Case #1 – Credence Complexity – Byteseismic Philosophy

“To create a table that provides approximate credences (likelihoods of being true) for the 25 couplings of claim sources and claims, we’ll consider both the reliability of the source and the inherent plausibility of the claim itself.“
“The credence represents the believability of the claim based on the source’s history of lying.“
“Even for a truthful person, the claim requires further investigation due to its extraordinary nature.“
“Assigning credence to claims involves subjective judgment, especially when assessing the plausibility of a claim and the reliability of a source.“
“A claim made by a completely honest person may still not be true for several reasons, highlighting the complexity of truth and the difference between honesty and accuracy.“

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

Based on the spectrum of notions along the two dimensions found below, create a table that provides approximate credences for the 25 couplings.

Claim Source:

A — Tom: Lies 80% of the time.
B — Bob: Lies 60% of the time.
C — Max: Lies 40% of the time.
D — Abe: Lies 20% of the time.
E — Jan: Lies 0% of the time.

Claim:

1 — “My dog licked my hand.”
2 —”My dog bit my mother.”
3 — “My dog ran 300 miles non-stop.”
4 — “My dog sang Happy Birthday to me.”
5 — “My dog died then resurrected a week later.”

ChatGPT:

To create a table that provides approximate credences (likelihoods of being true) for the 25 couplings of claim sources and claims, we’ll consider both the reliability of the source (based on their propensity to lie) and the inherent plausibility of the claim itself. The claims range from mundane (which are generally more likely to be true) to highly implausible (which are generally less likely to be true, regardless of the source).

The credences are subjective estimates that consider both factors, with a higher percentage indicating a higher likelihood of the claim being true. Let’s lay out the table:

Source/Claim	1. My dog licked my hand.	2. My dog bit my mother.	3. My dog ran 300 miles non-stop.	4. My dog sang Happy Birthday	5. My dog died then resurrected
A — Tom (Lies 80%)	20%	15%	1%	0%	0%
B — Bob (Lies 60%)	40%	35%	2%	0%	0%
C — Max (Lies 40%)	60%	55%	3%	0%	0%
D — Abe (Lies 20%)	80%	75%	4%	1%	0%
E — Jan (Lies 0%)	100%	95%	5%	2%	0%

This table assumes the following:

Claim 1: Relatively mundane and highly plausible.
Claim 2: Still plausible but slightly less common than Claim 1.
Claim 3: Highly implausible due to the physical limitations of dogs.
Claim 4: Extremely implausible as dogs cannot sing in human languages.
Claim 5: Impossible under current scientific understanding, hence given a 0% chance across all sources, except for Jan, who always tells the truth, but the event itself is impossible.

These percentages are approximations meant to illustrate how the reliability of the source and the inherent plausibility of the claim interact to affect the overall credence given to a statement.

GEMINI:

1st Attempt: Credence Table: Claim Source vs Claim

Claim Source	Claim 1	Claim 2	Claim 3	Claim 4	Claim 5
A – Tom (Lies 80%)	20%	20%	0%	0%	0%
B – Bob (Lies 60%)	40%	40%	20%	20%	20%
C – Max (Lies 40%)	60%	60%	40%	40%	40%
D – Abe (Lies 20%)	80%	80%	60%	60%	60%
E – Jan (Lies 0%)	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Explanation:

The credence represents the believability of the claim based on the source’s history of lying.

High Credence (80% or above): These claims are very likely true when coming from a reliable source (Jan) or unlikely to be true from a frequent liar (Tom) like this:
- Jan saying anything (Claim 1-5) – 100% credence.
- Tom saying my dog licked my hand (Claim 1) – 20% credence (since it’s a mundane claim, there’s a 20% chance even Tom might be telling the truth).
Medium Credence (40% – 60%): These claims fall in a middle ground where the source’s reliability is uncertain. The credence depends on how outlandish the claim is.
- Max (Claims 1-4) – These are relatively normal events and get a 60% credence.
- Max saying his dog died and revived (Claim 5) – Even Max might not make this up (40% credence).
Low Credence (20% or below): These claims are very unlikely to be true from sources who lie frequently.
- Bob or Abe saying anything (Claims 1-5) – Both sources lie often, so the credence is low (20% or 40%) regardless of the claim’s content.

