Evidence Workshop

“Tom’s claim involves two distinct assertions: the existence of a cube and its composition being gold. The production of gold flakes addresses only the composition aspect of his claim but does nothing to substantiate the geometric assertion—that the object is a ‘spherical cube’.”
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of a flying dog is extraordinary and contradicts established scientific understanding.”
“It’s important to clarify that subjective feelings or intuitions, while potentially significant to the individual experiencing them, do not constitute objective evidence in a scientific sense.”
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of a flying dog is extraordinary and contradicts established scientific understanding. Ron’s claim that both statements have equal evidentiary strength based solely on eyewitness count is incorrect. Here’s why: Prior Probability… Nature of the Claim…”

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

Tom claims he has a spherical cube of gold in his pocket. He produces flakes of gold as evidence for his claim. What strength of evidence do those flakes of gold constitute, given Tom’s claim?

Tom’s claim involves two distinct assertions: the existence of a cube and its composition being gold. The production of gold flakes addresses only the composition aspect of his claim but does nothing to substantiate the geometric assertion—that the object is a “spherical cube,” which is a contradictory statement since a cube, by definition, is a six-faced, three-dimensional shape with all right angles and sides of equal length, whereas “spherical” describes a shape that is perfectly round. Therefore, the evidence provided (flakes of gold) can be analyzed as follows:

Relevance to Composition: The gold flakes provide relevant evidence regarding the material composition of the object Tom claims to possess. If the flakes are indeed gold, they support the claim that Tom has an object made of gold.
Irrelevance to Geometry: The gold flakes provide no evidence concerning the geometric nature of the object. They do not support the claim that the object is a cube, let alone a “spherical cube,” which is a geometric impossibility given standard definitions.
Strength of Evidence: The strength of evidence provided by the gold flakes is limited strictly to the material composition part of Tom’s claim. It fails entirely to substantiate the more extraordinary aspect of his claim about the object’s geometry.
Conclusion: Given Tom’s claim, the evidence of gold flakes constitutes weak evidence. It only partially addresses the claim (the material aspect) and completely fails to address the geometric impossibility implied by a “spherical cube.” In a logical assessment, while the evidence might suggest Tom has gold in his pocket, it does nothing to advance the credibility of his specific claim about the geometric nature of the object.

Based on the information provided, the flakes of gold presented by Tom constitute weak evidence for his claim of possessing a spherical cube of gold in his pocket. Here’s why:

Supporting the Claim:

Partial Match: The flakes are indeed made of gold, which aligns with the material of the claimed object.
Possibility of Multiple Sources: However, gold flakes can come from numerous sources, not just a solid cube of gold. They could be jewelry, filings, or even fake flakes.

Contradicting the Claim:

Shape Mismatch: The claim specifies a “spherical cube,” a geometrically impossible shape. Finding gold flakes doesn’t address this impossibility.
Quantity and Origin: The number and origin of the flakes are unknown. A few flakes could easily be obtained from sources unrelated to a solid cube.

Additional Considerations:

No Direct Observation: We haven’t directly observed the object Tom claims to have, raising doubts about its existence and characteristics.
Alternative Explanations: The presence of gold flakes doesn’t rule out other explanations for their origin.

Therefore, while the gold flakes offer some connection to the material aspect of the claim, they fall short of providing convincing evidence for the shape, uniqueness, or even the very existence of the object. Tom would need to present more specific and relevant evidence, like photographs, physical inspection, or explanation of the supposed object’s creation, to strengthen his claim.

Remember, critical thinking involves evaluating evidence in its entirety, considering both supporting and contradicting factors, and seeking alternative explanations before reaching conclusions.

Ron claims that the following two claims have equal evidentiary strength if the number and quality of eyewitnesses for both claims are equal.
1: A dog swam across the lake.
2: A dog flew across the lake.
How might we respond to Ron?

