¶1Deal with it. >> Yeah, deal with it, Matt. >> Okay, >> [laughter] >> I will deal with it, Alex. And uh let me start by pointing out that it's how absolutely sad it is to watch someone just nod along to this sort of misrepresentation of science and uh unsound epistemology being offered. >> So, by now you probably already know about this dude, Joe Schmidt, a popular philosophy YouTuber and PhD candidate at Princeton who recently converted to Catholicism.
¶2>> Big news. God exists. Christ is Lord. And he established the Catholic Church. I'm not kidding.
¶3>> [snorts] >> I just converted to Catholicism. >> Now, unfortunately, attacking a big chunk of Christians. >> God has disproven Protestantism. If you're Protestant right now, please pause this and commit to praying a decade of the rosary every single day. >> But what you might not know is that he actually had a bit of a spat with spat I mean I mean public disagreement.
¶4I mean that's a spat, right? I feel like that's a spat. Um with none other than the hangup host himself, Matt Dillahunty. He was on a show with Alex O'Connor and they were talking about things that atheists shouldn't say, right? And of course, one of those things was something that Matt Dillahunty says quite frequently.
¶5Mainly because, you know, and I'm not some Matt Dillahunty sick fan or anything, but it's accurate. Uh but we're going to talk about that and we're going to look at Matt's response video because it kind of breaks down something that I think is quite relevant to some of the bad reasoning that Joe Schmidt provided in his coming out as a Catholic video. There there's a lot of other skeptical channels that have covered this. Uh MindShift I think was probably made the best. I mean that dude's just solid.
¶6When it comes to like just straight-up just talking head YouTube videos, he's thorough. And he's just a you know, he knows what he's talking about and he does a really great job breaking things down. So, definitely check that out. I'll link the the video in the show notes. But um but for this video, we're going to be looking at the Matt Dillahunty's response video first and then we're going to show some clips from his uh coming out as a Catholic video so that you can kind of see the connection from how he was wrong about what he said about Matt and then how he's wrong about his reasoning when it comes to thinking that Catholicism has been proven.
¶7So, we're going to get into it. And apparently, this is The Bunker Pas Day. Let's go. >> [music] >> The relatively quick fire, right? Claims are not evidence.
¶8What what does that mean? Where does it come from um why is it on this list? >> What does it mean? That's a good question. It It is a good question.
¶9I It would be nice if maybe you could ask somebody um who might know. >> Slightly unclear what it means. I >> I think Matt would know. I think that's what he's saying. He should have asked Matt.
¶10And it's Matt saying, "Hey, you know, I'm right here. You can ask me before you start calling me out on your massive platform." But you know, okay. >> Think it comes from uh Matt Dillahunty. >> Matt Dillahunty, right? >> Uh-oh.
¶11>> [laughter] >> I'm the first person to to suggest this? I I think maybe that what they mean probably, listening charitably, is that I I popularized to some version of it. But, my intent was always that the claim or a claim is not evident of the truth of that proposition. Which, oddly enough, despite saying it wasn't clear, gets us to this. >> I think so.
¶12I think that's like his biggest motto, like claims aren't evidence, and then, you know, he like >> My biggest motto? No, I would say that my biggest motto is I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Um so, I you know, I don't really consider this a motto, but let's see what they say. >> His biggest motto, like claims aren't evidence, and then, you know, he like hangs up on the caller or hangs up or something. Um yeah, you know, it's a it's a that's a nice way to end your >> That's wild.
¶13They think it's some motto that I use as like a thought-terminating cliché. I think he's going to reference Um and then I hang up. You know, I'd be surprised if anybody could find an example in the 20 years or or any significant um examples in the 20 years that I've done this where I just said, "Claims aren't evidence," and then hung up with on somebody. It's a kind of misrepresentation of of what I do. >> [laughter] >> I mean, I think it was a joke.
¶14I mean, and it and it it was. And he admitted to it. And he actually uh said that he was really, really sorry uh in this clip right here. Watch this. >> I'm his new editor, by the way.
¶15Uh my name is James. I was initially going to go into depth about this joke, but it's not worth it. Let me just say two things. First, I shouldn't have made the joke about Matt hanging up. It was sanctimonious and condescending, and I apologize to Matt for that.
