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.
This isn’t star vs. sun controversy isn’t a good example of much, mainly because the ancients really didn’t know what a star was, nor a planet. To the Greco-Roman world the sun wasn’t a star because it didn’t wander against the backdrop of the “fixed stars.” It was a planet, a wanderer. But then what’s a planet? Maybe just a star that wanders (and is in front of) the fixed stars. Who knew?
Aristarchus (ancient heliocentrism guy) is said to have claimed that stars were very distant suns (hugely farther away than had been thought, due to the lack of parallax), suggesting that the idea that stars were suns wasn’t all that difficult to suppose and propose (threats of his persecution were real, however). Well,l why not? No one could say what a star was, really, so how could anything be ruled out? There were probably plenty of people 2000 years ago who would have thought it absurd that the sun is a star, and there may have been plenty who wouldn’t think so at all.
Still, I’m inclined to think that in 2000 BCE it would have been “obvious” to most that the sun wasn’t a star, mainly because it was categorized differently religiously and cosmologically–and it was understood teleologically. The sun was made for an obvious purpose, to light and heat earth, while stars, at best, seemed to be there for telling time or some such thing. Some god would be in charge of getting the sun across the sky, vital as it is to earth.
But I suspect that when the earth became known to be spherical, these things changed along with other more obvious changes. The sun is revolvng around the earth in, say, Aristotle’s model, just like the stars and other planets do, even if the planets move against the background of stars. I expect that’s when the sun as a star, and vice versa, becomes fairly plausible, as with Aristarchus.
Glen Davidson
No.
Imagine you are a pedantic asshole, and have promised to pay me 3 billion pounds if I can demonstrate the truth of the statement “There are no black swans.” With the assistance of some friends in military intelligence, and thanks to a recent, appalling cygnocide, I am able to demonstrate the complete absence of black swans on earth.
Would you pay up, or ask me the check Zebulon-5?
Be honest, now.
No, not if you’re playing according to All England Croquet and Burden Tennis Club (AEC
LTC) rules. To answer your question:“Look, Nassim! a black mini-cooper!”
😉
Neil,
That doesn’t help you. Even in 2000 BCE, nothing prevented “the sun” from referring to an object that also happened to qualify as a star, even if no one thought so at the time.
Again, you’re confusing what people believed about the sun (and stars) with what “the sun” and “a star” meant.
The meaning of “the sun”, and the fact that “the sun” refers to that blindingly bright thing in the sky, does not preclude the possibility that the sun is a star.
Likewise, the meaning of “a star”, and the fact that it refers to a relatively dim object in the night sky, does not preclude the possibility that the star is a sun in its own right.
The ancients didn’t think the sun was a star, but it wasn’t because “the sun is a star” was an oxymoron. It was because they observed the sun, and they observed the stars, and based on the enormous apparent differences they concluded (erroneously) that the sun was not a star.
What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly and kindly.
– Francis Galton
We should be thanking keiths for sparing us the inevitable slow pain and suffering of blind and indifferent nature and yield ourselves into his provident and caring hands. It’s for our benefit.
Thank you keiths.
DNA_Jock:
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
I’d pay up, of course. That’s the point. When someone says “there are no black swans”, the non-pedantic interpretation is that they are talking about the earth, not the entire universe.
So when you categorize the statement “there are no quadrupeds on Zebulon 5” as a positive claim, you are implying that “there are no black swans” (in the non-pedantic, on-earth interpretation) is also a positive claim. That contradicts your earlier claim that it is a universal negative.
Also, you have the burden of proof exactly backwards. Consider these three claims:
You characterize #1 as a positive claim, for which supporting evidence is required, and #3 as a universal negative, which avoids that requirement.
That’s backwards. It would be rational for me to bet a large sum of money on claim #1 even if you offered no supporting evidence at all. Claim #2 requires more supporting evidence than claim #1. Claim #3 requires the most supporting evidence of all, yet you’ve claimed that it requires none. That doesn’t make sense.
You see it that way, because you are very rigidly literalistic. You don’t understand the dynamically adaptive nature of meaning.
I don’t believe you. To be more specific, I think you are deluding yourself.
So no, it doesn’t. Slow down and think for a minute.
You have confused the burden of proof with the extraordinariness of the supporting evidence that might be required. You are off-topic.
Color me unsurprised.
P.S. Once you get the basics, only then can we discuss the difficulty of confirming near-universal negatives, and what this means. First things first.
