Claims, Facts and Evidence

[Samael_Khan]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

 

[Wandering Monk]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

So do you want to talk about evidence in general or Covid?

 

[Stevicus]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

Well, I guess in this case, the evidence would be the virus itself, which can be tested for and identified in various ways. Perhaps they can view it under a microscope and take a picture of it.

Most people wouldn't be qualified to examine it, though. They could show a picture of a dead bug and say it was the coronavirus, and most people probably wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Samael_Khan]

So do you want to talk about evidence in general or Covid?

In general actually.

Covid is just an example.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, I guess in this case, the evidence would be the virus itself, which can be tested for and identified in various ways. Perhaps they can view it under a microscope and take a picture of it.

Most people wouldn't be qualified to examine it, though. They could show a picture of a dead bug and say it was the coronavirus, and most people probably wouldn't know the difference.

So then why should they accept it's existence if they cannot examine it?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, solipsism is always a fall-back position that is completely irrefutable.

A claim is a statement that someone makes.

Evidence is some piece of data that can distinguish between two or more possibilities by changing the probabilities they are correct or not.

Facts are repeatable pieces of evidence or well-tested theories based on such evidence.

For someone who never goes into a lab and knows no science, there will be little direct exposure to evidence (unless it directly affects them or someone they know).

 

[Polymath257]

So then why should they accept it's existence if they cannot examine it?

Does it fail to be evidence if someone fails to understand it? No.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Does it fail to be evidence if someone fails to understand it? No.

But then should they believe it if they don't understand it or have evidence themselves for it?

Why should anybody believe anything that they can't directly examine?

 

[Stevicus]

So then why should they accept it's existence if they cannot examine it?

They may not accept it right away. There still has to be something, perhaps a panel of doctors saying that this a thing. There's a certain trust that scientists and doctors will check each other's work and make sure they're committed to accuracy. Some doctors or scientists might make claims (such as regarding vaccines), while others might say that it's still unproven or too soon to tell.

 

[Samael_Khan]

They may not accept it right away. There still has to be something, perhaps a panel of doctors saying that this a thing. There's a certain trust that scientists and doctors will check each other's work and make sure they're committed to accuracy. Some doctors or scientists might make claims (such as regarding vaccines), while others might say that it's still unproven or too soon to tell.

That is what I would bring me to accepting it (which it has) and general consensus by many different people around the world including governments.

I presented the consensus as evidence but they said that the doctors could be lying.

 

[ChristineM]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

A Claim, an assertion without evidence (see below)

A Fact is something proven to be true.

Evidence is a tricky one. It appears to be subjective depending on the person.

Some accept claims that cannot be validated as evidence. I.e. if they believe it should be evidence then it is accepted as evidence (confirmation bias)

Others require multiple sources of validation and will not accept anything as evidence that cannot be falsified.


I personally do not accept claimed evidence without some validation

So if there is no first hand evidence i would require multiple lines of evidence from different sources that all agree as validation

 

[Polymath257]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

To take your example. A professional scientist has a reputation based on telling the truth. One that lies quickly loses standing within the scientific community.

So, the observable fact that a reputable scientist says something *is* evidence for that thing: it changes the *probabilities* that it is true or not (in favor of it being true).

A doctor at a local hospital has no independent reason to lie, so the fact that such a person reports COVID deaths *is* evidence that such deaths exist. Once again, it changes the *probability* that such deaths actually occur (in favor of them existing).

In cases where first hand evidence isn't available, we also have human motivations. So, someone working for an oil company that makes a claim that oil is good for the environment could well have a conflict of interest and their statement may not change the probabilities. But a statement from someone who has no previous connection to either side of a controversy and whose reputation is based on truth-telling *would*.

Of course, there is also the question of whether a claimed authority could actually have access to the type of evidence claimed. So, someone who has never been in a lab would *only* have second hand (or worse) evidence of some types of things. Someone claiming to know the mind of God could legitimately be questioned as to their credentials.

 

[Polymath257]

That is what I would bring me to accepting it (which it has) and general consensus by many different people around the world including governments.