¶16I'm sorry. Second, I do want to note that in making the joke, I wasn't trying to say that Matt has actually hung up on people after giving that particular slogan as a thought-terminating cliché. Instead, the point of the joke was to poke fun at something which sometimes happens, namely Matt hanging up on people in less than flattering ways. So, there wasn't misrepresentation on this front, but anyway, all that is beside the point because I grant that I should not have made the joke on the grounds that it was condescending, and I apologize for it, and I hope Matt accepts the apology. So, let's just get back to the video.
¶17Let's go. >> That's all right. You know, I don't ever recall trying to shut down thought. I don't ever recall trying to use this as a terminus and then hanging up on people. Um and I think it's a little I mean, don't get me wrong.
¶18I hang up. But, of the three of us, I'm the only one who I know is out in the trenches engaging with both honest and and dishonest interlocutors on a regular basis. >> The dishonest interlocutors is probably the highlight of that sentence cuz yeah, they and they deserve it a lot of the time. I can't tell you how many times he's done No, no, no, no, no, you're done. And and I've been like, thank [ __ ] Oh my god.
¶19Jesus, how long was that going to go on? Thank you, Matt, finally. >> Uh where I'm constantly in a position to explain complex topics in kind of simple terms. But, that's all right. >> Hey, what's up, y'all?
¶20I don't want to take up too much of your time, so I'm going to talk really fast. But, if you don't mind, maybe just smash that like button and subscribe if you want more content like this and ring that bell because we do do a lot of random live streams that are a lot of fun. And and make sure to drink water. Drink water, okay? A lot of water, all right?
¶21Seriously, it's good for you. But, uh no, that was it. I know, I'm sorry. I know, I'm already taking too much time. All right, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm out.
¶22Back to the video. >> I, you know, if they think all I do is hang up on it, maybe that explains why I haven't heard from Alex in so many years, so. But, you know, cool. Let's see what else is in the holier-than-thou >> Um yeah, so I think [laughter] maybe a a claim that approximates what people are trying to express with this slogan is the following. The mere fact that somebody claims that P does not provide evidence for P's truth.
¶23>> Yeah. Absolutely. >> The mere claim P does not in and of itself provide evidence that P is true. >> Now, keep [clears throat] in mind P is the claim. Like that he's talking about somebody makes a claim that that they say is a factual statement or whatever, right?
¶24That's P. They made a proposition. That them making that statement does not speak to the truth of the statement that they just made. Okay. That That's I know I'm explaining it weird, but it you almost have to because of the way that they they try to argue against this.
¶25It's just It's bat [ __ ] >> Cool. So, I I appreciate the fact that despite saying I'm saying it wasn't clear, he got to what it means. >> I think that's what they're getting at. Am I wrong? >> right.
¶26And and and this comes up in the context of the resurrection, right? >> No, Alex. It doesn't just con- You see this is the This is so weird. Alex is going to be like, "Oh, this comes up in the context of the resurrection." And here's how I portray it. >> Because Matt will be debating a Christian and they'll say, "Look, there are all of these people who claim to see Jesus after he died." And Matt will say, "Claims are not evidence.
¶27I need evidence that Jesus rose from the dead." >> Yeah. >> Matt hangs up on him or some- something like that. >> Yeah. Um So, I I In my view, this is This is just clearly false. I mean, like very often the fact that someone claims that P is evidence for the truth of P.
¶28>> No, it's not. And [snorts] welcome. Uh I I would hang up on you right now, evidently, in your fictional little world. If somebody makes a claim that P is true, that in and of itself is not evidence for the proposition that P is true. It It It is, in fact, that simple.
¶29He nailed it. >> Yeah. >> Um but he thinks the mere fact that someone professes that P is true is evidence that P is true. So set aside Alex kind of shifting focus to the resurrection. Doesn't matter what the claim is.