It’s why he knocks on Jesus.
keiths:
Neil:
The rigidity is on your part. You are rigidly insisting that your preferred definition of “the sun” — a clunky definition that explicitly rules out the possibility that the sun is a star — is the only thing that humans in 2000 BCE could possibly have meant by the phrase.
That’s goofy. Words can have multiple senses, as non-rigid students of language understand, and in any case yours is not the most natural.
The statement “the sun is a star” would only have been oxymoronic for someone whose single and only definition for “the sun” included the explicit qualifier “and is not a star.”
Who were those mysterious people?
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
Why reject the non-pedantic version? You were criticizing the pedantic version just a short while ago:
You’re having consistency problems today, DNA_Jock.
keiths:
DNA_Jock:
No. In your own words:
Claim #3 is a universal negative, but it does not avoid the burden of requiring supporting evidence. It requires the most evidence of the three.
Well, you may not have hit on the exact right description to follow the “because” — but the second phrase is a completely reasonable inference from the available evidence (evidence in the form of words in comments here). Unless someone has some other evidence to contradict it …
LOL. If you insist on quotes there, then “the sun” and “a star” didn’t mean anything. People were not speaking English.
The point is that they had no concept which was even close to our modern concept of star.
For somebody who denies that there is absolute certainty, you are remarkably certain about this.
Honestly, don’t try to read other people’s minds. You are terrible at it.
Then it’s a good thing that I didn’t claim that it was oxymoronic. I think you are misunderstanding oxymoron — it is not a term normally applied to whole sentences.
In any case, I take back my assertion that you are a rigid literalist. After seeing your concurrent argument about black swans, I’m inclined to see you as an extreme essentialist.
Tbh, there are a lot of other reasons why a person would knock on Jesus.
For me, it’s because the fanfics are a thousand times better than the original. While it’s nice to give credit to the original for inspiring such creativity in the fans, it really doesn’t reflect well on the part-god-part-author that its work is at the bottom of the barrel, easily surpassed by, well, anyone and everyone since the series first premiered a couple millennia ago.
You are right. I just took that back, and changed it to “essentialist”.
Neil, 3:28 am:
Neil, 5:14 am:
You’re the best, Neil. Don’t ever change.
If there was ever a better piece of advice offered here, I haven’t seen it. ☺
So, I’ve been snoozing. Did y’all figure out this postive/negative biz so Patrick can get the rules changed and really get the skeptical juices here flowing?
Keiths,
Please slow down and read for comprehension.
Firstly, the consistency problem:
Is the claim (A) “There are no black swans.” the same as
or
?
Earlier you were claiming that (A) = 2, based on your personal interpretation of what people meant by (A). Now, in order to make your point about how much evidentiary support different claims need, you are drawing a distinction between 2 and 3.
I hope you can see that (A) = 3.
Now, the source of your confusion:
The topic of this thread is burden tennis, where “burden” refers to who bears the obligation to first proffer evidence. In this context “burden” does NOT refer to the (“extraordinary claims require”) degree of evidentiary support we would require before accepting a claim.
One proposed thesis is that people who make “positive” claims assume the burden. Your thesis is that non-consensus claims assume the burden; at The Skeptical Zone, that scarcely seems appropriate. But there has been some debate over the nature of claims that contain a negation, for instance “The sun is not a star”, or “That’s not my dog.”</Clouseau>
My point has consistently been that — positive, negative, schmegative — it is universal negatives, and universal negatives alone, that get a pass in burden tennis, and the ball starts on the other side of the court. In other words, despite the negation, “That’s not my dog.” carries the burden-tennis burden. “There are no black swans <period>” does not.
And the reason for this is the one you have highlighted. Evidentiary support for universal negatives is of such a nebulous and unsatisfying nature (I cited Hempel, FFS) that, in polite society and per the AECLTC rules, the ball starts on the other side of the net.
“Look! A black VW!”
“Look! A black cat!”
I could go on supporting claim (A) for some time. Would that advance the conversation any?
OTOH, you produce your pet swan, Upping-Sunday, and the debate is finished.
DNA_Jock,
Jock, I don’t think the rule you’ve suggested could work in practice. I think my reasons are similar to keiths’, though I’m not sure.
Consider, I trot my big black bird in and you say, ‘Interesting–so swannish. But we know it can’t be a black swan because there aren’t any of those!’
