Burden tennis is an intellectual parlor game, wherein the players “hit” the “burden of proof” across the net from one side to the other. We see this expressed as “the burden is in your court” or “the burden of proof is yours”, with often both sides making similar statements.
Burden tennis can be a fun game to watch, but it is sometimes wiser to avoid being a participant.
Note: I did not invent the term “burden tennis”. I saw that being used on the net somewhere many years ago. But it seems like a good term.
This post is really a reply to Patrick’s post in the moderation thread. I’ve started a new thread, because the discussion really doesn’t belong there.
As far as I know, the expression “burden of proof” comes from law. With the assumption that the defendent is innocent until the charges are proved, the burden of proof is initially with the prosecution.
Even in courts, the standard of evidence is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal trials, and “the preponderance of evidence” for civil trials. Both of those standards fall short of “demonstrated fact”. And both are ambiguous in meaning and ultimately up to the subjective judgment of the jurors.
I largely agree with hotshoe_ about this. The frequent demand for facts sometimes gets out of hand.
If I had required factual evidence for everything that my school teachers said, I would never have graduated out of kindergarten. The demand for evidence seems to come from the idea that “knowledge is justified true belief.” I see that as an absurd definition of knowledge. Children do learn from stories such as “Little Red Riding Hood” even though they know it is fiction. They aren’t learning facts. They are learning ways of interacting with other people and with the external world.
If I open a newspaper (either print or online), I may come across a sudoku puzzle and a crossword puzzle. Solving the sudoku puzzle is completely a matter of facts and logical reasoning. But solving a crossword puzzle has very little to do with facts. The clues are often ambiguous, and deliberately so. We never know if we have the correct answer to a specific clue, where “correct” means “intended by the puzzle author.” But, when we are done, we see that all of the answers fit together in such a way that it is highly likely that we have the correct solution.
In what follows, I’ll use the terms “sudoku evidence” and “crossword evidence”.
Sudoku evidence: demonstrated facts that lead to a logical conclusion.
Crossword evidence: things all fit together in such a way that the conclusion seems highly likely (or “consilience”).
When I deny that “knowledge = justified true belief”, I’m really suggesting that the bulk of our knowledge is in the form of a wealth of causal connections into the world such as would allow us to make good decisions based on crossword evidence.
Most of what we do and learn in life depends on crossword evidence, rather than sudoku evidence. At this forum, we sometimes see Frankie/JoeG asserting that there is no evidence for evolution. Presumably he is talking about sudoku evidence, and he might be right about that. But there’s a wealth of crossword evidence.
So, back to the burden of proof.
My own view is that the burden of proof lies with the one who wants to persuade others. When hotshoe_ says “Now I accept that as a consequence you may choose not to believe that I have stated a fact” she is saying that she is not particularly concerned whether others are persuaded. So, on my view, there is no burden of proof. And if others do not accept what she said, there is no burden of proof on them either. There can be a lot of useful and informative discussion without playing burden tennis. And most of our decision making in ordinary life is based on crossword evidence. Likewise, science is very much dependent on crossword evidence. Mathematics mostly depends on sudoku evidence. However, setting up a new and useful axiom system can depend on crossword evidence.
Open for discussion.
His worldview survives.
I’ve argued that it implicitly is a skeptical site and I think that should be explicit.
Yes, there are. Here’s one description that is consistent with what most skeptics mean.
Well, walto, it won’t be a Bill of Attainder, if that’s what you’re looking for.
The rule-drafting problem that I’m actually wrestling with is the realization that slanders aren’t the worst thing to let stand unchallenged. True, given the general make-up of the commenters here, it would be rather unseemly to let slanders of say, Dembski, stand, but I think there are things a LOT worse than letting slanders of Darwin [I’m looking at you, Sal] or Dawkins [I’m looking at you, hotshoe and DNA_Jock] stand.
For example “Global warming is a myth” or “Vaccines cause autism” get my goat. I hope you can see why.