To respond to Ron’s assertion about the equal evidentiary strength of the two claims based on the number and quality of eyewitnesses, we must consider the nature of the claims, the plausibility of each event, and the role of prior knowledge in evaluating evidence. Here’s how one might approach this:

Plausibility and Prior Knowledge:

The first claim, that a dog swam across the lake, aligns with common knowledge about dogs and their abilities. It is well-known that most dogs can swim, and swimming across a body of water is within the realm of possibility for a dog. Therefore, eyewitness accounts of this event would be considered strong evidence because they align with established knowledge.
The second claim, that a dog flew across the lake, contradicts established knowledge about dogs and their physical capabilities. Dogs do not have the anatomical structure necessary for flight, and there are no scientifically verified cases of dogs flying. Therefore, eyewitness accounts of such an event, regardless of their number and perceived quality, would be met with skepticism. The extraordinary nature of the claim demands extraordinary evidence, not just in quantity but in quality and type.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence:

Carl Sagan’s famous adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” applies here. The claim of a flying dog is extraordinary and contradicts established scientific understanding. Therefore, it would require a higher standard of evidence to be considered credible. This might include video evidence, multiple independent eyewitness accounts from credible sources, and scientific examination to rule out other explanations (e.g., the dog being carried by a drone or other device).

Evaluation of Evidence:

When evaluating evidence, one must consider not just the quantity and apparent quality of eyewitnesses but also the nature of what they’re reporting. Eyewitness accounts are subject to errors, biases, and misinterpretations. Extraordinary claims, because of their potential to significantly alter our understanding of the world, necessitate a more rigorous form of verification than those that fit within established patterns of reality.

Consistency with Known Physical Laws:

Claims must be evaluated in the context of their consistency with known physical laws and biological capabilities. A dog swimming is consistent with these laws and capabilities, whereas a dog flying under its own power is not. This discrepancy affects the credibility of the evidence provided for each claim, regardless of the eyewitnesses’ number and quality.

In conclusion, while Ron posits that the evidentiary strength of both claims is equal if the number and quality of eyewitnesses are the same, this perspective fails to account for the inherent difference in the plausibility of each claim based on established knowledge and physical laws. The claim of a dog flying across a lake, being extraordinary and contrary to established scientific understanding, inherently requires a more substantial form of evidence to be considered credible, beyond just eyewitness accounts.

Ron’s claim that both statements have equal evidentiary strength based solely on eyewitness count is incorrect. Here’s why:

Prior Probability:

Claim 1: Dogs swimming across lakes is a relatively common occurrence, establishing a higher prior probability. Witness testimony adds to, but doesn’t drastically alter, this existing possibility.
Claim 2: Dogs flying are physically impossible according to our current understanding of the world, resulting in an extremely low prior probability. Even numerous eyewitnesses wouldn’t entirely eliminate this unlikelihood.

Nature of the Claim:

Claim 1: Falls within the realm of established natural phenomena, making it inherently more believable within our current understanding of the world.
Claim 2: Violates known physical laws, requiring extraordinary evidence to overcome this inherent skepticism.

Consider Alternative Explanations:

Misidentification: For claim 1, mistaken identity of the animal or misperception of the event are more likely explanations than a dog defying physics.
Hoax or Illusion: For claim 2, the possibility of a hoax, prank, or mass illusion becomes significantly higher due to the extraordinary nature of the claim.

Therefore:

While the number of eyewitnesses might seem initially important, their testimony gains weight and credibility based on the context and prior probability of the claim being made.
In this case, claim 1 about a dog swimming is much more likely to be true even with the same number of witnesses as claim 2 about a dog flying, due to the inherent feasibility of one versus the impossibility of the other.

Responding to Ron:

You could explain the concept of prior probability and how it influences the believability of a claim based on existing knowledge.
Highlight the importance of considering alternative explanations, especially for extraordinary claims like a dog flying.
Emphasize the need to evaluate evidence not just in quantity but also in context and its alignment with established knowledge.

Remember, critical thinking involves questioning assumptions, considering multiple perspectives, and seeking evidence that aligns with, not contradicts, well-established scientific principles.

Mary claims that while the evidence for telepathy is inconclusive, her feelings that telepathy must be true are evidence for its truth. How might you respond to Mary?

Responding to Mary’s claim involves addressing the distinction between subjective feelings and objective evidence, as well as the standards for evidence in scientific inquiry. Here’s a structured response:

Differentiating Between Subjective Feelings and Objective Evidence:

It’s important to clarify that subjective feelings or intuitions, while potentially significant to the individual experiencing them, do not constitute objective evidence in a scientific sense. Objective evidence is based on observable, measurable phenomena that can be independently verified by others. In the context of telepathy, objective evidence would include controlled experiments that demonstrate telepathic abilities beyond the chance level, under conditions that rule out alternative explanations.