Or to take an issue almost omnipresent here, I say ‘There is no God.’ That means that nothing you or mung or FMM take to be God can really be God. Surely, you’ll expect me to defend my claim.
If you’re looking for rules of play, I think you’ll be stuck with something like. ‘Beats me.’ getting a pass–and not much else.
Honestly, I think the correct answer is that there is never a burden of proof, except as used in law proceedings. And even in law proceedings, there is no moral obligation to provide evidence. The term “burden of proof” is not a command to either the prosecution or the defense. It is part of the instructions to the jury.
I’d say Hitchens’ Razor gets it right. You are not required to provide evidence, and I am not required to accept your claim. Whether you have provided enough evidence to satisfy me, is entirely my decision to make.
(note that the “you” there is a generic “you” and not intended to single out any particular person. And, for that matter, the “my” is also the generic reference to the other party in the debate).
I think I’d put it less strictly, and just say it’s context-dependent, or something like that.
I agree, being the wonderfully rational being that I am. Heh. However, my somewhat paternalistic position is that a Skeptical Zone should have rules of engagement, whereby it is dirty pool to spread unsupported assertions all over the place, such as “Fossils in the Himalayas support a global flood”. My issue is with deceptive rhetoric; all I ask is that, given that this is TSZ, unsupported assertions should be, upon request, explicitly labeled as such: “JMO”.
No biggie.
Err, this is known as assuming your conclusion. And, as I have pointed out already with your scientist’s gauges, a fact-based discussion can proceed. “May I take a blood sample for DNA analysis?”
As I have already explained, IMO it is obvious-beyond-the-need-for-any-clarification that “I think God exists”, “There is a God”, “There is no God” are JMO’s
However, in keeping with your entertaining choice of examples, it amuses me that you chose ‘There is no God.’ As it stands, I view it as a JMO. However, if I toughen it up a bit : “It is an incontrovertable fact that there is no God” then it’s a universal negative, and the burden tennis ball is in your court, viz:
Tom: “It is an incontrovertable fact that there is no God”
Walto: “Wait right here”
[minutes pass]
Walto: “Tom, meet Jehovah. Jehovah, Tom.”
Tom: “How do I know…”
Jehovah: [lightning strike]
Tom: ” Wow! That’s awesome! Do you do parties?”
Jehovah: “I do not. But he does”
Lucifer: “It’ll cost ya.” [leers]
🙂
DNA_Jock,
I think I don’t really understand your position, Jock. I don’t know, e.g. whether you take negative universals to all be JMOs because of their logical form or something else about them. E.g. Is ‘There is no phlogiston’ the same as ‘Nobody likes me.’? But I think I’ll leave it to keiths to suss this out, since he’s much more of a bulldog about such stuff than I am. Cheers.
This would be a really short thread if we could agree that it is annoying to make assertions of incontrovertable fact and then refuse to make the case.
If being annoying were a deadly sin, we would all be damned.
My opinion.
I’d like to know if the folks here think that any facts whatsoever are incontrovertable and how such a “fact” could be established by evidence
peace
Yes, but I’ve never gotten your claim that somehow in the particular I have to provide evidence, while in the universal I don’t. If I can say that there is no black swan anywhere (probably in the world, since we’d likely not call something that evolved elsewhere a swan, at least not in the sense meant on earth), I can say that there’s none in my kitchen purely deductively. No evidence needed, I should think, not if none (at least no more) is needed for saying no black swan exists universally.
True, the opposite is a different case, because if I say that I just happen to have a black swan, then you ask for evidence, and here’s my freshly painted swan. Or Australian Black Swan, whatever. But ok, I disproved the specific claim that I have no black swan (depending on definition, of course), and I also disproved the universal case as well.
Swans don’t seem the best case for a unviversal negative, however, since it at best is a contingent universal. Maybe there are black swans in Australia. Who knows, unless you go there? Can we paint or dye a white swan to make it black? And what if a freak black mute swan is hatched? What does that even mean?
But leprechauns don’t exist, do they? Or Santa? Or God? Well, few of us would pretend that we know indubitably and exhaustively that none of these exists, but we’re not really holding out much hope(?). We’re going to act like it’s a universal truth that they don’t exist, unless and until we have better evidence, at least. If you’ve got Yahweh in your kitchen, well, I might ask for evidence, but really it’s more equivalent to “shut up” when I do, because I’m pretty sure that Yahweh isn’t in your kitchen. I’m about as sure specifically as I am universally, because it works deductively. There might be a better chance that Yahweh exists universally than in your kitchen, but it’s a low enough chance either way that I’m not guarding against Yahweh’s wrath.