I presented the consensus as evidence but they said that the doctors could be lying.

And the fact that people with very different backgrounds and different social motivations ALL agree as to the existence would be *evidence* that they are all speaking (at least partly) the truth.

Is it *possible* that they are all lying? Sure. Again, solipsism is always an irrefutable fallback position. But is it *likely* that such a massive conspiracy across a variety of different cultures and a variety of different views *within* those cultures ALL come up with the same claims?

 

[Polymath257]

So then why should they accept it's existence if they cannot examine it?

And they could, if they got the requisite training and background knowledge. But, to the ignorant, all evidence will be invisible.

 

[Samael_Khan]

A Claim, an assertion without evidence (see below)

A Fact is something proven to be true.

Evidence is a tricky one. It appears to be subjective depending on the person.

Some accept claims that cannot be validated as evidence. I.e. if they believe it should be evidence then it is accepted as evidence (confirmation bias)

Others require multiple sources of validation and will not accept anything as evidence that cannot be falsified.


I personally do not accept claimed evidence without some validation

So if there is no first hand evidence i would require multiple lines of evidence from different sources that all agree as validation

Your point about evidence being subjective is a very important point to consider. I never thought of it in that light.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

To take your example. A professional scientist has a reputation based on telling the truth. One that lies quickly loses standing within the scientific community.

So, the observable fact that a reputable scientist says something *is* evidence for that thing: it changes the *probabilities* that it is true or not (in favor of it being true).

A doctor at a local hospital has no independent reason to lie, so the fact that such a person reports COVID deaths *is* evidence that such deaths exist. Once again, it changes the *probability* that such deaths actually occur (in favor of them existing).

In cases where first hand evidence isn't available, we also have human motivations. So, someone working for an oil company that makes a claim that oil is good for the environment could well have a conflict of interest and their statement may not change the probabilities. But a statement from someone who has no previous connection to either side of a controversy and whose reputation is based on truth-telling *would*.

Of course, there is also the question of whether a claimed authority could actually have access to the type of evidence claimed. So, someone who has never been in a lab would *only* have second hand (or worse) evidence of some types of things. Someone claiming to know the mind of God could legitimately be questioned as to their credentials.

Your above explanation makes it seem that trust plays a key role in determining who is reliable or not hence the evidence is based on who reports it.

Does that add a subjective element to what constitutes as evidence?

 

[Samael_Khan]

And the fact that people with very different backgrounds and different social motivations ALL agree as to the existence would be *evidence* that they are all speaking (at least partly) the truth.

Is it *possible* that they are all lying? Sure. Again, solipsism is always an irrefutable fallback position. But is it *likely* that such a massive conspiracy across a variety of different cultures and a variety of different views *within* those cultures ALL come up with the same claims?

This is the exact answer I am looking for and I didn't realise it. So it is probability that would be gauged not conclusive evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is the difference between a claim, a fact and evidence?

I recently encountered someone online who said that there is no evidence for Covid-19 because anybody can say anything in interviews, even on youtube, and scientists can claim anything they wish. There are only claims of Covid-19 infecting people and dying, as there is no evidence for it.

What would be good enough evidence?
If first hand evidence isn't accessible then what evidence would be good enough as evidence for something to have happened or is happening?

COVID-19 under the microscope.

 

[Heyo]

But then should they believe it if they don't understand it or have evidence themselves for it?

Why should anybody believe anything that they can't directly examine?

While I can't replicate the experiments, I can at least look at secondary evidence. Is the source reliable (has a track record of true and useful information)? Is the claim corroborated by other experts? Does it make sense?
All these things influence how much trust I have in the claim.

 

[Samael_Khan]

And they could, if they got the requisite training and background knowledge. But, to the ignorant, all evidence will be invisible.

To me it seems that the ignorant choose what they wish to believe because they are not trained to assess evidence properly, that is why leaders can easily manipulate them to do their bidding. They are like a force that can be controlled to devastating effect because of their ignorance.