The Role of Anecdotal Evidence:

Personal feelings or experiences, often categorized as anecdotal evidence, can serve as a starting point for scientific investigation but cannot alone validate a phenomenon. Anecdotal evidence is limited by its susceptibility to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where individuals may give more weight to experiences that support their beliefs and disregard those that do not.

Scientific Standards for Evidence:

Science relies on rigorous methodologies and empirical evidence to investigate claims. This involves controlled experiments, replication of findings, and peer review. For a claim like telepathy to be considered true within the scientific community, it would need to be supported by evidence that withstands this rigorous scrutiny, showing statistically significant results that cannot be attributed to chance, error, or fraud.

The Place of Subjective Experience in Scientific Inquiry:

While subjective experiences and feelings are not dismissed outright in scientific inquiry, they are seen as hypotheses or questions to be tested rather than as conclusions. The scientific method requires these hypotheses to be tested through empirical research that objectively measures and evaluates the phenomenon in question.

The Importance of Open-minded Skepticism:

An open-minded yet skeptical approach is crucial in science. This means being open to exploring new ideas and phenomena, like telepathy, while also maintaining a rigorous standard for what is considered evidence. This approach ensures that scientific knowledge advances in a way that is both innovative and grounded in empirical evidence.

Encouraging Further Research:

If Mary is passionate about her beliefs in telepathy, one might encourage her to explore the existing scientific literature on the subject and to support further research. This research should aim to meet the scientific standards for evidence, thereby contributing to a better understanding of whether telepathy exists as a real phenomenon.

In summary, while Mary’s feelings and beliefs are personally significant, they do not meet the criteria for scientific evidence supporting telepathy. The journey from subjective feeling to scientific fact involves rigorous testing and validation that can either substantiate or refute claims based on objective, empirical evidence.

Mary’s claim raises interesting points about the role of personal belief and feelings in evaluating evidence. Here are some ways you could respond:

Emphasize the Difference Between Feelings and Evidence:

Gently explain that while feelings and strong beliefs can be important personal experiences, they don’t constitute scientific evidence. Evidence refers to verifiable data or observations that can be objectively examined and tested.
Highlight that many people hold strong beliefs about various things, but not all beliefs translate to factual realities.

Explain the Challenges of Subjectivity:

Point out that personal feelings are subjective and can be influenced by various factors like personal experiences, biases, and even wishful thinking. This makes them unreliable as evidence for objectively true claims.
Mention that relying solely on subjective experiences can lead to confirmation bias, where we tend to interpret information in a way that confirms our existing beliefs, ignoring contradictory evidence.

Propose Alternative Explanations:

Suggest that Mary’s feelings could be explained by other factors, such as intuition, coincidence, or misinterpreted social cues. This doesn’t negate her experiences, but encourages exploring alternative interpretations.
Offer to research the topic together using objective and verifiable evidence, like scientific studies or experiments exploring telepathy. This can foster a more informed discussion based on shared resources.

Seek Common Ground:

Acknowledge that the concept of telepathy is fascinating and has captured human imagination for centuries. This shows respect for Mary’s interest and opens a space for further discussion.
Emphasize the importance of open-mindedness and critical thinking when exploring unusual claims. Encourage a willingness to weigh evidence objectively and revise beliefs based on new information.

Remember:

The goal is not to invalidate Mary’s feelings or beliefs, but to encourage critical thinking and understanding the distinction between personal experiences and objectively verifiable evidence.
Be respectful and open to her perspective while offering alternative explanations and resources for further exploration.
The most important aspect is to engage in a constructive and informative dialogue that encourages learning and critical thinking about evidence and claims.

Ultimately, the decision to accept or reject claims like telepathy lies with each individual. However, fostering a culture of critical thinking and evidence-based evaluation can lead to more informed and reasoned conclusions.

Which of the following statements is most likely true for a 30-year-old man in Tokyo who just bought a fishing pole?
1: His name is Koji and he enjoys fishing.
2: His name is Koji.

Between the two statements provided, the second statement, “His name is Koji,” is more likely to be true simply based on probability and the nature of the information provided.

Here’s the reasoning:

The first statement makes two specific claims: that his name is Koji and that he enjoys fishing. While the purchase of a fishing pole might suggest an interest in fishing, it does not guarantee that the man’s name is Koji or that he enjoys fishing. The assumption about enjoyment is based on the action of buying a fishing pole, which could be for various reasons other than personal enjoyment (e.g., a gift, a one-time event, or curiosity).
The second statement makes only one claim: that his name is Koji. While “Koji” is a common Japanese name, the probability of this being true is not necessarily high given the diversity of names. However, compared to the first statement, which requires both parts to be correct, the second statement’s likelihood hinges on a single piece of information being accurate.

