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.
At the risk of pissing off my buddy hotshoe, I do. But the two you’re in league with are hardly being reasonable about any of this. I think you comprehend the nature of this disagreement about what constitutes evidence and “baselessness.” From the rest of the robe guys there is lack of comprehension and/or nastiness only.
Hey, whatever. You can switch teams if you want.
ETA: I shouldn’t have said “only.” There’s also been condescension, sanctimony, etc. Plenty of that stuff regarding the meaning of “skepticism” and bloffity bloff.
But it was mixed in there with a lot of additional value that I didn’t charge for, so it gets a pass. Maybe. Thanks for not calling it baseless. That’s progress at least.
See how easy that was? No new rules required.
Don’t get too excited. I don’t like our chances at all. Remember what happened to poor Piggy.
Definition quoted directly from the American Psychological Association — which according to wikipedia is the “world’s largest association of psychologists with around 137,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students”.
So, no, Patrick, not an … unusual definition. Not at all.
** idly wonders if Patrick will do the honest thing, recant, and apologize for his implied slur that Mung uses that word wrong in an attempt to deflect otherwise valid criticism. **
Says you. I ask you support that claim or retract it
😉
I don’t see anything in that definition that suggests that merely asking someone to support a claim qualifies as bullying.
It falls under the universal negative rule. I claim that there are no objective, empirical methods for identifying gods. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
Depends on the entailments, doesn’t it? Gods with entailments are testable.
I’m still waiting for you to post your qualifications in mind-reading.
My actual position is that there are no people who want to see all claims supported. So such “persons” cannot possibly be anathema to me.
If someone claims to want to see all claims supported I would take it with a grain of salt. If you want me to take your claim seriously you could begin by setting forth what evidence you think ought to convince me that someone actually does want to see all claims supported.
Then, if we actually find such a person, we can see whether I find them anathema.
Good luck with that.
Excellent rule, patrick! All fmm needs to say now is that there are no worlds without a god and he gets a pass. That ought to work fine for him, i’d think.
In all seriousness, here’s the rule I think you were groping for:
If patrick agrees with it, it is sufficiently supported, if he does not, it is baseless.
That should take care of all of fmm’s theistic assertions.
God’s opinion is objective by definition. He says that you know he exists empirically (by the things he has made). Romans 1:19-20
I rest my case
peace
Says one of the biggest trolls here. (note to self: I really should stop feeding him, though.)
hotshoe, to Mung:
Um, no.
My use of “we” was correct, because Patrick and DNA_Jock had already indicated their agreement.
Patrick, 6:34 pm:
DNA_Jock, 1:07 am:
keiths, 8:25 am:
Alan, 8:27 am:
keiths, 8:38 am:
OK, here’s another great example for Jock to think about. I’m sure neither he nor I considers what FMM gives here as good evidence for anything. Do you think he must now recant? He also doesn’t think it’s just his opinion. (And presumably, it isn’t; a lot of people probably agree with him.)
FWIW, I don’t think a retraction or JMO requirement is necessary: I can live with simply disagreeing with his post. Patrick obviously can’t, libertarian that he is.
Please provide the definition and objective, empirical evidence that this god you speak of actually exists.
We can discuss the quality of that evidence once you’ve addressed the previous issues.
Thank you for providing evidence for my last claim so quickly, patrick!
Good point. As far as I know, though, none have thus far passed any tests.
And I never said that merely asking someone to support a claim qualifies as bullying. Does that make us even?
Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah.
🙂
No, it’s fine, it’s all fine.
See, this difference-of-opinion is actually kinda the whole point.
Me, not being an asshole (or to be honest, just not acting like an asshole at this particular moment) I don’t choose to demand that you provide evidence for DNA_Jock being trustworthy. To you, or in general, either (where “in general” might approach objective fact — see, everybody agrees he’s trustworthy, must be true, right?.
It doesn’t make you a poor skeptic that you “failed” to challenge my “claim” that I don’t trust him. It doesn’t make me a poor “skeptic” that I accept, without further evidence, that you do — and you might even be right about him! You’re not obliged to “prove” it to me, one way or the other. No one needs to formally add “JMO” to make the other happy.