I don’t know, it just seems to me that while we might not demand a great deal of evidence for a universal negative, it’s not at all an absolute negative when it’s a contingent universal. The statement that no black swan exists in my kitchen can be an absolute negative, while universally it can’t be. Even with Yahweh we’re probably not keen on being absolutely negative about its existence, but in the practical sense it comes out about the same for non-believers (true, a residual fear or belief might exist in a person, but that’s still not the atheist/agnostic position held even by that person). Because while we can’t say categorically that Yahweh is impossible, there’s absolutely nothing that makes Yahweh a realistic possibility in our understanding.
Glen Davidson
Yahweh is by definition omnipresent so if he exists at all he is in my kitchen. Whether you can detect him there is another question.
If you can’t find him there perhaps it says more about your detection abilities than his existence. Just because a blind man lacks the ability to see light does not in any way demonstrate that light does not exist.
peace
I don’t “take negative universals to all be JMOs”. I will try to explain.
JMOs get a pass in burden tennis. Some claims are, in normal English usage, clearly JMOs without the need for clarification. Say “I think nobody likes me” (really, what is it with your examples?).
Other statements not so much.
“The death penalty is an effective deterrent.”
“Could you support that?”
“No, it’s JMO”
“Thank you for the clarification.”
Then the issue becomes, of claims that are NOT admitted JMOs, which ones DO carry the burden-tennis burden. There has been a debate around “positive claims” vs “negative claims”, and whether statements of negation such as “That’s not my dog.” carry the burden-tennis burden. My point is that ‘negation’ is not the criterion, since it is universal negatives, and only universal negatives, that get a free ride in burden tennis. And the reason for this, which may be causing confusion, is because universal negatives such as “There are no black swans” have notoriously nebulous ‘support’ and famously easy refutation.
Support:
Look! A black VW!
Look! A black cat!
etc, etc, etc
Refutation:
Meet my pet swan, Upping-Sunday
I hope this helps.
(There is a grey area around near-universal negatives: “There are no black swans in the Americas”, since such statements may be amenable to direct support.)
As best I can tell, the only incontrovertible facts are abstract (formal) facts such as in mathematics. But then I’m a fictionalist about mathematics, so those incontrovertible facts are facts about fictional entities (though very useful ones).
Patrick’s just looking for a way to codify bullying.
It’s a figure of speech.
If I say incontrovertible, I do not mean beyond every kind of possible evidence. I mean beyond what is known and expected by experts.
The kind of statement that would not be questioned in court, even by an aggressive attorney, because it would be laughed at.
Something that goes beyond the legal sense of beyond reasonable doubt, because that standard is often overturned.
Using a courtroom scenario, I would say that no defense attorney is likely to bring up the possibility that a crime was committed by ghosts rather than the defendant.
But I have, in this forum, witnessed people post such nonsense as “everyone knows god exists, even atheists”, as incontrovertible fact.
I haven’t studied Patrick’s arguments on this thread, because I think providing evidence for assertions is a matter of good manners rather than a legal obligation.
That sounds harsh, but it’s my sense as well. We’ve heard, ‘as this is the skeptical zone, nobody should mind/be surprised at being asked for evidence (for at least some things–it’s not entirely clear which). But there’s no reason to believe that anybody either minds or is surprised about being asked for evidence.
What bothers people is the insistence that claims must be retracted unless evidence of precisely a kind that Patrick thinks is sufficient for the claim in question is produced. I hope it’s clear both that such a requirement is entirely unreasonable and is not the same as tolerance about being questioned.
As you suggest, it seems little but a pernicious sort of know-it-all bullying.
Yahweh hides behind the black swan in my kitchen, that’s why I never find him. Because I can’t even find the black swan.
Glen Davidson
This is false.
Well thankfully, nobody is doing that. If Patrick ever was (which is unclear to me), then he has made it clear that JMOing is sufficient. Why do you keep repeating this “Retract” canard?
