whatever. Stay consistent, and I won't object.

When you make claims and then say the claims you've made could be false, how do you expect me to rationally believe any of your claims?

Why do you even ask this? Why do you care if my claims are true or false? What should make you "rationally believe" any of my claims?
We are talking here about the truth that a claim made is evidence that this claim is either true or false, aren't we? And only that, correct? That is your point, right?

When I say that the claims I've made could be false, I am just pointing out this same "truth" that you want to discuss. So why do you change your spiel again?

 

[lesliedellow]

I claim that you owe me £2,000,000

Now can I take that "evidence" along to a civil court, and demand my dosh?

 

[Chriliman]

Why do you even ask this? Why do you care if my claims are true or false?

We make claims because we believe the claims we're making are true. It's not until someone can prove us wrong or we realize we're wrong on our own that we should admit error.

I care if you're claims are true or false because if what you're saying is true then I want to learn from it, but if what you're saying is false then I want to figure why you believe something false and help you understand the truth. Maybe you don't view the world and other's in this way, maybe you don't care if people believe false things, if that's the case then I understand why you don't seem to care about making true claims vs making false claims. I'd rather never make false claims if possible because it doesn't help reach an understanding of the truth.

What should make you "rationally believe" any of my claims?
We are talking here about the truth that a claim made is evidence that this claim is either true or false, aren't we? And only that, correct? That is your point, right?

If you agree that claims are evidence, then yes we can stop this discussion.

When I say that the claims I've made could be false, I am just pointing out this same "truth" that you want to discuss. So why do you change your spiel again?

The point is that you know which claims are true and which are false. The only reason you'd intentionally make false claims is to confuse what's actually true and I view this as being dishonest. I'd rather not make false claims at all, ever, even for the sake of discussion, but that's just me.

 

[Chriliman]

No, it wouldn't; because that's not what I meant. Provisionally accepting the claim depending on how credible I think it is, is not the same as accepting it as true because 4 people claim it, as I explained. I already told you that the number of claims alone doesn't increase the likelihood they are true.

Sure I understand what you're saying. For me personally, the more people on the street who claim an event happened, the more likely I am to accept it as true even if there's no other evidence that the event happened. However, even if one person claimed an event happened, I'd still have no reason to be skeptical about the claim, unless it became obvious that they had ulterior motives for making the claim.

Do you consider claims as evidence? I've lost track of who thinks they are and who doesn't.

 

[Freodin]

We make claims because we believe the claims we're making are true. It's not until someone can prove us wrong or we realize we're wrong on our own that we should admit error.

I care if you're claims are true or false because if what you're saying is true then I want to learn from it, but if what you're saying is false then I want to figure why you believe something false and help you understand the truth. Maybe you don't view the world and other's in this way, maybe you don't care if people believe false things, if that's the case then I understand why you don't seem to care about making true claims vs making false claims. I'd rather never make false claims if possible because it doesn't help reach an understanding of the truth.

These are two totally different topics you are trying to combine here, don't you see that?

Here again you talk about the truthvalue of the content of a claim. A valid topic. A valid question: 'how do we find out what is true and false?'

But this is independent from your "claim" here that claims are evidence... for something.

If you agree that claims are evidence, then yes we can stop this discussion.

You do not need to make a false claim to be dishonest... you can be dishonest by omission as well... and this is what you are doing here.

Let's take a look at your last response to FrumiousBandersnatch:

"For me personally, the more people on the street who claim an event happened, the more likely I am to accept it as true even if there's no other evidence that the event happened. However, even if one person claimed an event happened, I'd still have no reason to be skeptical about the claim..."

See, here you are doing exactly what I said before you do: you are changing your position. You are taking the sole fact that a claim was made as evidence that the claim is true. And you ignore your previous realization from our conversation that even if one person claimed [something], this claim could be false and you should be skeptical about it.

Then you ask us if claims are evidence. Omitting the differentiation of just what a claim is evidence for (in your view): that a claim is either true or false.
By doing that, by omitting this defining attribute, you can then go on and use claims as evidence for the content of the claim and say: "Hey, look, people agreed with me that claims are evidence!"

The point is that you know which claims are true and which are false. The only reason you'd intentionally make false claims is to confuse what's actually true and I view this as being dishonest. I'd rather not make false claims at all, ever, even for the sake of discussion, but that's just me.

Completely irrelevant.
True claims are made for a number of reasons. False claims are also made for a number of reasons. The reason itself is irrelevant for the truthvalue of the claim.

Again you try to wiggle in the truthvalue of the content of the claim. You would only make true claims. It is dishonest to make false claims. You have no reason to doubt a claim.