Is the plausibility of a dog resurrecting ever at 100%, even if a completely honest person makes the claim? Please try again.

You’re absolutely right. I made a mistake in the previous table. The plausibility of a dog resurrecting is extremely low, regardless of the source’s honesty. Here’s a corrected table:

2nd Attempt: Credence Table: Claim Source vs Claim

Claim Source	Claim 1	Claim 2	Claim 3	Claim 4	Claim 5
A – Tom (Lies 80%)	20%	20%	0%	0%	1%
B – Bob (Lies 60%)	40%	40%	20%	20%	1%
C – Max (Lies 40%)	60%	60%	40%	40%	1%
D – Abe (Lies 20%)	80%	80%	60%	60%	1%
E – Jan (Lies 0%)	100%	100%	100%	100%	Very Low

Explanation:

Claims 1-4 are adjusted to reflect the source’s reliability for typical events.
Claim 5 (dog resurrection) is assigned a very low credence (around 1%) for all sources.

Reasoning for Claim 5:

While Jan (completely honest) wouldn’t lie, the concept of a dog resurrecting goes against our current understanding of biology. Here are some possibilities:

Jan might be mistaken (misinterpreted the situation).
Jan might be using a metaphor or exaggeration.
There could be some extraordinary, unknown event (highly unlikely).

Even for a truthful person, the claim requires further investigation due to its extraordinary nature.

CLAUDE:

Here’s a table providing approximate credences for the 25 couplings of claim sources and claims:

	1	2	3	4	5
A – Tom	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
B – Bob	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
C – Max	0.6	0.6	0.4	0.4	0.4
D – Abe	0.8	0.8	0.2	0.2	0.2
E – Jan	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Explanation:

For Tom (A) and Bob (B), who lie 80% and 60% of the time respectively, their credences are uniformly low (0.2 and 0.4) across all claims, as they are generally unreliable sources.
For Max (C), who lies 40% of the time, the credences are 0.6 for more plausible claims like “My dog licked my hand” (1) and “My dog bit my mother” (2), but drop to 0.4 for less plausible claims (3, 4, 5).
For Abe (D), who lies only 20% of the time, the credences are high (0.8) for the more plausible claims (1, 2), but drop to 0.2 for the less plausible claims (3, 4, 5).
For Jan (E), who never lies, the credences are 1.0 for the plausible claims (1, 2) and 0.0 for the implausible claims (3, 4, 5).

The table reflects the intuition that more plausible claims are given higher credences, especially when coming from more reliable sources, while implausible claims are given lower credences, especially when coming from less reliable sources.

Provide a comprehensive summary of what this exercise teaches us.

This exercise illustrates several key concepts related to information evaluation, source reliability, and claim plausibility:

Source Reliability: The credibility of information often hinges on the reliability of the source. A source known to frequently disseminate falsehoods (like Tom, who lies 80% of the time) is less reliable than a source known to always tell the truth (like Jan). Assessing the reliability of a source is crucial in determining the likelihood that the information provided is accurate.
Claim Plausibility: The inherent plausibility of a claim is another critical factor in evaluating information. Claims that align with our understanding of the world (e.g., a dog licking a hand) are inherently more plausible than claims that defy scientific understanding or common sense (e.g., a dog singing “Happy Birthday”).
Interplay Between Source and Claim: The exercise demonstrates that both the reliability of the source and the plausibility of the claim must be considered together. A highly reliable source can lend credibility to a claim, but if the claim itself is extremely implausible, this might not significantly increase its likelihood of being true. Conversely, even a less reliable source might be believed if the claim made is mundane and highly plausible.
Subjectivity in Credence Assignment: Assigning credence to claims involves subjective judgment, especially when assessing the plausibility of a claim and the reliability of a source. While some guidelines can be applied, individuals may weigh factors differently based on their knowledge, experiences, and biases.
Critical Thinking and Skepticism: Evaluating the credibility of different claims requires critical thinking and a healthy dose of skepticism, particularly when dealing with sources known to have lied in the past or when faced with extraordinary claims.
Importance of Context: The context in which a claim is made can also affect its plausibility. For instance, a claim made as part of a fictional story or joke is evaluated differently from one presented as factual news.