¶30The claim itself is not in any way evidence for the claim being true. >> This is just called testimonial evidence. Namely, you know, evidence you get for the truth of a proposition from the fact that someone testified to its truth. >> So testimonial evidence um this objection from James seems to be along the lines of because anything can be expressed as a claim therefore you'd never have any evidence. That's >> And he goes like far deeper into that in his response video and that basically is his reductionist response is that hey, everything is just claims and he kind of gets there too in this video a little bit but and and it's really infuriating because Alex O'Connor just kind of nods along even though he knows that he is blatantly wrong cuz he's discussing science for crying out loud and he's just saying that science is just nothing but claims.
¶31It's so infuriating. But anyway, we'll let we'll let him keep going here for a minute and then we'll get to the science part. >> It's kind of the the path that he's kind of leaning down here. Um because he thinks it's just a fact that if somebody makes a claim that's evidence for the claim. No.
¶32You you fundamentally misunderstand this and James is about to betray that with his example. >> But it's interesting though because in order to combat this, right? Uh he brings up a mundane example that nobody would question. >> This is they told you that it's true. So, for instance, you know, my friend claimed that he bought a new soccer ball.
¶33This provides pretty strong evidence that he did, in fact, buy a a soccer ball. >> No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. The mere fact that your friend claimed to buy a soccer ball is not evidence and certainly not strong evidence. What you're doing is the same mistake that I'm trying to point out when I'm teaching people about this.
¶34You are taking the wealth of information that exists beyond that claim and you're using that to determine whether or not that claim is feasible. First of all, it's not nonsense. For my your your friend walks up to you and says, "Fergal bergal mergal bergal." There's no truth value in that. It's nonsense. Cool.
¶35So, now you're hearing them make a claim, "I bought a new soccer ball." >> Well, what's the fergal bergal mergal bergal thing for? Like, what was was that a joke? I don't >> [laughter] >> I I've heard of did this a couple times and it always seems so odd to me where I'm just like, "My friend So, somebody came up and said nonsense and it doesn't mean anything. Cool." Anyway, so then he says something that's actually a claim. It's like, "What was that?
¶36Was that supposed to be like be part of the lesson?" >> That conveys information to you. I just did a video on this like last month about the the how evidence for a proposition is not merely a fact consistent with but it is accepted information about reality that strongly points towards one conclusion being likely to be true over another conclusion or over it being false. It's not merely facts consistent with. And so, when you say your friend claimed that he got a soccer ball, what you're doing is you're ignoring all of the actual evidence. And that actual evidence are the facts that you understand what a soccer ball is, you understand that soccer balls exist, you accept that soccer balls exist, you accept that people buy them, you accept that they can be purchased, they can be owned, you accept that your friend perhaps likes soccer, your friend is telling you something without, you know, any hidden subterfuge, you don't have reason to suspect that your friend is lying or delusional.
¶37There's nothing about this claim often it gets framed as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but that's not really true. All claims require sufficient evidence and it's just that some claims are already so consistent with reality that it is utterly reasonable. It would be unreasonable to not accept that the claim is likely true. >> But I I kind of feel like it's almost a red herring to like bring up such a mundane example cuz cuz I feel like it moves the conversation from something that we would need evidence for to some sort of just mundane example so you could just be like, well, he said it and it's a normal thing that people do all the time. So therefore it is evidence for the the thing, for him buying the new soccer ball.
¶38But like like put it in terms of like somebody being accused of a crime or something that we would expect people to be skeptical of, right? And need evidence to demonstrate that the claim is actually true because then when you put it in those terms like hey, this person is commit accused of a crime and that claim is evidence that he committed the crime. No, it's not because that is the claim and then the evidence would be outside of that claim and it would be other you know, I would say objectively verifiable data that you can use to demonstrate that this person is at least likely and more likely to be the person that did commit the crime unless he has some kind of alibi or something else like that. But like that that's the thing and that would be evidence against him committing the crime. If he had some sort of alibi and it was validated by other people or you had a receipt that he was at a completely different place, right?
¶39That would be evidence against the proposition that that person committed the crime. But, putting it in these kinds of just vague like basic ass terms, it just seems dishonest to me. >> If your friend came up and told you that he bought a spaceship capable of traveling uh to other galaxies in, you know, in an hour, all of a sudden that claim isn't as believable. And it's not because the person speaking didn't change. It's something else that changed that makes that claim less reasonable to believe, right?