But this is wrong, as you know quite well from our conversation here. A claim can be false... and you don't know whether the claim is "dishonest" or simply mistaken or based on false conclusions or, or, or...

You cannot use the existence of the claim as evidence for the truth or falsehood of the content of the claim. So what do you do?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you consider claims as evidence? I've lost track of who thinks they are and who doesn't.

I don't consider claims to be evidence (except in the self-evident sense that a claim has been made).

I think that's implicit in the meaning of the word.

When you say that the more people make the claim the more likely you are to accept it as true, you are suggesting that you take the number of claims as evidence in favour of the likely truth of what is claimed. The claim itself does not include this information. In fact, if a claim was made that did include it, for example, "Four people say they saw someone save someone else from being hit by a care at <time X> and <place Y>", it seems to me that this would count as hearsay, and a reasonable person would probably find it less credible without supporting evidence than if four individuals made the underlying claim individually.

 

[Chriliman]

These are two totally different topics you are trying to combine here, don't you see that?

Here again you talk about the truthvalue of the content of a claim. A valid topic. A valid question: 'how do we find out what is true and false?'

But this is independent from your "claim" here that claims are evidence... for something.


You do not need to make a false claim to be dishonest... you can be dishonest by omission as well... and this is what you are doing here.

Let's take a look at your last response to FrumiousBandersnatch:

"For me personally, the more people on the street who claim an event happened, the more likely I am to accept it as true even if there's no other evidence that the event happened. However, even if one person claimed an event happened, I'd still have no reason to be skeptical about the claim..."

See, here you are doing exactly what I said before you do: you are changing your position. You are taking the sole fact that a claim was made as evidence that the claim is true. And you ignore your previous realization from our conversation that even if one person claimed [something], this claim could be false and you should be skeptical about it.

Then you ask us if claims are evidence. Omitting the differentiation of just what a claim is evidence for (in your view): that a claim is either true or false.
By doing that, by omitting this defining attribute, you can then go on and use claims as evidence for the content of the claim and say: "Hey, look, people agreed with me that claims are evidence!"


Completely irrelevant.
True claims are made for a number of reasons. False claims are also made for a number of reasons. The reason itself is irrelevant for the truthvalue of the claim.

Again you try to wiggle in the truthvalue of the content of the claim. You would only make true claims. It is dishonest to make false claims. You have no reason to doubt a claim.

But this is wrong, as you know quite well from our conversation here. A claim can be false... and you don't know whether the claim is "dishonest" or simply mistaken or based on false conclusions or, or, or...

You cannot use the existence of the claim as evidence for the truth or falsehood of the content of the claim. So what do you do?

To answer the above, if you doubt the truthfulness of a claim all you have to do is question it, ask for substantiating evidence. If you do not doubt the truthfulness of the claim, there is no need to question it at all.

This is my last comment on this thread.

Throughout my life I've probably accepted 97% of the claims I've heard simply based on the fact that the claim was made and I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claim. It's only when I hear a truth claim and have reason to doubt, like maybe the claim is very uncommon or seems impossible, but I don't come accross these kinds of claims very often in reality, so I haven't trained myself to be hyper skeptical and doubt every truth claim.

In light of this, I'm not ashamed to say that I do accept claims based on the fact that they have been made and based on the fact that I see no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claim. When I hear a claim, I'm not consciously thinking "This claim is either true or false, I must doubt" instead I'm consciously thinking "Does this claim line up with what I perceive could possibly be true". If it doesn't line up with my perception, I then question it further to see why, it could be because the person is wrong or it could be because I'm wrong. If my perceptions are wrong, then reality will prove this through me questioning it, it's still up to me to admit that I'm wrong when it becomes obvious that I am wrong.

If this does not make any sense to you then too bad.

 

[Ophiolite]

Throughout my life I've probably accepted 97% of the claims I've heard simply based on the fact that the claim was made and I had no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claim.

The impression you give is that the first part of that two part condition it by far the more important. If that is the case you would be described by the charitable as trusting and by the cynics as gullible.

When I hear a claim, I'm not consciously thinking "This claim is either true or false, I must doubt" instead I'm consciously thinking "Does this claim line up with what I perceive could possibly be true".

The first option is not, as you seem to believe, the option chosen by skeptics. Rather, when a claim is made, the skeptic asks "What evidence do I have to support or refute this claim." They are not doubting the claim - which would imply a strong suspicion it is false - they are simply questioning the claim. That is quite a different matter.

This is my last comment on this thread.

On the whole, that's probably a relief for several of us. But thank you for your time.