But there’s no way to draft a bright line delineating those types of falsehood, so (reversing my earlier position re slanders) I don’t actually see any practical benefit in a “recantation-required” sub-category. The rule would simply be “Support or JMO”, and people who disagree with the JMOer can marshal their evidence as to why the original assertion is a crock of shit. Per the purely-voluntary-Rules-of-Engagement’s “Gish rule”, the JMOer is restricted to rebutting the evidence introduced.
P.S. If someone wishes to enshrine the text of mine that Patrick quoted, please do me the favor of correcting “fairy” to “fairly”. It’s been bugging the shit out of me.
1) Ever hear of the sensus divinitatis?
2) most environmental tests for listeria are indirect you don’t see the pathogen you see the effects of the pathogen.check it out
http://www.hygiena.com/insite-food-and-beverage.html
3) Seeing a blurry image through a microscope does not prove there is listeria in the kitchen unless you make all kinds of unsubstantiated assumptions.
peace
And who the fuck is going to be the arbiter of the “certain categories” determination?
You?
Saints preserve us!
Actually I object, in advance, to any and every possible category you could nominate that you will claim should fall under some “recantation” rule.
That’s how much I trust you.
I don’t like bullies.
Can you restrict yourself to challenging only baseless assertions? If you could, there might be some value there.
Here’s a suggestion, if you think someone has made a baseless assertion, try this:
In my most humble opinion, I think that your assertion is baseless, but that is just my opinion.
Look Lizzie, no new rules required!
Which is a rule violation when I do it.
And I’m okay with that. I’m okay with having some of my comments moved to guano, if I call someone out against the rules.
What I’m not okay with is having one rule for them and one rule for us
Which, according to the evidence as I see it, is what Patrick desires.
hotshoe:
Could you share some of that evidence?
I don’t recall seeing anyone responding that way, but if you have an example I’d be interested in reading it.
If someone responds to a request to support a claim with evidence, the (skeptical) conversation can then move to the quality of the evidence and whether or not it does, in fact, provide support for the claim. That’s the process for determining whether or not a particular claim is more or less likely to be true. Sometimes it takes time and sometimes people won’t agree, but in those cases at least the point of disagreement can be clearly identified.
The possibility of disagreement on the quality or applicability of the evidence is not a reason to avoid supporting claims altogether.
By your subjective definition of honest!
Which, to be honest, includes a whole bunch of other prescriptions for behavior which don’t belong in the usual definitions of “honest” that govern people’s daily interactions.
Okay, you want this to be some kind of special space. You’re dedicated to your ideal. You’re willing to make other people suffer – boredom, at the minimum – if you’re teaming up with keiths, make them “uncomfortable”. But all for what? What’s the moral purpose to cleansing this forum of anyone who won’t agree to play by your rules and obey the subjective definition of “honest” that you have in mind?
Why is your ideal of “honesty” for this space more ideal than walto’s ideal of “fun” or KN’s ideal of “educational” ??
Hey, I’ve got news for you. You’re not getting into heaven just because you manage to browbeat the skeptic infidels into recanting.
I’ve been very clear throughout this discussion that I am not suggesting any additional rules. I am simply advocating that one should expect unsupported claims to be challenged at The Skeptical Zone and that such behavior should be encouraged because it is aligned with the goals of the site.
Nope. Re-read what I’ve written.
I think the rule against pointing out dishonesty when it is blatantly obvious provides cover for those who want to behave dishonestly, but that’s a separate issue.
“This is The Skeptical Zone. Expect people to ask you to support your claims.”
What’s punitive about that?
And I think you’re confusing incredulity with skepticism.
Mung, you don’t like bullies? What about Barry Arrington?
A large percentage of the participants here, myself unfortunately included, find it difficult to avoid feeding the trolls.
I look forward to your proposal. Please keep in mind that any rule will have to be enforced by a few time-constrained, non-omniscient humans.
Great, that’s your subjective opinion.
