Larger claims require large evidence?

[HerCrazierHalf]

Does the magnitude of the claim or its implications affect the "strength "and amount of evidence required to accept the claim?

With regards to evidence provided by believers to nonbelievers, could this be why there is a disconnect about what is enough evidence? For example, if your at the supermarket, have no preference and a stranger comments that Brand A made them sick, you might buy Brand B. The evidence is pretty flimsy and he could have been sick for any other reason but the affects of choosing Brand B is negligible.

OTOH, someone selling a house says that it is in good condition. But regardless you still get an inspection, check for permits, the title investigated and insured, and use an escrow company to handle the transfer. There is virtually no evidence they can provide that would prevent you from doing this. The implications are huge and can last decades.

 

[peter26]

I’d agree with that yes. Another good analogy would be a criminal trial. If someone is charged with shoplifting, the trial will be short and may be concluded in half an hour - the evidence needed is not very high. If a man is accused of murder, the trial will take several days or even weeks. More evidence is needed because the claim against the person is larger.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’d agree with that yes. Another good analogy would be a criminal trial. If someone is charged with shoplifting, the trial will be short and may be concluded in half an hour - the evidence needed is not very high. If a man is accused of murder, the trial will take several days or even weeks. More evidence is needed because the claim against the person is larger.

Let’s suppose the murderer confesses his crime as soon as he is presented to the jury. I guess this evidence will suffice to conclude the trial, won’t it?

 

[peter26]

It will, his guilty plea negates the need for anything to be proved. If he confessed his guilt on the witness stand during the trial however, that is not the end of the story. The jury may feel that in the circumstances he may have been coerced into making a confession. But generally an admission of guilt would pretty much be sufficient evidence yes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It will, his guilty plea negates the need for anything to be proved. If he confessed his guilt on the witness stand during the trial however, that is not the end of the story. The jury may feel that in the circumstances he may have been coerced into making a confession. But generally an admission of guilt would pretty much be sufficient evidence yes.

So, if the accusation of murder is a large claim, and the early confession of the murderer can end the trial, it is not true that large claims require large evidence.

 

[peter26]

A confession could be seen as large evidence. Although one could take the view that no evidence is then required at all since there is no claim in contention: everyone agrees that the murder took place and on who carried it out.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A confession could be seen as large evidence. Although one could take the view that no evidence is then required at all since there is no claim in contention: everyone agrees that the murder took place and on who carried it out.

Of course! But… How could you say, for example, that a given evidence is twice as large as another evidence?

 

[peter26]

A larger claim is likely to be more difficult to prove because it will be more complicated. It will therefore require more evidence. Further, the evidence will have to be more convincing for people to believe because the claim asks people to be convinced of more facts before believing it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A larger claim is likely to be more difficult to prove because it will be more complicated. It will therefore require more evidence. Further, the evidence will have to be more convincing for people to believe because the claim asks people to be convinced of more facts before believing it.

If an “evidence” is not convincing, then it is not an evidence. Or how do you define an “evidence”, Peter?

 

[peter26]

Evidence may be convincing to different degrees. Let’s say I am debating with someone who does not believe in God. I may recite a verse of scripture to him. That is evidence. He may or may not be convinced by it. Then again, he could be walking home and hear Jesus calling to him in the manner of Paul on the road to Emmaus. That would be more convincing I dare say. In the example I gave earlier of the criminal trial, a witness might testify that someone had been seen near the scene of the crime at around the right time. That’s evidence - it has a probative value, which is to say it is of some value in proving or disproving a matter in dispute. But another witness might testify to seeing the murder itself and getting a clear view of the attacker. That is more convincing evidence - it goes further in proving the points in dispute.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Evidence may be convincing to different degrees. Let’s say I am debating with someone who does not believe in God. I may recite a verse of scripture to him. That is evidence. He may or may not be convinced by it. Then again, he could be walking home and hear Jesus calling to him in the manner of Paul on the road to Emmaus. That would be more convincing I dare say. In the example I gave earlier of the criminal trial, a witness might testify that someone had been seen near the scene of the crime at around the right time. That’s evidence - it has a probative value, which is to say it is of some value in proving or disproving a matter in dispute. But another witness might testify to seeing the murder itself and getting a clear view of the attacker. That is more convincing evidence - it goes further in proving the points in dispute.