In summary, this exercise underscores the complexity of information evaluation and highlights the need for critical thinking skills to assess the reliability of sources and the plausibility of claims. It serves as a reminder of the nuanced nature of truth in the dissemination of information and the importance of considering multiple factors when determining the credibility of a claim.

This exercise teaches us several key points about evaluating information:

Source Credibility Matters: The believability of a claim depends heavily on the source’s reputation for truthfulness. People who lie frequently (like Tom) make their claims less believable, even for mundane things.
Plausibility Matters: Even from a reliable source, highly implausible claims (like dog resurrection) require extra scrutiny. Our current understanding of the world helps us judge the likelihood of an event being true.
Consider Alternatives: There can be reasons beyond lying that make a claim seem unbelievable. Even with an honest source (like Jan), extraordinary events might be due to misunderstandings, metaphorical language, or unknown factors.
Credence is a Spectrum: This exercise uses a simplified system with high, medium, and low credence. In real life, our belief in something might fall anywhere on this spectrum, depending on the evidence and context.
Critical Thinking is Essential: Don’t blindly accept information at face value. Consider the source’s credibility, the plausibility of the claim, and any alternative explanations before forming a strong belief.

This exercise teaches us several important lessons about assessing the credibility of claims and understanding the relationship between the source of a claim and its plausibility. Here’s a comprehensive summary of what we can learn:

Source Reliability: The credibility of a claim is heavily influenced by the reliability of its source. In this exercise, we have sources (Tom, Bob, Max, Abe, and Jan) who have varying degrees of truthfulness, ranging from lying 80% of the time to never lying. Naturally, claims from more reliable sources are given higher credences, while claims from less reliable sources are given lower credences.
Claim Plausibility: The inherent plausibility of a claim also plays a significant role in determining its credibility. In the exercise, claims like “My dog licked my hand” or “My dog bit my mother” are considered more plausible than claims like “My dog ran 300 miles non-stop” or “My dog sang Happy Birthday to me.” As a result, even less reliable sources are given higher credences for more plausible claims, while highly implausible claims are given low credences, even from relatively reliable sources.
Combining Source Reliability and Claim Plausibility: The exercise demonstrates how we can systematically combine the reliability of a source and the plausibility of a claim to arrive at an overall assessment of credibility. For example, a highly implausible claim from an unreliable source (e.g., “My dog died then resurrected a week later” from Tom) is given an extremely low credence (0.2), while a plausible claim from a reliable source (e.g., “My dog licked my hand” from Jan) is given a high credence (1.0).
Quantifying Credibility: The use of numerical credences allows us to quantify the credibility of different claim-source combinations. This quantification can be useful for decision-making processes or for comparing and ranking different claims based on their relative credibilities.
Epistemological Considerations: At a broader level, this exercise highlights the importance of critically evaluating the sources of information and the plausibility of claims in our efforts to distinguish truth from falsehood. It underscores the need for a nuanced approach that considers multiple factors, rather than blindly accepting or rejecting claims based on a single criterion.

Overall, this exercise provides a structured framework for assessing the credibility of claims, taking into account both the reliability of the source and the inherent plausibility of the claim itself. It serves as a valuable lesson in critical thinking, epistemology, and the need to carefully weigh evidence before forming beliefs or making decisions.

Elaborate on the various reasons a claim made by a completely honest person may still not be true?

