What does 'objective' actually mean?

[expos4ever]

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you? I'm really trying to understand what you're trying to convey here. Are you merely stating that once a statement exists, it exists? This seems a bit redundant to me, and I'm not sure what your point actually is.

Per my last post, perhaps he means that a plausible claim (Hitch certainly could have $20 in his pocket, whereas it is implausible he has the US nuclear launch codes in his pocket), made by a credible person who is reasonably believed to have access to the knowledge to support the claim (i.e. Hitch is the one wearing the pants with the pocket)....does indeed improve the confidence that there is indeed a $ 20 bill in Hitch's pocket.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, one needs to nuance this a bit. If I make the following claim:

"X is the case"

....it is objectively true that I have made a claim about X.

But it is certainly not the case that my claim is objective evidence supporting the assertion "X is the case".

I consider anything that exists in objective reality to be evidence that can help determine truth. Claims do exist in objective reality, therefore I consider them to be evidence that can help determine truth.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said above when I make that statement.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Per my last post, perhaps he means that a plausible claim (Hitch certainly could have $20 in his pocket, whereas it is implausible he has the US nuclear launch codes in his pocket), made by a credible person who is reasonably believed to have access to the knowledge to support the claim (i.e. Hitch is the one wearing the pants with the pocket)....does indeed improve the confidence that there is indeed a $ 20 bill in Hitch's pocket.

The credibility of the person uttering the statement would be additional information not contained in the original statement. The only thing you can gather from the original statement is (perhaps) the impossibility of the statement.

"I have square circle." would be an impossibility, making the statement false without any additional information.

 

[HitchSlap]

therefore I consider them to be evidence that can help determine truth.

How?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I considering anything that exists in objective reality to be evidence that can help determine truth. Claims do exist in objective reality, therefore I consider them to be evidence that can help determine truth.

What is the statement "I have $20 in my pocket." evidence of?

 

[Chriliman]

What is the statement "I have $20 in my pocket." evidence of?

It's evidence that you've made a truth claim, that's it.

It is not evidence that proves that you actually have $20 in your pocket, but it is evidence that you've made that truth claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's evidence that you've made a truth claim, that's it.

It is not evidence that proves that you actually have $20 in your pocket, but it is evidence that you've made that truth claim.

What if it's evidence I've made a false claim?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's evidence that you've made a truth claim, that's it.

It is not evidence that proves that you actually have $20 in your pocket, but it is evidence that you've made that truth claim.

What use is it that we acknowledge that truth claims are... truth claims?

 

[Chriliman]

What if it's evidence I've made a false claim?

I would have to know that you don't have $20 in your pocket in order for the claim "I have $20 in my pocket" to be evidence of falsehood.

 

[expos4ever]

Claims do exist in objective reality, therefore I consider them to be evidence that can help determine truth.

OK, but we need to hear more from you. While a claim that "X is the case" can increase our confidence that X is the case, it is certainly not an item of objective evidence in support of the assertion that X is the case. Anyway, the degree that a claim that "X is the case" supports a determination whether X is really is the case depends on things like the credibility of the claimant, the plausibility of the claim, and other factors.

 

[Chriliman]

What use is it that we acknowledge that truth claims are... truth claims?

It would be more pertinent to acknowledge that truth claims are evidence because there are many on these forums who refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[expos4ever]

The credibility of the person uttering the statement would be additional information not contained in the original statement. The only thing you can gather from the original statement is (perhaps) the impossibility of the statement.

I think it is more correct to say that we can asses the plausibility of the statement - a claim to have a square circle cannot be true for conceptual reasons; a claim to have a million $ is wildly implausible, yet possible; a claim to have $ 20 is highly plausible. And so on.

 

[expos4ever]

What use is it that we acknowledge that truth claims are... truth claims?

I agree; Chriliman, I suggest that it is a red herring to talk about the self-evident fact that a claim "exists", and that it is, by its nature, a "truth claim".

 

[HitchSlap]

I would have to know that you don't have $20 in your pocket in order for the claim "I have $20 in my pocket" to be evidence of falsehood.

Sorry, but you don't get to borrow from my world-view.
You're the one making the claim that a statement is evidence for itself. So how do you know if the claim: "I have $20 in my front pocket," is a true or false claim?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It would be more pertinent to acknowledge that truth claims are evidence because there are many on these forums who refuse to acknowledge that.

Truth claims aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that truth claims exist.

 

[Chriliman]

OK, but we need to hear more from you. While a claim that "X is the case" can increase our confidence that X is the case, it is certainly not an item of objective evidence in support of the assertion that X is the case. Anyway, the degree that a claim that "X is the case" supports a determination whether X is really is the case depends on things like the credibility of the claimant, the plausibility of the claim, and other factors.

Agreed.

When I claim that my house is brown, I'm making it known to you, what I know to be true, but my claim itself is not evidence that proves my house is actually brown, it's only evidence of what I know to be true. You can accept my claim based on your degree of trust in me, or you can request further evidence that would support my claim.

 

[expos4ever]

It would be more pertinent to acknowledge that truth claims are evidence because there are many on these forums who refuse to acknowledge that.

I think the reason such claims are rejected as evidence is not because a mere claim itself cannot be evidence (although it cannot be objective evidence), but because the content of the claim is implausible.

Example 1: You ask a stranger the time, they look at their watch, and they answer 215 PM. This is indeed "evidence" (although not objective evidence) that it is indeed 215 PM since it is likely the stranger knows how to read a watch and has no motive to deceive.

Example 2: The Holy Spirit told me that I should buy a handgun. I trust you can understand the suspicion the second example engenders. There are all sorts of reasons to doubt that this statement adds any support to the assertion that the Holy Spirit really said this to the person. Sure, it's possible, and perhaps if the claim is made by a person otherwise known to be reliable, the claim itself makes it more likely than it would be in the absence of such a claim that the Holy Spirit really said this.

 

[HitchSlap]

Agreed.

When I claim that my house is brown, I'm making it known to you, what I know to be true, but my claim itself is not evidence that proves my house is actually brown, it's only evidence of what I know to be true. You can accept my claim based on your degree of trust in me, or you can request further evidence that would support my claim.

You seem to be back-peddling a bit here. Remember, my world-view allows for me to use independent objective evidence. Your worldview dictates you must accept all things at face value - which is the very definition of gullibility.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I think it is more correct to say that we can asses the plausibility of the statement - a claim to have a square circle cannot be true for conceptual reasons; a claim to have a million $ is wildly implausible, yet possible; a claim to have $ 20 is highly plausible. And so on.

Depends on the statement. I can very easily satisfy the statement "I have a million dollars in my pocket".

 

[expos4ever]

Truth claims aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that truth claims exist.

Here we disagree: I think that if the content of the claim is inherently plausible, the source of the claim is reliable, and the claimant has access to the information they would need to make the claim, we can say the claim is "evidence" for the factual truthfulness of the claim. Just not objective evidence.

In short, if the Pope turns to me and say "this morning I had an egg for breakfast", I think this indeed adds confidence to the hypothesis that the Pope, in fact, had an egg for breakfast.