In essence, the second statement is simpler and requires fewer conditions to be true, making it statistically more likely to be correct than the first statement, which includes an additional assumption. However, it’s important to note that without specific information about the individual, both statements are speculative, and the actual probability of either statement being true cannot be accurately determined.

(Gemini failed to identify the principle of model simplicity or statistical parsimony critical to this exercise.)

Read the following statements and rank the quality of evidence provided from strongest to weakest. Justify your rankings.

A peer-reviewed study showing a statistical correlation between exercise and improved mental health.
A personal anecdote about feeling happier after starting to exercise.
A news article discussing a single study on exercise and mental health.
A testimonial from a celebrity endorsing a specific type of exercise for mental health.

To rank the quality of evidence provided in the statements from strongest to weakest, we consider the rigor, objectivity, and generalizability of the evidence. Here’s the ranking with justifications:

1: A peer-reviewed study showing a statistical correlation between exercise and improved mental health.

Justification: This is the strongest form of evidence listed. Peer-reviewed studies undergo rigorous evaluation by other experts in the field, ensuring the methodology, data analysis, and conclusions are sound. A statistical correlation in such a study is based on systematic data collection and analysis, offering objective and generalizable evidence about the relationship between exercise and mental health.

2: A news article discussing a single study on exercise and mental health.

Justification: While this source is less direct than accessing the study itself, the fact that it discusses a single study suggests some level of objective reporting on research findings. However, the quality of evidence is contingent on the accuracy and depth of the reporting. The article may provide a summary and potentially some critical context or comparison to other studies, but it does not offer the detailed methodology or data analysis that directly accessing the study would.

3: A testimonial from a celebrity endorsing a specific type of exercise for mental health.

Justification: This type of evidence is weaker than the above options because it relies on an individual’s personal experience and influence, which may not be representative or generalizable. While potentially persuasive, celebrity testimonials do not offer objective evidence of effectiveness. Their impact is often based more on the celebrity’s popularity than on systematic evidence.

4: A personal anecdote about feeling happier after starting to exercise.

Justification: This is the weakest form of evidence listed. Personal anecdotes, while valuable and meaningful to the individual, are subjective and cannot be generalized. They do not undergo the same scrutiny or objective analysis as scientific studies and lack the broader context necessary to establish a reliable connection between exercise and mental health for the population at large.

The ranking criteria focus on the source’s objectivity, the evidence’s scope (individual vs. population level), and the methodological rigor involved in generating the evidence. Peer-reviewed research stands as the gold standard for evidence due to its comprehensive review process and emphasis on objective, systematic inquiry.

Ranking the Quality of Evidence:

Here’s the ranking of the statements from strongest to weakest evidence for the link between exercise and mental health, along with the reasoning behind each:

1. Peer-reviewed study showing a statistical correlation:

Strength: This is the strongest evidence as it comes from a scientific study following rigorous methods, potentially including data collection, analysis, and peer review by other experts. Statistical correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it provides substantial evidence for a link between the variables.
Weakness: We need to further consider the study’s design, sample size, and potential limitations to fully assess its strength.

2. News article discussing a single study:

Strength: This provides access to some information about a scientific study, which adds credibility compared to personal anecdotes or testimonials.
Weakness: News articles may omit details, potentially misinterpreting or sensationalizing the study’s findings. It’s crucial to evaluate the original study if possible.

3. Personal anecdote:

Strength: Personal experiences can offer valuable insights, but they are subjective and cannot be generalized to larger populations.
Weakness: An individual’s experience might not reflect a broader cause-and-effect relationship due to potential confounding factors and biases.

4. Celebrity testimonial:

Strength: Celebrities may have large audiences, but their endorsements often lack scientific backing and rely on personal experience, anecdotes, or paid advertisements.
Weakness: Celebrities are typically not experts in mental health or exercise science, and their endorsements can be influenced by personal bias or financial incentives.

Additional Points:

It’s important to consider the source of the information and their potential biases.
Sample size and study design significantly impact the reliability of conclusions.
Be cautious about generalizations from individual experiences or anecdotal evidence.

Remember: This is just an example, and the strength of evidence can vary depending on specific details and context. Always strive to critically evaluate the source, methodology, and limitations of any evidence you encounter.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}