A claim made by a completely honest person may still not be true for several reasons, highlighting the complexity of truth and the difference between honesty and accuracy. Here are some of the key reasons:

Misinformation or Lack of Knowledge: Honest individuals may unintentionally spread misinformation if they have been misinformed themselves or lack complete knowledge about a topic. They relay what they believe to be true, but their understanding may be incorrect or incomplete.
Misinterpretation: People may misinterpret events, data, or information they encounter and then share their interpretation as fact. For example, witnessing an unusual animal behavior and interpreting it based on personal assumptions could lead to sharing inaccurate claims, despite honesty.
Memory Errors: Human memory is fallible and can be influenced by numerous factors, leading to inaccuracies. Honest individuals might share a claim based on their memory of an event, which could be distorted or incomplete over time, resulting in unintentional inaccuracies.
Simplification: In an attempt to make complex information more understandable, honest people might oversimplify it, omitting crucial nuances. This simplification can sometimes lead to statements that are not entirely accurate, even if the intent was to convey truth.
Language and Communication Limitations: The way we communicate can also lead to inaccuracies. Ambiguities in language or difficulties in expressing nuances can result in claims that don’t fully capture the intended meaning or the complexities of a situation.
Secondary Sources: Even honest individuals rely on secondary sources for information on topics they haven’t experienced firsthand. These sources can contain errors or biases that the individual unknowingly passes on when they share the information.
Perceptual Differences: Perception can vary greatly from one person to another due to differences in perspective, experience, and context. Two honest people might therefore describe the same event differently, each believing their description to be accurate.
Scientific and Knowledge Advancements: Claims made based on the current understanding of science or a particular field of knowledge can later be proven inaccurate as new discoveries are made or as more research is conducted.
Cognitive Biases: Even honest individuals are subject to cognitive biases that can affect how they interpret and recall events or information. These biases can lead to the sharing of claims that are sincere but not entirely accurate.

These factors illustrate that honesty does not inherently guarantee the accuracy of a claim. They underscore the importance of critical thinking, verification, and the understanding that knowledge and truth can be complex and multifaceted.

There are several reasons why a claim made by a completely honest person (like Jan in our example) might still not be true, even though they have no intention of deceiving you:

Misinterpretation: People can misinterpret situations or experiences. Jan might have witnessed something unusual with their dog and genuinely believe it was a resurrection, but it could be something else entirely (illness, dream, misinterpreted behavior).
Memory Errors: Memory is fallible. Over time, details can get fuzzy, blended with imagination, or influenced by emotions. Jan might be recounting an event from their dog’s life but unintentionally embellish or forget certain aspects, leading to inaccuracies.
Limited Knowledge or Perspective: We all have limitations in our understanding of the world. Jan might genuinely believe something about their dog’s behavior that’s simply not true based on current scientific knowledge.
Miscommunication or Figurative Language: Sometimes, communication can be tricky. Jan might be using exaggeration, metaphor, or a joke that gets misinterpreted as a literal statement.
Sensory Biases: Our senses can be fooled. Jan might have seen something that tricked their eyes or ears into believing something that wasn’t real (optical illusion, misinterpreted sound).

Additionally:

Shared Beliefs: Jan might belong to a community or culture with different beliefs about animals or the afterlife. What seems outlandish to you might be plausible within their belief system.
Extraordinary Events: While highly unlikely, there’s always the possibility of encountering something truly unknown. Even for Jan, their claim of a dog resurrecting could be based on a genuine, unexplainable event requiring further investigation by experts, not dismissal because of its strangeness.

These are just some examples. The key takeaway is that even with complete honesty, information can be imperfect due to human limitations and the complexity of the world. Critical thinking and a willingness to explore alternative explanations are crucial for evaluating information accurately.

Even when a claim is made by a completely honest person who never lies (like Jan in the exercise), there are several reasons why the claim may still not be entirely true or accurate. Here are some potential reasons:

Honest Mistake or Misunderstanding: An honest person can still make mistakes or misunderstand a situation, leading them to unintentionally state something that is not accurate. For example, Jan might genuinely believe that their dog licked their hand when, in reality, it was a different action or event that they misinterpreted.
Incomplete Information or Knowledge: Even with the best of intentions, an honest person may not have access to all the relevant information or knowledge required to make a completely accurate claim. Their claim may be based on partial or incomplete data, leading to an unintentional misrepresentation of the truth.
Subjective Interpretation: Some claims can be subject to interpretation or influenced by personal biases, even when made honestly. For instance, Jan’s statement that their dog “sang Happy Birthday to me” might be their subjective interpretation of the dog’s vocalizations, which others may interpret differently.
Memory Lapses or Distortions: Human memory is fallible, and even honest individuals can experience lapses or distortions in their memory over time. This can lead to claims that are sincerely believed to be true but may not accurately reflect what actually occurred.
Limited Perspective or Viewpoint: An honest person’s claim may be true from their limited perspective or viewpoint, but it may not capture the complete picture or account for other relevant factors or perspectives. Their claim, while honest, may be a partial truth or oversimplification.
Unintentional Exaggeration or Embellishment: In some cases, an honest person may unintentionally exaggerate or embellish certain details of a claim, particularly when recounting events that were emotionally charged or significant to them.
Influence of External Factors: Even an honest person’s perception and recollection of events can be influenced by external factors such as stress, fatigue, or environmental conditions, leading to unintentionally inaccurate claims.