Of course, we’re not talking about anything controversial (like Feser is a real pig, or anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots who should lose custody of their children, or …) so it’s easy to agree to disagree and move on.
Easy cases are, duh, easy, and hard cases make for bad law. Which is why DNA-Jock’s stupid/crazy proposal is doomed, no matter how he tries to codify it. He’s going to be trying to make “law” for genuine controversies, cases where one or the other of the shitlords is – predictably – going to challenge every statement they don’t like with repetitious “That’s not evidence. When you can’t provide evidence you must retract” — and they’ll – predictably – feel perfectly justified in their asshole behavior because DNA_Jock codified it for them.
Or worse, the shitlords won’t challenge every statement of mine, because on some issues I’m on the same side they are, and they will – predictably – challenge only the “claims” which they already have a bias against (well, that’s human nature), and then I’ll feel like a quisling. Going along with their misconduct because I don’t have the energy to both argue a controversial case plus argue against their biased usage of this support-retract-or-else rule. Urgh. Sick either way.
The only valid solution in my opinion is the one Mung has already suggested: Take it or leave it.
DNA_Jock should feel free to leave it, at any time. Like right now.
Thanks, walto, that is a good example. But my answer to your question is “Naah.”
And my reason is that, thanks to his goofy pre-suppositionalism, I view it as clear that everything FMM claims is in the JMO category, without further need for clarification. It doesn’t matter to me that FMM and hordes of his fellow-travellers don’t see it that way.
Likewise, courtesy of his avowedly evidence-free solipsism, everything WJM claims is clearly JMO. Of course, inveterate troll-feeder that I am, that doesn’t stop me from engaging him on the evidence when he does things like claim that the Paris attacks would never have happened, if only the French police were armed. But that’s the price he has to pay when he slips out of his evidence-doesn’t-affect-me mode and actually, you know, offers up some evidence. Erik made the same mistake, when he alluded to fossils in the Himalayas supporting a global flood.
BTW, thank you for the offer to join the “Standards? We don’t need no stinking standards!” team, but I’ve always been a Team Jacob kinda guy.
P.S. hotshoe, glad you got my “Trust me.” joke; I was worried about you for a bit there.
Ooh, snap! Well done, fifth!
Yes, you should, darlin’
Edit to add: I should quit, too.
But first, don’t miss my comment about him in Noyau. I’m quite proud of it. 🙂
hotshoe_,
Great point about people’s willingness to challenge statements they disagree with, and their often abject failure to challenge statements they agree with. I was alluding to this in my first post on this thread – the “what triggers skepticism” conundrum that I am trying to suss out.
Having said that, what is the “it” that you think I should leave, and why?
Funny how the ones who self-identify as libertarian are usually the most dogmatic dictatorial people around. JMO. Just kidding!
Whaddya bet, even adding JMO to that sentence isn’t going to stop Patrick (or keiths) from swooping in and demanding “evidence” when that “claim” offends them.
Honestly, I am bewildered how come they can’t learn from your living example. Don’t agree with a comment? Simply disagree and move on … It’s easy peasy.
Except if you’re a libertarian, I guess.
The entire Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long.
Is this where we’re headed?
First, we should have rules about making rules. That makes sense, right? I’d hate for DNA_Jock to go to all this effort only to discover he hadn’t followed all the right rules!
But that sounds too much like incredulity.
Besides, I’ve been assured that these are people who want to see all claims supported. Given their concern that this site not be seen as condoning unsupported claims, I believe that we can trust them to not accept any claim without challenge. Don’t you?
Mung,
I don’t want to see all claims supported. If someone mentions that Barack Obama is the president, I don’t need or want supporting evidence. If they claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, then I want to see supporting evidence.
Get that, jock? You’re going to have to add in to your draft rule whether keiths already belives it. That’s key.
walto,
You think DNA_Jock is advocating that all claims must be supported? I haven’t gotten that impression at all.
You’re safe from my anathema then!