¶40>> Like if he used Matt's example, then they're basically saying that a dude saying that he has a he bought a spaceship that can, you know, go to distant galaxies within an hour is evidence that that claim is true. But, how else could it be? He puts it in this mundane uh example so that, you know, he can get out of any kind of reasonable scrutiny you would require for any other kind of claim that you would be skeptical of. It's just absurd. It's silly.
¶41>> And what's changed is how that claim relates to the body of information, the body of actual evidence that exist. And so, when I say claims aren't evidence, I don't mean that a claim cannot point to evidence. Everything is a, you know, in any testimony, um any scientific paper is a claim that points to evidence and builds off of the wealth of evidence that we already have. So, what's happening here is um I I think I called him John earlier. I think it's Joseph Schmidt, and I'm sorry for getting the name wrong, but I He keeps [clears throat] saying the wrong name.
¶42>> It's funny. I At first I was thought that I was like, is Matt doing that like ex-boyfriend thing? >> [laughter] >> You know, where you're like, "Oh, who's your new boyfriend, Joe? Ted?" And she's like, "It's Bartholomew." Oh, whatever. Yeah.
¶43Yeah, I don't care. You know, that you know that bit. >> think Joseph is um ignoring all of the thought that goes into evaluating his friend's claim. And just intuits this is a reasonable claim, and therefore the claim is evidence. No, you're you're wrong.
¶44The claim is not evidence. And if it were, then why wouldn't every claim be sufficient for you to accept it? It is the body of facts that relate to that claim that are either consistent with and point towards it most likely being true or don't. >> This is where I feel like it really does become apparent that this guy actually does not understand evidence, and it shines a whole new light on why he was so easily duped into his new found magical thinking. >> Don't Here, let's go.
¶45We're we're just It's just testimony. >> You throw testimonial evidence out the window, we are all screwed. Right? Like science relies on saying like, "Hey, listen, I performed this experiment. Like, here is the picture of the experimental results.
¶46I didn't fabricate this, right? I'm testifying to you. I'm claiming." >> So, first of all, look at Alex O'Connor smirking right now. Yeah, yeah, I told you, buddy. He [snorts] knows he's wrong.
¶47He has to know he's wrong right now. That it's not just a claim. It is somebody describing the evidence that they gathered through scientific inquiry. Like, it's so absurd that he's just sitting there kind of smirking and chuckling along. It it God, that guy drives me crazy.
¶48>> Um note the immediate dishonest hyperbolic representation. Joseph begins by if we throw out testimony, you're just screwed. Well, so first of all, nobody's saying that. >> Yeah, cuz the topic is claims aren't evidence, and they're trying to say that they are. And see, the pivot is like if you say that claims aren't evidence, then that equals throwing out all testimonial evidence, which is just a complete straw man.
¶49Nobody is saying that. >> He goes on to misrepresent science. Watch. >> Sure. Of the experimental results.
¶50I didn't fabricate this, right? I'm testifying to you. I'm claiming that this is a real picture that I took of my stuff. Um you know, I'm testifying to you that I have 67 participants in my study. And that I measured these things, right?
¶51Science is a big game of testimony. >> Wow. >> This is one of the most pathetic misrepresentations of science I've seen. So, I'm going to take it back again. Just pay attention to what he says.
¶52And watch Alex. And then I'll talk about it. >> I measured these things, right? Science is a big game of testimony. And you know, of course there are ways to like try to independently corroborate that by having other people produce studies, but again, that's just adding more testimonial evidence to our body a big body of testimonial evidence.
¶53>> Get the [ __ ] out of here. >> like systematically and carefully curated testimony what not. I'm not saying that there are no differences between this and the resurrection. But like at bottom, this is ultimately just testimony. It's just people saying things, right?
¶54It's just claims. You they're just claiming that they did these things. >> Look at him nodding along. He like he seems like he's nervous, right? Like he's nervous like should I should I say that he's wrong because, you know, he's obviously wrong.
¶55Like no, I won't I won't. I'm just going to keep nodding along. >> claiming that they did these things. Uh and we have to have a kind of basic trust in testimony in order to get any of this inquiry up and running. So, listen, testimony is evidence, testimony is claims, uh claims are evidence.
