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.
No. It is outside of logic, but that does not make it the antithesis of logic.
Jock, I was thinking about your method for handling FMM posts last night (automatically put a mental JMO in front of them) and suddenly a board game I used to play when I was a kid, Milles Bornes popped into my mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mille_Bornes
It’s a game involving cars racing (around Paris maybe?). You might hit red lights, run out of gas, or get a blow-out or something, but there are also safety cards you can get that will protect you from those hazards (like one that makes your tires puncture proof).
Anyhow, what you’re saying here is that you (dunno about Uncle Pat) give FMM a permanent pass. You won’t respond to one of his posts with “Either support this, retract it, or admit that it’s just your opinion. If you don’t do so, it clearly doesn’t belong at a site called “The Skeptical Zone” and you will have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest.” (Or something along those lines: I haven’t seen the finished rule yet–only Uncle Pat, who is in direct confab with The Owner knows what’s really up).
This plan, I think you’ll agree, is a little slapdash. One might even think it’s unfairly discriminatory, since it gives FMM a permanent pass for taking a position which seems to me to be more extreme than erik-who is apparently not entitled to any pass, him being the poster child for bad behavior and everything. So I was thinking that it might make sense to formalize things, and have a kind of politburo here that could accept permanent pass applications. This bureau, with officers appointed by Uncle Pat, could take the applications (along with a fee, maybe) and, if they feel like it, rule on them. Perhaps one of the criteria for success would be whether those in power like the person, and, of course, another will be whether their views on evolution are in accordance with whatever the current “line” has been determined to be. Naturally, Uncle Pat would be allowed to veto any declaration made by this politburo, but might give it prima facie weight since he will have hand-picked the officers.
It’s just a quick thought, obviously, but it seems like this plan would standardize things a bit and make them more officially Skeptical.
I think that it is a recognition that we look at the world from radically different perspectives.
What count’s as convincing evidence for one of us is automatically discounted by the other.
Instead of giving a pass and simply moving on a better approach would be to look at our claims and see if they are consistent with our presuppositions. If they are not we can choose to point that out or simply let it slide in the interest of civility.
If a persons claims are consistent with their presupositions then we can assume that they have met the “burden of proof” according to their worldview.
That’s what I try to do
peace
Sounds reasonable to me, Fifth, but it’s evidently inconsistent with Uncle Pat’s conception of Skeptical purity. I think he’d prefer a politburo.
One might. Firstly, just because I give FMM a pass doesn’t mean that you, or anyone else, does. Contrary to your Kafkasque fantasy, it’s a DNA_Jock pass rather than a government-issued ID. It’s very nice, and it’s laminated and all, but the small print on the back makes it clear that ‘this pass remains the property of DNA_Jock and it may at any time be revoked.’ Claiming that Gardasil causes mental retardation is going to precipitate a swift revocation. Erik’s pass got suspended when he claimed that fossils in the Himalayas supported a global flood. So it’s not a little slapdash, it’s very slapdash.
🙂
walto,
Your smears are a poor substitute for rational argumentation, walto.
walto:
DNA_Jock:
It’s interesting that walto — a bureaucrat himself — can’t resist indulging in this sort of bureaucratic fantasy.
keiths,
Richard, oh Richard!! Keiths needs a long, comforting hug and wants to borrow your big boy pants again. (I think he may need a belt to keep them up, too, if you have one.)
Thanks!
walto,
Taunts are fine, but could you add a little substance now and then? Thanks.
What I find interesting is that you, who are opposed to rules here, are supporting patrick’s rule-based power grab. (I mean, he can write whatever nonsense he wants now–but he wants lizzie to endorse a rule memorializing his theory)
I guess it’s good though, It shows what’s actually important to you.
You want to improve all and obviously have done so! Thanks!
walto:
I am? Just yesterday I wrote this:
I don’t know if this is a instance of dishonesty or just sloppiness, but what is it with you and false statements, walto?
But they are sure as hell funny and I am always up for a good laugh.
I’ll note that keiths does not get satire.
Do we have to stand in line to get our moral compass? I hate standing in lines.
I’m not sure you’re familiar with Patrick’s proposal to Lizzie, Jock. It’s not about his own personal preferences–those are as may be. It’s about a rule for the site that he’d like to see. That you give private passes isn’t really relevant to THAT, which is what some of us are exercised about.
Neil,
Good grief, Neil — of course it’s satire.
What’s interesting is that walto, a bureaucrat, gravitates to a dystopian bureaucratic fantasy in an attempt to mock Patrick.
I’m still confused by what problem an additional rule is supposed to
achievesolve*. What problem is this site currently experiencing that needs addressing?*ETA
I responded to that question here, Alan.
I’m not proposing any new rules, a point which I’ve made very clear in my previous comments in this thread. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m advocating for a certain set of expectations among participants here. Some discussions have been derailed by meta-discussions on the appropriateness of asking for evidence and the justification for summarily dismissing unsupported claims. My view is that skepticism is essential to achieving the goals that Lizzie has for this site, so asking for claims to be supported should be expected, not resisted.
I’m not saying non-skeptical discussions shouldn’t take place, only that the default assumption should be that we’re all aligned with Lizzie’s goals and everyone should expect to have their unsupported assertions challenged. If you want to take the “just my opinion” option rather than supporting or retracting your claims, that’s your prerogative.
