What is your criteria based on which you feel something someone says calls for proof or not?

Why do you think you can't prove Gengis Khan existed?

Claims need proof when there is a call to action. It doesn't matter to me if you're from an island or a small town or a big city, unless you're giving me directions. If you make an extraordinary claim, and you want me to believe you, then I'll need proof. If you make a mundane claim, then what the fuck do I care if you're lying? If you claim to have a disease, I'm going to believe you because I'm not a doctor and it costs me nothing to take you at your word.

If you shout "Run, something bad is coming!" I might feel foolish and angry if I later learn you were lying, but I'd rather be foolish and angry than injured or dead. Proof is a luxury when time is of the essence, doubly so when safety is at risk.

There might be some specific nuances to quibnle over, but generally I think we could reach consensus on the guidelines I described.

Yeah if I’m not mistaken there are contemporary records of Genghis Khan, no?

The first ever mention of Jesus at all is in a writing from 300+ years after his supposed life. Also, Jesus is a character from a religious text which we all know cannot be trusted as historical fact. I think - but I could be wrong - that Genghis Khan is written about in numerous corroborating texts from the actual era? Someone check me on that please.

Edit: yeah I looked it up GK was in the 12th century that’s really not ancient. He’s written about in many sources from across Asia and Europe in many languages. That’s corroborating evidence. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere other than scriptures from hundreds of years after his supposed existence.

Plus there have been numerous figures in other mythologies that have many or most of the same characteristics which make it more likely a classical kind of archetype. Mithra, Horus, Krishna… and a handful of others who predate Jesus’ supposed existence. That’s actually counter-evidence that supports the idea that he was not real, in fact.

everything. you know the old do your own research joke. yeah. anyway my wife loves to bring me stuff from youtube and she does not get why it does not mean anything to me. Everything nowadays. Everything is taken with a grain of salt until I get to the point where I looked at it enough from enough angles and even then I leave the door open. Unfortunately I have way to much time to chase down every bit of modern drama but most things honestly harken back to before our constant stream of fud.

What if the claim were false?

What if she wasn't from Pitcairn? No big deal other than her credibility comes into question.

What if Gengis Kahn did not exist? Nothing lost, we already doubt our historical record.

What if Jesus did not exist? Suddenly the largest religion's foundation is gone.

What if God doesn't exist? Many people lose their reason for existing..

That which has enormous impact should require proof of truthfulness.

takes massive dab

Have you considered that world history prior to 1600 is broadly fabricated, the Peloponnesian war actually happened in ~AD1000 between medieval city states, based on the timing of an eclipse triad described by Thucydides. Jesus Christ was actually Andronikos Komnenos (AD1152), he was born in Crimea and publicly beaten and crucified near Constantinople.

google Morozov

Exhales

One idea to always go back to is:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

• Carl Sagan

This can be tough to evaluate sometimes, but it's a good general idea.

Does the claim sit outside the natural world as currently understood by scientific theory?
If yes, then there's going to need to be a lot of evidence. If not, the level of evidence is lower.

Does the claim involve a low probability event?
If yes, then more evidence is needed of that event.

Does the claimant have a stake in the claim?
For example, does the person get money, fame or other stuff by getting people to believe the claim? If so, more evidence should be required.

What type of evidence would you expect to see, if the claim were correct?
When things exist, they tend to leave evidence of their existence. Bones, ruins, written records, etc. If someone says something exists, or used to exist, but they should have archeological/anthropological evidence to back it up.

Sure, it's always going to be a bit subjective as to what requires proof. And for a lot of low stakes things, there's no point in going after it. If someone claims to be from Pitcairn, then what's the point of questioning it? Just say, "huh, cool" and move on. If someone is trying to convince you that an historical figure existed, and that should effect how you see the world, maybe ask for as bit more evidence.

That title is word salad, but if I'm reading everything in the text right, it looks like you're asking when proof is expected to be provided when asked for.

It could be you're asking when we would ask for proof before considering the other person to be acting in good faith.

It doesn't matter much which one it is, since the answer from my end is essentially the same thing, but if it isn't one of those, my response might be different, and thus make this comment off topic unintentionally.

For me, the tipping point is more about a combination of claims and import. The less important it is, the more unbelievable the claims can be before I call shenanigans and want proof if I'm going to continue interacting with someone.

The inverse is true as well. A very important subject, and the less incredible the claims can be before I nope out without proof.

The key is that it's about the time I'm willing to spend entertaining a discussion.

If I'm confident enough that the person is full of shit, I'm not engaging at all, unless what they're saying could fuck up someone else's life in some way. If that's the case, I don't engage, but I'll provide whatever information I have and nope out.

In your example, the claim to be from a low population location is so low importance that IDGAF. The only time that would matter to me is if they're making claims of authority because of it. Even then, as long as what they're claiming is consistent with fact that can be looked up, I ain't got the time to try and pry them out of their story.

There's also a limit to what kind of proof is acceptable to ask for. Which doesn't apply to your example, what with them claiming a specific location, but in general, nobody has to dox themselves to satisfy me, so I'll disengage if I really believe they're full of shit rather than go there.

I'll never ask someone for a picture of themselves or any identifying features. It just isn't acceptable to ask for.

See, there's a bit of leeway necessary for a semi-anonymous forum to function. You assume the best until something stops that possibility. In the example you gave, one of you brought up "els syndrome" (which isn't something I'm aware of, and it didn't come up with a description or other information on a quick search)

If someone is making claims to have a medical condition, and the conversation doesn't veer into claims of medical fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept their experiences as lived and not care if that matches with other people's lived experiences. It just doesn't matter on a partially anonymous forum. It's the same kind of suspension of disbelief that's necessary to take anyone's story at face value. Until and unless their personal experience reaches something known to be false, it isn't something that matters for having a nice conversation.

If they start claiming that drinking apple cider vinegar cured their AIDS, we got a problem. That's where things start getting dangerous to others that nighty come along later.

Are those examples enough to get my viewpoint? I don't wanna belabor the point if it's clear enough.

Why does it matter at all? Well, there has to be a balance between healthy skepticism and giving people room to express themselves. We should all, always carry a kernel of doubt with us regarding any claims. But we also should always "remember the human". None of it will achieve both of those perfectly, but that's the goal.

If the other person is lying out their ass, does it matter? Does the interaction lose value because they're making things up? I say it doesn't inherently do so. If I interact with this post of yours, but it turns out you made it all up, it doesn't devalue the interaction for either of us.

So the balance of this thread is about people expressing something that's largely internal. If you felt the need to fake the posted conversation snippets, it still expressed something true in you, regardless of objective reality. We, as people, can still have valuable interaction over fiction. You making it up would not have any impact on the value I have/get in my response.

Your examples don't meet the criteria for proof in my mind. You had what looks to be an interesting conversation with someone. That's the primary thing, imo. Was the human interaction worth the time put in?

Intent matters.

Do you want to claim you found master of the universe? You better have evidence of the cosmological constants that are the building blocks of the entire universe.

No religion on Earth has ever possessed ontological knowledge prior to the scientific discoveries of these fundamental building blocks. These are the true signature of origin. Every bit of information contained within religions can be explained by direct human observation and meddling. It would be very easy to prove divinity by relating such ontological information.

In terms of history, it is always written by the winner. The accuracy is only found in aggregate.

The best times to live are the times when there was nothing of note. The worst times to live are always eras with memorable names of individuals. Only the worst of humans stand out from the fray and plaster themselves on the wall of history. To say Genghis Khan did not exist is not a measuring of the man, but a fool that claims the giant shit stain on the wall does not stink.