It’s a stupid opinion, but it’s certainly within your right to hold it.
Here’s my counter-proposal.
“This is The Skeptical Zone. Be sure to always ask people to support their claims.”
In particular, if their name is Patrick or keiths or DNA_Jock.
We’ll be watching.
p.s. Questions are not claims and can be safely ignored.
Yep, which is exactly what makes Patrick’s stupid proposal so goddamned stupid.
None so blind as they who wish to be the sole arbiters of “evidence”.
PM me if you want to take it up again some evening. I never did get to open that gin! 🙂
I think I’ve come up with my stock response:
Dear [commenter],
Your incredulity has failed to motivate me. Perhaps it’s time for a new site rule.
Don’t disagree with this but may I suggest an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial approach? Adversarial procedures are often poor at getting at facts (O J Simpson springs to mind).
peace
walto,
Links, please, to where you have justified your claim that
Yup. I’ve heard of leprechauns, fairies, chemtrails, and intelligent design, too. Got any objective, empirical evidence for any of those?
Naughty, naughty, Patrick.
First you have to have someone with the authority to decide which are “baseless” before you can question someone about whether they find value in allowing the “baseless” ones.
But that’s the whole problem we’re discussing here and now: how (if at all) we could determine which assertions are “baseless”.
You can’t just assume that YOU know which is which. You logically cannot assume that it’s “baseless” merely because someone didn’t “support” their assertion/claim/comment in the particular way you wished they would. That wouldn’t be logical at all.
Think, Patrick!
Don’t just spurt out questions which show that you have already assumed your conclusions.
check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
If yours is broken I can’t prove to you that mine works.
Imagine trying to convince a blind man that the ceiling is a different color than the wall.
peace
Asking you to support your claims is bullying? That’s an . . . unusual definition.
So you recognize that supporting claims has value?
Whether or not a claim has been supported is not simply a matter of opinion.
The root cause of this discussion is that some people have objected to being asked to support their claims. My contention is that this is The Skeptical Zone and skepticism should be the expected and encouraged behavior.
Wow. Did I ever hit that one on the head.
We reject your scientism, Patrick, and dispute that it ought to be the dominant philosophy at this site. We think that the goal of this site is to treat all philosophies equally and not give preference to any one over the others, including scientism and skepticism.
We reject your assertion that scientism and skepticism are The Only Way To Truth or even The Best Way To Truth. We find those claims baseless.
#SupportOrRecant
Please present this evidence you speak of. I’m suggesting that everyone be expected and encouraged to apply skepticism in discussions on this site.
Do you have any evidence or logic to support that thought?
Heh. In Mung’s view, asking for objective evidence is “scientism”.
I have never suggested that I, or anyone, should be the sole arbiter of evidence. Discussions of the quality and applicability of evidence are certain to occur. That doesn’t make the concept of supporting one’s claims “stupid”.
So, now there’s two in agreement, probably. Patrick and keiths. I’ll grant you DNA_Jock as a third, given his other comments in thread. Based on the numbers in this thread, f we held a vote right now, all three of you would be off the island.
But that’s not the point. Alan’s point remains: that keiths did not (won’t/can’t) provide any support for his use of that word “we” in keiths’ claim that
As it turned out, there was (at least) one person who arrived to agree with keiths claim. But when he made it, the evidence shows it was just another bit of self-aggrandizing bullshit.
No more genuinely “skeptical” than The Lurkers Support Me In Email.
I’m sorry, my “(certain categories of) claims” quip was merely meant as a hat tip to the subject of the OP, burden tennis. My opinion is that “universal negative” claims get a pass at the first round of burden tennis, such that the questioner must proffer first. But that’s a minor point; my opinion is that ALL claims that are not clearly JMOs are subject to challenge. Again, just my opinion.
Well, at least you’re not prejudiced.
I have tried to be as clear as I can on this front: I am really not planning any forum-cleansing. Trust me.