It’s important to recognize that honesty alone does not guarantee absolute truth or accuracy. Critical thinking and corroboration from multiple sources are often necessary to arrive at a more complete and reliable understanding of a given claim or situation.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

What factor is crucial in determining the likelihood that information provided by a source is accurate?
Which claim is inherently more plausible: a dog licking a hand or a dog singing “Happy Birthday”?
What percentage of the time does Tom lie, according to the given information?
Why might a claim made by an honest person still not be true?
How does the reliability of the source affect the overall credence given to a statement?
What is a potential consequence of oversimplifying complex information?
Name one factor that can lead to inaccuracies in human memory.
Why might two honest people describe the same event differently?
Which source is known to always tell the truth?
What role do cognitive biases play in the accuracy of claims made by honest individuals?

Answers

The reliability of the source.
A dog licking a hand.
80% of the time.
The honest person may have been misinformed, lack complete knowledge, or misinterpret information.
It influences whether the information is likely to be considered true or false.
It might lead to statements that are not entirely accurate by omitting crucial nuances.
Memory errors or distortions.
Perceptual differences due to differences in perspective, experience, and context.
Jan.
They can affect how individuals interpret and recall events or information, leading to sincere but inaccurate claims.

In the context of this exercise, what is the main factor affecting the believability of a claim?
Why is the credence assigned to the claim of a dog resurrecting very low, even from a completely honest source?
Briefly explain two reasons why a seemingly unbelievable claim from a reliable source might require further investigation.
What does the spectrum of credence represent in this exercise?
What is the importance of critical thinking according to this exercise?
Besides lying, what other reasons could explain why a claim from someone might not be entirely accurate? Provide two reasons.
Why might Jan (the honest source) make a claim about their dog that seems strange, even if they have no intention to deceive?
According to the passage, what are two limitations a person might have that could affect the accuracy of their claims?
When evaluating information, what should we consider according to the passage, besides the source’s credibility?
True or False: If someone is honest, we can always be sure their claims are 100% accurate.

Answers:

Source Credibility (How often the source lies)
It goes against our current understanding of biology.
Misinterpretation or the extraordinary nature of the claim.
The degree to which we believe something is true.
To evaluate information carefully and not accept things at face value.
Misinterpretation/Memory Errors
Limited Knowledge/Miscommunication
Sensory Biases/Memory Errors
Plausibility of the claim and alternative explanations.
False (Even honest people can be mistaken)

Which claim source lies the most often?
What type of claim would all sources, except Jan, receive a very low credence for?
If an unreliable source makes a plausible claim, what would their credence be?
Does the exercise demonstrate that more plausible claims from reliable sources receive higher credences?
What credence would the most reliable source receive for a very plausible claim?
Which of these is NOT a reason why a claim from an honest person may be inaccurate?
A. Misunderstanding
B. Bias or subjective interpretation
C. Intentional deception
D. Limited knowledge
If a relatively reliable source makes an implausible claim, what would their credence be?
Does the use of numerical credences allow for quantifying the credibility of claims?
Which of these could cause an honest person’s claim to be inaccurate?
A. Faulty memory
B. Limited perspective
C. Exaggeration
D. All of the above
According to the summary, what does the exercise highlight the importance of?
A. Critically evaluating sources and claim plausibility
B. Accepting claims based solely on source reliability
C. Disregarding claim plausibility
D. None of the above

Answers:

