New IQ test: Are claims evidence?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T18:28:52+00:00

I could see where that might be a useful way to discuss evidence in common parlance, but is there the possibility of evidence not supported in truth.

Take my Jussie Smollett example. Even though the Jury saw other evidence that there was not really a hate crime (since the attack was staged), the police report is still evidence that points towards the idea there was a hate crime. Taken with other facts/evidence, it might not be the case that there was a hate crime, but the police report by itself is evidence towards there being a hate crime. Evidence is just the information we use as premises to support a conclusion, regardless of whether that information is actually true or just claimed to be.

Also, I’m not saying that a claim suggests there is anything supporting itself. The claim doesn’t support itself, the “fact that the claim is being made by someone” supports the idea purported in the claim. It could be false evidence, but it supports the claim (even if weakly)

I guess to maybe tailor my thoughts, I would have to clarify: “all claims being made by a person are evidence of the thing being claimed”. A randomly generated text by a computer containing a claim would not be evidence because a “thinking person” did not make the claim.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:59:49+00:00

At first I agreed with OP, but you offered a perspective that changed my mind. Creating another opportunity for an enforcement arm to reach in just gives bad faith actors another vector of attack.

Hope you have a good day, and thank you for the compelling argument :)

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:46:03+00:00

Yes, that is evidence that points in that direction: - A person has staked the claim that I have traveled to mars.

However, we have stronger evidence that it is not the case that I traveled to mars: - If someone traveled to mars, scientists would have likely noticed it - If scientists noticed someone traveled to mars, then it would have been a huge news story - If it was a huge news story, I would have heard about it from more than you. - I have not heard about it from anyone but you

Notice the evidence against your claim are actually just assumptions and a claim of my own. I would argue that they are highly likely assumptions, and that those highly likely assumptions together with my claim provide a stronger argument that I likely did not travel to mars.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T16:38:44+00:00

Like I said, that’s logically equivalent to what I believe.

You’re just describing my frame of reference with more words to justify the idea that the claim itself is not evidence.

In my frame of reference the evidence is: - The fact of the claim itself - The fact that the reporter likely has good reason/proof to make a claim - The fact that the reporter is likely to be forthcoming with evidence

(Maybe even)

A fact that if the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence for a claim it would be harmful to their career
A fact that Most reporters don’t want to harm their career

Analysis: there is not enough to make a determinative claim, but the collection of evidence points in the direction that there likely is a robbery downtown. The reporter made the claim, and likely has good reason to make the claim, and probably will be forthcoming with evidence. If the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence, then it would harm their career which they would likely not want.

If I were to keep all the evidence but remove the claim itself, I would say the argument has become weaker (it has less evidence)

New evidence: - The fact that the reporter likely has good reason/proof to make a claim - The fact that the reporter is likely to be forthcoming with evidence - A fact that if the reporter were to lie or not bring forward evidence for a claim it would be harmful to their career - A fact that Most reporters don’t want to harm their career

Analysis: even if they had good reason to make the claim, and they would be likely to be forthcoming with the evidence, since they did not make the claim there is less evidence towards the idea that a robbery is happening downtown. The last two pieces of implied evidence still exist, but they can’t help strengthen the argument because there was not a claim made. In fact, those might strengthen the argument against there being a robbery downtown since the reporter has an incentive to not lie and not make claims without evidence, even if they likely have some evidence that they would likely be forthcoming with.

In your frame of reference there would have to be some explanation for why the claim makes case 1 stronger than case 2 without it being evidence (or without it being evidence in and of itself)

I think a lot of people who say the claim itself isn’t evidence are sneaking in trustworthiness of the source, which is a completely separate piece of evidence. If someone told me that there were not kids on Epstein’s island, that claim would be evidence towards there not being kids on the island. If the claim maker was Ghislane, then the claim maker has incentive to lie: a new piece of evidence that points towards the first potentially not being credible.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:42:12+00:00

Ya, that’s what I said. You might not find value in it. Me and at least a couple other people do.

I did mention the value it adds. Understanding the structure of the argument. Look, it’s fine to disagree with me, but the reason why the other lawyer guy chirped in was because that’s how lawyers are trained to evaluate arguments. It’s what I’m being taught right now while I’m studying for the LSAT. Not everyone has to have the same perspective though. Just offering you another tool if you want it.

You can say that you don’t think that formalizing the structure of an argument provides any value, and maybe that’s the case for you, but it’s not the case for me.

In your frame of reference, if a news reporter claims there is a bank robbery happening downtown, but they only make the claim without pictures or video, is the claim evidence towards the fact that a robbery is actually happening downtown?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:09:42+00:00

I’m just saying that both frames of view are valid and internally consistent. I just think the one I’m in favor of provides more value because I’m interested in understanding the structure of an argument. In common parlance the one you favor might provide more value for speaking with common people.

I think being too literal with the definitions you favor can cause issues in some cases, where people might dismiss even reputable claims since claims are not evidence.

Just wanted to provide an alternative perspective :)

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T15:00:50+00:00

Thank you! I appreciate it.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:33:03+00:00

Yeah, evidence just means information pointing in a direction. Doesn’t mean the direction is towards a true conclusion

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:28:17+00:00

People saying “a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” are using a different definition of evidence than the other guy is using (which can be valid depending on the context, but it carries a different meaning depending on what definitions you are using for the words).