That’s better than your earlier proposal, I think. It may be too liberal for Patrick now, though, leaving you somewhere between the patrick/keiths axis and the hotshoe/mung/walto/fmm posse
You should write it up, put up a OP on it, we can discuss it, and whether it ought to be emailed to lizzie as a replacement for whatever sanctimonious crap patrick already sent her on his own–sans discussion with anybody else–because he knows what’s best for everybody.
Please, no! We can only speak for ourselves
I doubt that Patrick subscribes to scientism (as I understand scientism – that only scientific endeavour gives correct explanations for anything) but I reject it being the dominant philosophy here.
Grrrh!
No, that’s post-modernism, isn’t it? I’d like to think people feel they can bring ideas here and that those ideas get examined for validity and coherence.
No, we are all capable of determining if a claim has been supported. We may differ on the quality or applicability of the evidence, but those are also issues that people can work out in good faith.
Again, the potential for differences of opinion does not obviate the value of skeptically considering claims.
No, the problem we’re discussing is that some people, including yourself in at least a couple of comments, are resistant to the idea of asking people to support their claims and of being justified in disregarding claims that are not supported.
No, it wouldn’t. Fortunately, that’s not what I’m suggesting. Reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the other tools of skepticism are mechanisms for determining which claims are more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality.
Are you suggesting we just throw up our hands and accept any nonsense as equally valid? If not, then you recognize the need for a means of determining which claims are more likely to be true. Skepticism is that means.
How is that related to what you are claiming exists? There are objective, empirical methods for identifying colors. Gods, not so much.
So that’s a “no” on having evidence or logic, then. Thanks for answering so clearly.
You, like keiths, are honesty challenged. You are the last people I want making up new rules for the site. Clear?
Now here’s where you get to demand that I support my claim or retract it and I get to tell you that you’ve once again failed to find the appropriate means of motivation. I can point you in the direction of a brick wall, if you insist. (Assuming that keiths isn’t hogging it.)
You all ought to take a lesson from hotshoe_ actually. For some reason (when she wants to) she knows how to ask nicely and is much more likely to elicit a serious response from me than do thinly veiled insults and blatant demands.
Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions.
keiths admits to being a bully and thinks bullying is a good thing. He thinks it advances the goals of the site and has been rather clear about it. Do you agree with keiths?
You want to pass a rule to allow bullying.
#Bully4U
When Patrick demands “objective evidence,” that is exactly what it is.
How western imperialist of you, Alan, not to mention anti-theist. No claims can be subject to requests for evidence or in any way privileged over any others just for having validity and coherence. That’s real skepticism ™ according to Mung.
🙂
You get a pass on the “we” in that proclamation (and not because I’m part of the “we”, I swear! ) because keiths took a free pass for himself on a “we” proclamation up-thread, so fair’s fair.
But next time, could we please have the proclamation-committee doc signoff before posting? 🙂
Genuinely laughing out loud at your ridiculous statement. Fortunately nobody else in the room to ask what all the noise is about.
Unsupported, untrue, and in violation of the rules.
People who want to see all claims supported are anathema to you. Got it. It does make me wonder about your motivation, though.
So you want to make libelous claims without supporting them. Now I see why you don’t like the guidelines I’m proposing.
If asking you to support your claims makes you uncomfortable enough to call it bullying, maybe the problem is with your claims and not with the request.
I think we are on different planets. My recollection of the chain of events is that people have repeatedly denied that they have an objection to someone asking someone else to support a claim. Do you dispute this is the case?
When does a claim have “validity” Patrick? (IOW, do you ever have any idea what you’re talking about?)
It really is pointless to try to have a rational discussion with these guys. Jock is at least trying, I think. But from those two, nothing at all. Ever.
I’m part of a posse?
I’m … I’m … honored and thrilled.
See the links to hotshoe_’s comments in my comment that Neil references in the OP.
For the record, I don’t feel the slightest bit bullied by you for asking.