Claims, Facts and Evidence

[Stevicus]

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.

They could be lying. I don't think anyone is lying about the disease itself. However, some have charged that society is overreacting to it all, and they might cite the fact that millions die from the flu every year without causing a societal shutdown. So, we have evidence that many more people are dying from the flu, yet we don't shut things down for that, but we're shutting things down for the coronavirus which has fewer deaths.

That's where it takes some convincing and more evidence to persuade people, and that's where part of the current dilemma is at. That's where the dispute seems to be, not about the claims of the disease itself.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Very good points to take note of.

 

[Heyo]

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?

Evidence (in an experiment) is data that confirms a hypothesis priorly defined.
Reports of evidence are secondary and always less trustworthy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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?

Makes life easier? If we had to check everything every time we came across it rather than, for example, accepting that others have done the work for us, we might be wasting an awful lot of our time. I suspect it is what we are willing to take on trust and what will remain as 'possible' will determine how we view such things as Covid-19. There are an awfully large number of people complicit in such if we were not to believe what we have been told. A bit like not accepting we landed on the Moon - too many people involved for it to have been faked.

 

[Samael_Khan]

They could be lying. I don't think anyone is lying about the disease itself. However, some have charged that society is overreacting to it all, and they might cite the fact that millions die from the flu every year without causing a societal shutdown. So, we have evidence that many more people are dying from the flu, yet we don't shut things down for that, but we're shutting things down for the coronavirus which has fewer deaths.

That's where it takes some convincing and more evidence to persuade people, and that's where part of the current dilemma is at. That's where the dispute seems to be, not about the claims of the disease itself.

Yes. I have thought of that myself. But i think the difference is that there isn't a vaccine for it so we cannot control the virus?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Evidence (in an experiment) is data that confirms a hypothesis priorly defined.
Reports of evidence are secondary and always less trustworthy.

So what then can bring us to trusting secondary evidence?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Makes life easier? If we had to check everything every time we came across it rather than, for example, accepting that others have done the work for us, we might be wasting an awful lot of our time. I suspect it is what we are willing to take on trust and what will remain as 'possible' will determine how we view such things as Covid-19. There are an awfully large number of people complicit in such if we were not to believe what we have been told. A bit like not accepting we landed on the Moon - too many people involved for it to have been faked.

Which was my point exactly but the person said that those are just claims by many different people.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which was my point exactly but the person said that those are just claims by many different people.

Probably qualified people though - which tends to make a difference.

 

[Heyo]

So what then can bring us to trusting secondary evidence?

What I said in my first response. Track record and corroboration.
And what others have said, like conflict of interest as a counterweight.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Probably qualified people though - which tends to make a difference.

And qualified people through reliable media.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What I said in my first response. Track record and corroboration.
And what others have said, like conflict of interest as a counterweight.

See? I already forgot you guys said that XD

 

[Heyo]

See? I already forgot you guys said that XD

Maybe a good reaction.

1. I'm not an expert.
2. I didn't bring evidence.
3. My claim wasn't corroborated by other experts.
4. (From you viewpoint) I don't have a track record.

Better not trust what I say.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Maybe a good reaction.

1. I'm not an expert.
2. I didn't bring evidence.
3. My claim wasn't corroborated by other experts.
4. (From you viewpoint) I don't have a track record.

Better not trust what I say.

But your logic is sound though.

 

[icehorse]

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?

We all stand on the shoulders of previous great thinkers. E.g., few people truly understand how a computer works, but we have a ton of evidence that they do work, and we can predict how they work. We can see the results of our computers working, but we don't directly examine their deep, inner workings.

 

[Polymath257]

Another example of claims vs. evidence vs. facts.

A few years ago, a report was published from a collection of scientists saying they had evidence that certain neutrinos could travel faster than light.

The scientists themselves thought there was a mistake. But they could not find where it was and asked help from the broader community.

Here was an example where there was *evidence* that neutrinos could move faster than light. It was from a reputable source. But that source also didn't *claim* that the neutrinos actually moved faster than light. if anything, that source said to be very skeptical of the result.

So, it was *evidence*: it increased the probability that some neutrinos can move faster than light. It was NOT a claim. And, it was based on *facts* (the measured times of travel).

Eventually, it was found that one of the detection circuits had a loop in it that delayed a signal, making the timing signal incorrect.

At that point, the *evidence* was that the original evidence was misinterpreted (because it didn't measure what was thought) and thereby resolved the issue.

It is still considered to be a 'fact' that nothing moves faster than light in a vacuum.

This is an example of why repeatable results by independent investigators and public review of data is an essential for reliable science. it is only when a 'scientific consensus' is reached, which is after many alternatives have been proposed and tested, that some confidence can be had in the results.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

And for we lay people, those are pretty good rules to follow, by and large.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

That is very clever

It is a great Metephor.

Regards Tony

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

My advice is not to let people redefine what 'evidence' means, or you'll end up wearing a tin foil hat.

I'm an atheist, yet I would say there is 'evidence' for God. I just don't believe that evidence is convincing. Similarly, in a murder trial evidence will be presented. This isn't to be conflated with proof of guilt. Assessing available evidence is how you get to that point.

Someone who says there is 'no evidence of COVID-19' is an imbecile, and will think there is no evidence of semi-trailers right up until one drives over them whilst they cross an intersection. More power to them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Why should I believe something I CAN directly examine?
Does seeing something with my own eyes constitute 'proof'?

I can give you a few examples or optical illusions that prove our eyes don't always accurately allow interpretation of what's in front of us, if you like?

Ultimately...as someone previously mentioned...you should take a position on solipsism, and then work forward from there.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I had a conversation on this recently with someone conflating the Eiffel Tower and God. As in, why did I believe in the Eiffel Tower, but not God.
I went with...

"Touching it worked pretty well, but I was a 'believer' in it previously.
That belief didn't really impact on my life, and so it was more loosely examined than my beliefs in other areas. The reason for the belief was the enormous amount of data I had come across (without even trying) which showed the Eiffel Tower in a completely consistent manner, in the same location, with the same properties, appearing at the same time. Further, dependant on the exact timing of the evidence, there was consistency with the world around the Eiffel Tower as well."

To some extent, this seems consistent with what you guys are suggesting here. Multiple independent sources of information, cross-checked against each other.