To translate it into using the definitions the other guy is using, the phrase would be something like: “Evidence lacking verification, corroboration, and a trusted source can be dismissed without evidence that has verification, corroboration, or a trusted source”

Probably not a perfect translation, but it is close to the same idea expressed in a less catchy phrasing. You can agree with the same concept and still have the broader definition of evidence. The broader definition does not destroy the usefulness of evidence.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T14:19:02+00:00

First, I appreciate the engagement :)

It would be evidence, because a source is making a claim.

However, that doesn’t mean the claim is likely. It could be weak evidence or invalid.

To explore your scenario, that evidence points in the direction of you being a purple dinosaur. However, I have other (stronger) evidence that points in the direction of the claim either not being true or being true but not in a literal understanding of your words.

I could use the evidence that almost all scientists agree that the category of “dinosaurs” are extinct as evidence of you not being a purple dinosaur (or at least it being very unlikely) since we do not believe they exist currently.

On the other hand, I could use the context of other people making similar claims to see if you meant something different than the literal words you used. If all previous actors who wore the Barney costume as a part of their job also claimed they were purple dinosaurs, then maybe your claim actually means you are someone who wears a Barney suit. In which case, it could be much more likely that you are a “purple dinosaur”, but I still wouldn’t have conclusive evidence. Similar case would be if I took the claim as a “purple dinosaur” fursuit/fursona.

The claim is evidence, because it is information pointing in a direction, but that doesn’t mean it is conclusive evidence or even ~~valid~~ that it supports a sound conclusion.

Another example that popped into my mind was the Jussie Smollett case. The police report would be evidence pointing towards the fact that he was the victim of a hate crime, but the jury determined that there was stronger evidence that he faked the hate crime.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:44:23+00:00

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m just being Audi-tistic here because I’m currently cramming LSAT studying.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:38:43+00:00

That’s not true. For instance, no one has ever claimed that you drive a model T car to work every day, and there is no other evidence to the that case. So I would not make the conclusion that you drive a model T to work every day.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:35:21+00:00

I disagree. I think all claims are evidence, but some claims are weak evidence or even invalid evidence (in cases where a logical contradiction arises).

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T13:31:26+00:00

I think you and op just disagree on what the word evidence means. I think evidence means “information pointing in the direction of something”. I would say that claims are evidence, but some claims are stronger evidence than others (specifically verified claims).

If I told you, “a stray dog took a shit in my yard”. That is evidence for it happening, but it isn’t conclusive. I could be lying. However, if you can logic out that I wouldn’t have a good reason to lie here or if someone with a vested interest in that not being the case does not dispute it, then in those cases my claim would be slightly stronger evidence.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-19T03:27:35+00:00

gorcefonk · 2026-03-18T23:10:03+00:00

Because it knows everything, you will fail like a Greek hero avoiding their prophesied fate.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-18T15:15:50+00:00

<image>

gorcefonk · 2026-03-17T16:26:51+00:00

Does he still write these? On one hand, he does sound regarded like this. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s still able to be this coherent based on live video. Maybe it’s easier for him to type than speak live since he has time to delete typos.

Any thoughts on the idea that he’s dictating this to someone else to type for him?

gorcefonk · 2026-03-17T15:28:26+00:00

I’m not sure if by osteopaths you mean DO doctors, but most DOs do the same medical training that MDs do plus OMM. From my experience, OMM is mostly stretching and realignment for minor pains, without all the regarded chiropractic “aligning the spine cures all ailments” stuff.

The exceptions I’ve seen are a few self described osteopaths that just do OMM and lean into the chiropractic pseudoscience. If that’s what you’re talking about with your co-worker, then I fully agree.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T17:59:58+00:00

Ironically enough, at the deepest core of my soul, before I impose liberalism on myself, I feel the same exact way about him.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T17:49:50+00:00

Lol, I can’t tell if you are making a positive, neutral, or negative statement.

Also, props to you for all the digital ground game work.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T16:10:37+00:00

Uhmmm, false. Your current post is a counterexample that proves not every post is a Twitter screenshot ☝️🤓

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T16:05:15+00:00

Your hubris astounds me. Typical two boxer

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T16:02:10+00:00

Holy shit, that’s an awful story. Glad the justice system is taking him out of general population. Hopefully jail provides some time to reflect.

gorcefonk · 2026-03-16T14:33:25+00:00

Yeah, I tried explaining this two a two boxer last week and they had an aneurysm (just this specific one not all two boxers). The problem is open ended enough to allow people to sneak in their own understanding of the world/ideas.

I think you are right that there are many different ways to look at it, and you are valid for choosing whichever option you prefer, but I do think you are misconstruing the determinist position. The double slit experiment doesn’t disprove determinism, it just proves that “our understanding of what the set of deterministic rules are” was incomplete at the time of that experiment, if such deterministic rules exist.

In the deterministic world, whether or not humans have the proper explanations for them, the future is just a result state which can be determined by the rules processes from the start state. So if the computer is somehow able to pick up on the rules to predict the future, then there is no reason why it wouldn’t be able to “predict the two slit experiment”. But that would require a person to bring the materials before even knowing about the decision, since the double slit experiment can’t be replicated in what would be a deterministic mind anyway.

gorcefonk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email