My view is that at The Skeptical Zone one should expect skeptical analysis of one’s claims and arguments. I think that is implicit in the Rules page currently. I would like to see it made explicit.
You just don’t like being asked to support your claims.
Alan,
Don’t be alarmed by walto’s false characterization of a “rule-based power grab.” Neither Patrick nor DNA_Jock is proposing new, enforceable rules, as far as I can see.
If you’re taking walto at his word, you’re doing it wrong.
Or else ,what?
Provide evidence or retract
The problem is that I do not like being asked to support my claims and that I think when someone does ask me to support a claim it is a form of bullying.
I want to have a rule passed requiring me to embrace and enjoy being asked to support my claims. I think that having such a rule would help me overcome my fear of having to support my claims and make me more accepting of bullies [they are people too] and just make me an all around better person by encouraging me to be more skeptical.
Or else you make it clear that you are choosing not to have a skeptical discussion and you carry on.
Elizabeth set this site up with a set of goals and some rules intended to help achieve those goals. My view is that those goals implicitly include the value of skeptically analyzing all claims and arguments. Even the name of the site suggests that. I’d like to see it made explicit.
The only practical change I see coming from what I propose is a reduction in the amount of meta-discussion about whether or not claims need to be supported. The default expectation will be that they should be.
No rules, no punishments, no bureaucracy. Just some guidelines and default expectations reinforcing what I think is already the case.
I should be, walto. Apparently, I wrote them.
😮
Mindreading par excellence!
I’m quite able to parse walto’s mocking hyperbole, thanks.
I see Patrick has responded helpfully.
Thanks for the advice. (I’m being ironic 🙂 )
I think her aim was a little more nuanced and ambitious (perhaps overly so). To enable discussion of contentious issues across a wide diversity of view. Enabling involves patience, tolerance and compromise. Lizzie is the best at that I have ever seen.
It’s in the mail!
I think the site name needs to be changed. Having a url containing “theskepticalzone.com” and the words “The Skeptical Zone” at the top of every page are just too in your face about this being a skeptical site. I think we should make it less explicit and more implicit. Show of hands?
Even though currently an absentee landlord, Lizzie is the benign dictator here.
Alan,
Apparently not. You wrote:
Had you read (and understood) Patrick and DNA_Jock’s words instead of walto’s, your confusion would have vanished.
Ask Elizabeth if you can just change the quote at the top of the page:
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken,” and that you may be asked to support any claims.
That could save DNA_Jock a lot of writing.
Certainly. Without applying reason, critical thinking, and evidence, though, there is no way to resolve those issues or at least identify the root causes of any disagreements. There’s a reason for the name of the site.
No argument here.
Sure. But there’s a danger of having nobody to argue with. That’s the line Lizzie tried to walk. She never compromised on facts or what she though was correct or true but she didn’t steamroller either.
Patrick,
Sorry, I seem to be using the past tense in a way that looks spooky when I read it again.
Got it. Guidelines and expectations
Patrick, to newton:
I agree with the general sentiment, except that I think it is overkill to say that all claims should be supported by default.
Assertions that are uncontroversial and unchallenged shouldn’t require the presentation of supporting evidence, though commenters should ask themselves if their assertions are true and supportable before making them.
Challenges don’t necessarily merit a response, either. If I claim that water is H2O and a mungish troll demands “Prove it!”, I should not be expected to do so.
Perhaps better to say that our claims are subject to challenge and that there is a general expectation that commenters will provide support for their claims. The word “general” makes it a bit fuzzy, but that’s appropriate given that we are talking about guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules.
I disagree that the only two options are lack of skepticism or everyone leaves. Skepticism isn’t a steamroller, it’s means for determining what claims are more likely to be more or less true. This is a skeptical site.
I’m good with that. Certainly not all claims will be challenged, but the principle is that all are potentially subject to request for support. Uncontroversial claims will, by definition, not be contested.
But H2O is not water. So I think I ought to be allowed to ask you to support that claim if you were to make it. And you should be required to support it or recant.
#H2OBoarding
And it is still a question that interests me. I have a view on what the current state of the site is and whether there are ways to improve it.
Indeed. Though reading the words still leaves me unsure about what the intent is.
Which of the following are you asserting?
1. Skepticism is a means for determining what claims are more likely to be more or less true.
2. Skepticism is the one and only means for determining what claims are more likely to be more or less true.
3. Skepticism is the only worthwhile means for determining what claims are more likely to be more or less true.
Sadly, you already lost that debate.
keiths teaches mind-reading. It’s one reason I am here at TSZ, to learn from the masters.
There’s a middle way. I touched on the inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach already (maybe not this thread). A court of law is remarkably inept at establishing scientific facts.
That’s why we have federal judges. 🙂
Mung,
Yet Judge Jones took an inquisitorial approach.
Alan:
Mung:
Alan walked right into that one.
Can someone tell me what ‘an expectation for this site’ means? Jock said he was drafting a rule. Patrick agrees with something Jock wrote but says it’s not a rule, it’s an expectation. I still think a poliburo might help sort all this out.
That’s a matter of presentation. The underlying requirement to support one’s claims remains.