¶56Uh >> Wow. Testimony is evidence, testimony is claims, claims are evidence, which he's framing in a completely different way than he already acknowledged that the claim isn't evidence for the claim. >> Deal with it. >> Testimony is claims. Yeah, deal with it, Matt.
¶57>> [laughter] >> Okay. I will deal with it, Alex. And uh let me start by pointing out that it's how absolutely sad it is to watch someone just nod along to this sort of misrepresentation of science and uh unsound epistemology being offered. >> And he said it like so like, "Yeah. Take that, Matt." Look at the face he paused on too.
¶58"Take that, Matt." Wow. >> When he when he says, "Oh, I'm presenting you with my findings." and there are 67 people in the study, um you're not just accepting the claim that there were 67 people in the study. We have the data on those individuals, and the science is not just uh at the bottom testimony and more testimony. Um it is about testing claims, independent verification, and replicating results. >> And he kind of alluded to that for like a second, but then he was just like, "Yeah, never mind." and then abandoned it like immediately.
¶59Cuz the whole thing with science is that there's peer review and [ __ ] Like they will literally like redo the exact same experiment for that reason, because it's so rigorous. That's the whole point, because we recognize that there's human error, so that we can kind of weed those situations out. And he's kind of acting like all of that is just claims, right? But that's like this is why we do this is to verify the data. It's all about the evidence, not the the scientists.
¶60Okay, the scientists are just the ones that understand the data well enough to be able to evaluate it in ways that a lot of other people that are less educated can't do. All of this stuff is verified. He's basically acting like there's no such thing as an objectively verifiable fact. >> It is about peer review. See, "Oh, well, it's all just No, no.
¶61People might accept bad science and have many times, but science is not merely, "I'm going to testify to this and somebody else is going to testify and somebody else is going to testify and you're just going to have to take it." Um no. The fallacy of an appeal to authority is saying that something is true because an authority says it's true. It would be fallacious for us to build our science based on here's what the scientists say. No, it's not the scientists and it's not their claim, it is the data to present. All of science as if it's just testimony stacked on testimony.
¶62And have Alex sit there um and and smile and nod along and yeah, take that, Matt. >> [laughter] >> Man, this is unbelievable. This is pretty embarrassing. >> It really is. It really is.
¶63Okay, now that we've seen that, um I want to make sure that you understand how this relates specifically to his poor reasoning when it comes to his conversion from agnosticism to Catholicism because the main thing that he said was convincing was miracles. And this is the reason that he provided. >> I started coming across overwhelming evidence for miraculous phenomena. And I didn't actually believe these things for the longest time. I thought it was actually pretty implausible.
¶64But Cameron just kept pushing me. He was like, "Joe, watch the video. What's your explanation of this person's testimony?" >> Now, you tell me that doesn't relate right now. The fact that he does not understand science, the fact that he reduced it all down into claims, and now he's saying, "Hey, I don't have an explanation for these testimonies." Because he thinks that claims are evidence. So, that's why he's convinced that miracles have happened because he believes all the claims cuz or at least thinks that the claims are evidence for the factuality of the miracles, but I just think it's fascinating.
¶65And I definitely think that it is relevant to his conversion because clearly he doesn't understand evidence. He philosophizes a bit. Hey, everything's just claims. Like, Come on, man. Really?
¶66This is exactly why he thinks that these absurd claims of miraculous events and demonic possession. I'm not even kidding. >> And testifying to things like, "Oh, you know, like a few days ago I literally saw with my own eyes and multiple people present also saw it and they told me afterwards where like multiple things are just flying across the room of their own accord and various other like instantaneous supernatural changes in facial structure or eyes or various other things like levitation and so on." >> And again, because of claims. No, you just you just really bad at skepticism, dude. And that's why you're a Catholic now.
¶67But anyway. All right, that's it. Thanks for watching. Really appreciate y'all being here. You know the drill.
¶68Smash that like button. Subscribe if you enjoyed this video. All that good stuff. And you know, the main thing is to stay logical, but loving, skeptical, but compassionate, and we will see you next time. >> [music] [music] >> Woo!