Jock, another question that comes to mind is what the approriate response should be to ‘It’s JMO.’ I say ‘Every even number is the sum of two primes.’ You say, ‘What’s your evidence?’ I say, ‘JMO.’ Now what? Do I have to retract my original claim or prefix it with a JMO? Presumably my original statement implied that what I was saying was my opinion (without that, we get Moore’s paradox about raining). So what’s really extra here may be only that I don’t have a prood of this conjecture. Because there is often SOMETHING one can point to as warrant for one’s claims. The issue generally comes down to whether what one has is ‘enough’. And what could be more controverial than that? Whether with swan or leprechaun denial, someone is likely to say something like, ‘Well, nobody has ever seen one, have they?’ And then there may be arguing about whether that’s really true.
There simply aren’t failsafe rules to be found here, IMHO. Keiths said, it depends on the prevailing consensus. You say that doesn’t sound very skeptical. I think you’re both right.
Sometimes.
Somebody once posted (Glen, I think) that civility is overrated, that he believes and wants to teach his kids more important values, like truth, fairness, etc.
This will sound harsh (and is not intended to be) but his comment reminded me of the arguably greater importance of survival, sticking together, binding rituals, food, etc. on the ‘Lord of the Flies’ island. I mean, maybe piggy and the other guy (roger?) were totally wong about keeping the fire lit. What if rescue had been an utter fantasy on their part, and no one would ever see any smoke. What would have been important on some level was only the meat. Still, it’s hard (for me, anyway) not to think that the value of civility was up there too…
{After that, the broadcast broke up and was no longer intelligible, so no more of the sermon can be reproduced here. We may assume, however, that the remainder was full of just the right touches of common sense, gentle humor, intense sentiment, depth, touchiness and weird, perhaps baseless, attacks regarding eye color. These all in accordance with the speaker’s general habits, and which his readership had come over the years to find, not only boring, but downright annoying.]
Mung,
Mommmmeeeeeee! Patrick’s asking me for evidence!
False? You mean, somebody does mind or is surprised?
Who? Who do you suppose wither minds/ or is surprised?
What’s your evidence for your supposition?
walto,
Really, this sort of discussion (about bullying by a member) belongs in Noyau. It doesn’t belong here.
Neil,
The supposed “bullying” is relevant to this thread.
If the burden of proof rests with a commenter, then it is appropriate for others to ask the commenter for evidence. It is also appropriate to repeat the request, even if the requestee believes (or pretends to believe) that this amounts to “tedious bullying”.
I think I was just agreeing with something another poster had written (do refs really call the second foul?), but you can move my comment to noyau if you like. All the same to me.
It’s worth emphasizing that walto, hotshoe, and Mung are all people who have
a) made baseless claims;
b) been unable to provide supporting evidence for them; and
c) felt uncomfortable when this was pointed out.
It’s unsurprising (and completely self-serving) that they are now arguing against an obligation to back up their claims.
We get it, guys. Walto wants to indulge himself in false accusations without justifying them. Hotshoe wants to label people “sexist jingoist assholes”, and if you press her for evidence, well, then you’re “bullying” her. Mung wants to do all of the above, with some quotemining thrown in for good measure.
In other words, you all want to make irresponsible and dishonest statements without having the irresponsibility and dishonesty pointed out by other commenters. Quite convenient, quite transparent, and wholly against the ethos of the site.
It’s good that you feel uncomfortable after making baseless or dishonest claims. That’s how it should be at a place called The Skeptical Zone.
Nah, if I wanted to bully you I’d first have to figure out how to do that with just text written about a pseudonym and then I’d do it in Noyau.
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.
Hear, hear. I’d like for such good manners to be explicitly part of the default expectations of this site. I think they are there implicitly already.
Indeed.
I do think that in the context of a skeptical discussion, unsubstantiated claims should be retracted. By replying to a request for evidence with “JMO”, the claimant makes it clear that he or she isn’t agreeing to such a context.
That’s perfectly fine. My primary point is that the default expectation should be that participants here can expect to have their unsupported assertions challenged. I think that’s more aligned with Lizzie’s goals for the site.
Here’s my proposed rule:
for (i = 1,i < 10, ++1) {
post "Yes you did";
post "No I didn't";
}
hotshoe_ asks
“Who do you suppose either minds/ or is surprised?
What’s your evidence for your supposition?”
Erik, on the Varieties of Religious Language Thread
[forehand hit well, down the line; deep, but eminently returnable]
And then he threatened me with Mr. Hitchens’ razor!
petrushka,
That won’t compile. 🙂