Always that you say that something is an evidence, you need to specify what does it put in evidence.

If someone says he saw a given subject A in the crime scene, it is an “evidence” that there might be a witness; but it is not an “evidence” that the subject A was the murderer. If someone says he saw the subject murdering the victim, this is an “evidence” that there might be a second witness. However, it is not a larger evidence that the subject A was there, nor that he was the murderer. If, besides, there was a camera recording the scene (where the victim, the murderer and the witnesses appear at the moment of the “crime”) that will be another evidence: it will be an evidence that the witnesses were there, that the “murderer” was there, and that there were certain actions which conduced to the death of the victim. But if you see the situation carefully, you cannot compare one “evidence” with the other, because they are evidences of different things.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I can’t stand that phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course they don’t.

If I say I’m the daughter of “Joe Smith from Chicago” all I would need to prove it is a DNA test.

If I say I’m the daughter of "Pablo PIcasso, the painter, all I would need is to prove it is a DNA test.

One ordinary claim, one extraordinary, and each requires the same degree of evidence. It is not the size of the claim, but its complexity. Complex claims often require more evidence.

Edit: I am not the daughter of anyone famous. Far from it.

 

[edwest2]

Does the magnitude of the claim or its implications affect the "strength "and amount of evidence required to accept the claim?

With regards to evidence provided by believers to nonbelievers, could this be why there is a disconnect about what is enough evidence? For example, if your at the supermarket, have no preference and a stranger comments that Brand A made them sick, you might buy Brand B. The evidence is pretty flimsy and he could have been sick for any other reason but the affects of choosing Brand B is negligible.

OTOH, someone selling a house says that it is in good condition. But regardless you still get an inspection, check for permits, the title investigated and insured, and use an escrow company to handle the transfer. There is virtually no evidence they can provide that would prevent you from doing this. The implications are huge and can last decades.

There are so many examples. I don’t know where to start. The level of people not believing other people or even getting to know the other person, has gone up. I was walking through a mall and was offered $20 to complete a survey. Were those asking con-artists? It depends on your knowledge of how cons work.

Knowledge is key, especially in matters regarding money and other claims that seem too good to be true or unbelievable at face value. Do your own research on big questions - always. Circumstantial evidence does hold up in court if there is enough credible related evidence/circumstances to warrant a conclusion.

Ed

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I can’t stand that phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course they don’t.

If I say I’m the daughter of “Joe Smith from Chicago” all I would need to prove it is a DNA test.

If I say I’m the daughter of "Pablo PIcasso, the painter, all I would need is to prove it is a DNA test.

One ordinary claim, one extraordinary, and each requires the same degree of evidence. It is not the size of the claim, but its complexity. Complex claims often require more evidence.

Edit: I am not the daughter of anyone famous. Far from it.

Complexity!.. It made me think the following:

I need to prove claim Z.

To do that, I will need to start with a peculiar evidence “a” which, together with other accepted premises and valid rules of inference will lead me to conclude an statement X. Also, I might need to start a second chain with a peculiar evidence “b” which as before, together with other accepted premises and valid rules of inference, will lead me to conclude an statement Y. A third chain which starts with evidence “c” will allow me to get to the preliminary conclusion W. Now, if I take X, Y and W, together with some other premises and valid rules of inference I finally conclude Z.

I think we could say that the complexity of the argument to conclude Z is a measure of the complexity of this claim. However, such complexity would have nothing to do with the implications that Z could have for my life, as the OP puts it.

 

[Oreoracle]

I can’t stand that phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Of course they don’t.