You know what I hate? I hate it when people disguise claims as questions. I think that’s the epitome of dishonesty. Be sure to add that scenario to the new rule[s].
Thank you.
Alan, to Patrick:
Alan,
I’m glad to see you making that point. I’m wondering, though, if you still maintain that the supernatural is untestable. That would imply that “gods with entailments” are not supernatural, which seems seems like an odd thing to assert.
I don’t think it’s illogical. Have you gone back and repeated your entire upbringing prior to when you started demanding evidence for every claim?
I’d like to know how that works, really. Are you certain that nothing that your current position in this matter depends upon is based on the acceptance of an unsupported claim?
Have you laid an appropriate foundation? If you have, I haven’t seen it. You want to commence building, and I am like, whoa there oh great builder, what exactly are you building on?
You refer me to the statements of others about what it means to be skeptical, but you accept their word for it without challenging their claims! Credulity indeed!
Part of being honest is accurately representing the position of others. That ought to be non-controversial. But maybe we need a new rule.
Here’s walto and hotshoe_:
Patrick: Complaining about being asked to support one’s claims is not aligned with the goals of this site.
walto: Again, who has complained about being asked for something? I think you entirely misunderstand the complaints.
hotshoe_: Umhmm. If he doesn’t honestly misunderstand the complaints, then he’s doing something worse than simple misunderstanding
I don’t think I could possibly make myself any more clear. I don’t care who asks me for something. I’m not complaining about the mere fact that they ask.
What I complain about is that they’re tedious bullyboys…
Later…
Patrick: The root cause of this discussion is that some people have objected to being asked to support their claims.
Mung: 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.
Yes, I accused Patrick of being “honesty challenged.” Unsupported, untrue, and in violation of the rules?
You all know the song. Sing along now!
I can support my claims when I want to.
To assert that if no support has been given for a claim the claim can be justifiably dismissed as baseless is the antithesis of what it means to be logical. The claim may in fact be true. Mere assertion cannot establish it as a principle of logic or skepticism. JMOLOL.
Patrick does have one out. keiths may not in fact be “honesty challenged.”
The sort of skepticism worth listening to:
Skepticism – The March and The Stream
Mung,
…and you don’t want to when you know you can’t.
Your mind-reading skills are legendary. Mythical, even.
There yet remains your unsupported allegation that I falsely accused you. In spite of my requests that you support your allegation, “and you don’t want to when you know you can’t.”
keiths is, in fact, honesty challenged..
Perhaps you can explain where you see dishonesty in the double click-through because I can’t see it myself?
Therefore…
It’s a pretty simple request, Mung. Have you been drinking?
Mung over at UD;
“Is it too much to ask that you be more specific?”
Lead by example.
Now that’s funny.
I can’t say I like the music, but I did enjoy the presumably whimsical spirit of the post.
Plus it is a new type of quoting, I think, for the person who surely has posted the most quotes (caveat: that is just a personal impression).
I’m not sure if the genre of the music is itself a comment on something — perhaps this thread, this blog, the atheist worldview, …
Skepticism is a funeral doom metal band from Riihimäki, Finland. Formed in 1991, they are regarded as one of the pioneers of the genre.
Combining painfully slow death doom metal styled riffs, solemn keyboards and sparse percussion with deep growling, they create songs that are both within the range of contemporary doom metal in terms of heaviness and slowness, yet far beyond the range of others where atmosphere and sound is considered.
Besides the music, Skepticism purposefully create a mysterious and abstract atmosphere, in terms of lyrics, artwork, contact with the outside world, and live performances.
Skepticism the band
Here’s what you wrote:
Please feel free to explain your position in more detail so that no one draws the obvious conclusion that you think that asking people to support their claims is bullying.
No, it’s perfectly logical. There are an infinite number of claims that can be made. Without support there is literally no reason to take a particular claim seriously. One is certainly logically justified in dismissing claims for which no support is provided.
It might be. The only way to know is to examine the evidence for it. In order to do that, it must be supported.
It’s a well-known principle of skepticism as you would know if you’d followed the link I provided or did any research on your own.
Nothing in the comment you linked to or the comment it links to supports your assertion.