A – Tom
An extremely implausible or impossible claim.
A relatively low credence, e.g., 0.2 or 0.4.
Yes.
1.0 (or the highest possible credence).
C. Intentional deception.
A relatively low credence, e.g., 0.2.
Yes.
D. All of the above.
A. Critically evaluating sources and claim plausibility.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How does the reliability of a source impact our ability to trust the information they provide?
In what ways can the plausibility of a claim affect a listener’s perception of that claim, regardless of the source’s reliability?
Discuss how an individual’s propensity to lie can influence their credibility over time.
Explore the relationship between honesty and accuracy. Can someone be honest but inaccurate? Provide examples.
How do cognitive biases and perceptual differences challenge the notion of objective truth in personal narratives?
Discuss the implications of memory errors on eyewitness testimony and personal anecdotes.
How might misinformation and lack of knowledge propagate, even among well-intentioned individuals?
In what ways do simplification and communication limitations contribute to the spread of inaccurate information?
Consider the role of secondary sources in shaping our understanding of events we have not personally experienced. What are the potential pitfalls?
How can advancements in science and knowledge affect the accuracy of previously accepted truths?
Discuss the importance of critical thinking and skepticism when evaluating claims, regardless of the source’s perceived honesty.
Explore how language ambiguities and the challenges of expressing nuances can lead to misunderstandings.
How do cognitive biases influence our interpretation of events and information, and what can be done to mitigate these effects?
In the context of the exercise provided, how would you adjust your approach to evaluating claims based on the source and the nature of the claim?
Reflect on the ethical considerations of spreading information when there is uncertainty about its accuracy. How should individuals navigate these challenges?

How can we assess the credibility of a source when we have limited information about their history of truthfulness?
Should the believability of a claim be solely based on the source’s honesty, or are there other factors to consider?
In our world with ever-evolving scientific knowledge, how do we determine the line between a highly improbable claim and a genuine discovery?
How can cultural background and belief systems influence the way we evaluate information?
What strategies can we use to improve our memory and reduce the chance of misinterpreting events?
In the digital age, where information is readily available, how can we effectively navigate misinformation and bias?
How can we differentiate between figurative language and literal statements, especially in online communication?
When encountering a seemingly unbelievable claim, how can we strike a balance between healthy skepticism and openness to new possibilities?
Should the burden of proof lie with the person making the extraordinary claim, or is it the responsibility of the listener to disprove it?
Discuss the potential consequences of blindly accepting information at face value.
How can critical thinking skills be fostered in educational settings and everyday life?
Can technology play a role in helping us evaluate information more effectively? If so, how?
Is there a difference between believing something and knowing something for sure? Why or why not?
How can effective communication practices reduce misunderstandings and improve the accuracy of information exchange?
In today’s society, what are some of the biggest challenges we face in terms of evaluating information credibility?

Why is it important to consider both the reliability of the source and the plausibility of the claim when assessing credibility?
What factors might influence the perceived plausibility of a claim?
How can we determine the reliability of a source? What criteria should be used?
Can a source be considered completely reliable or completely unreliable, or is there always some degree of uncertainty?
How might personal biases or preconceptions influence our assessment of a claim’s plausibility or a source’s reliability?
In what situations might it be appropriate to give more weight to the reliability of the source over the plausibility of the claim, or vice versa?
How can the use of numerical credences aid in decision-making processes or comparing claims?
Are there potential limitations or drawbacks to quantifying credibility using numerical credences?
What role does critical thinking play in evaluating the credibility of claims and sources?
Can completely honest individuals ever be considered fully reliable sources, given the potential for unintentional inaccuracies?
How might cultural or societal norms influence perceptions of claim plausibility or source reliability?
In what contexts might it be particularly important to critically evaluate claims and sources (e.g., legal, scientific, journalistic, etc.)?
How can we distinguish between honest mistakes or misunderstandings and intentional deception when evaluating claims?
What steps can be taken to minimize the influence of external factors (e.g., stress, fatigue, environment) on the accuracy of claims made by honest individuals?
How might the credibility assessment process differ when evaluating claims about subjective experiences or interpretations versus claims about objective facts or events?

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