If I say I’m the daughter of “Joe Smith from Chicago” all I would need to prove it is a DNA test.

If I say I’m the daughter of "Pablo PIcasso, the painter, all I would need is to prove it is a DNA test.

One ordinary claim, one extraordinary, and each requires the same degree of evidence. It is not the size of the claim, but its complexity. Complex claims often require more evidence.

Okay, but let’s say we’re testing you for a debilitating genetic disease that will require you to undergo a painful and expensive array of treatments. You might want to run that DNA test twice in case of a false positive, no?

The problem with your example is that you’re misinterpreting what we mean by extraordinary. “Extraordinary”, in this sense, means that the claim has enormous practical implications. Being related to Picasso is cool, but ultimately has no bearing on…well…anything.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Okay, but let’s say we’re testing you for a debilitating genetic disease that will require you to undergo a painful and expensive array of treatments. You might want to run that DNA test twice in case of a false positive, no?

The problem with your example is that you’re misinterpreting what we mean by extraordinary. “Extraordinary”, in this sense, means that the claim has enormous practical implications. Being related to Picasso is cool, but ultimately has no bearing on…well…anything.

Yeah, the practical implications! It’s like when you are going to get married! Don’t we usually carry on a great number of experiments, reasonings, etcetera, to obtain all the evidence we need to make a correct decision? No!?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If I really might be Picasso’s daughter, and no chance of that, I would want to know for health reasons, but I would probably accept the first DNA test. The results would be just as important to me and have just as much impact on my life no matter whose daughter I was, famous or not.

I’m assuming by “extraordinary,” you mean “out of the ordinary.” If I’m wrong, please let me know.

I think sometimes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and sometimes they don’t. If a man kills his wife by hitting her over the head and leaves his fingerprints on the murder weapon, his wife’s blood is found in the trunk of his car, and his footprints are found where he dumped the body, it’s pretty compelling evidence at first glance. I mean no disrespect to the mythical wife, but to the police, this would be an “ordinary” murder. Now if someone like Jeffrey Dahmer did the killing, it would most likely be an “extraordinary murder,” but the same evidence would suffice.

Though I may be wrong, I think every case is unique.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Does the magnitude of the claim or its implications affect the "strength "and amount of evidence required to accept the claim?

With regards to evidence provided by believers to nonbelievers, could this be why there is a disconnect about what is enough evidence? For example, if your at the supermarket, have no preference and a stranger comments that Brand A made them sick, you might buy Brand B. The evidence is pretty flimsy and he could have been sick for any other reason but the affects of choosing Brand B is negligible.

OTOH, someone selling a house says that it is in good condition. But regardless you still get an inspection, check for permits, the title investigated and insured, and use an escrow company to handle the transfer. There is virtually no evidence they can provide that would prevent you from doing this. The implications are huge and can last decades.

Wouldn’t it be enough if you say that any claim requires evidence?

 

[Oreoracle]

Yeah, the practical implications! It’s like when you are going to get married! Don’t we usually carry on a great number of experiments, reasonings, etcetera, to obtain all the evidence we need to make a correct decision? No!?

Some people do put great effort into determining who a potential partner “really is” before marrying them. Some don’t. But I don’t think the act of choosing a partner is intended to be rational, and it certainly isn’t scientific. In science, all claims are accepted as provisional at best, but marriage is usually intended to be a lifelong contractual agreement.

Chew that over for a second. We know for a fact that people change over the course of their lives. We know that at least half of marriages end in divorce. We know that human motives–and those of spouses–are notoriously difficult to unravel. In spite of this, marriage remains popular. I think it remains popular because it is so irrational, as if to say, “I love you so much I’m willing to suspend my rationality to do something that is almost certainly a bad idea.” It’s irrational, but very flattering.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Wouldn’t it be enough if you say that any claim requires evidence?

I think it’s fair to say that any claim requires evidence sufficient to prove its truth or falsehood. That might be extraordinary, or it might be very ordinary.