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.
I think we should focus on what people ought to do, not on what people can expect others to do to them. Something like a skeptical moral code. Should that be in scare quotes?
Do I have to abide by your skeptical “moral” code in order to participate here? Will I be less of a full person if I don’t?
4. Reason, critical thinking, supporting evidence, and the other tools of skepticism and the scientific method are the best known mechanisms for determining what claims are more likely to be more or less true.
Perhaps in your mind. Reality differs.
“Expectation” is a technical term from the mathematical theory of probability and statistics. Somehow, I don’t think the word was being used that way.
I’m guessing that most proposed new rules will end up in the scrap heap of history.
I agree with you, Neil.
If it’s a requirement it requires a rule. But there is no such requirement, and even if you get a rule passed saying it is a requirement you won’t be able to enforce it. Futility.
keiths:
Alan:
As I said:
Alan:
They’re pretty clear.
DNA_Jock, to walto:
Patrick:
And:
I don’t understand why you, Neil, walto, and Mung find this so confusing.
I think I see the problem. Those are not mechanical activities, they are human activities.
Is it your claim then that reason, critical thinking and evidence are tools that are unique to skepticism and the scientific method? You won’t find them used, for example, in philosophy or *gasp* theology?
Your Skepticism does not own reason, logic, critical thinking, or evidence.
I agree!
By the way keiths, you quote-mined DNA_Jock. Naughty. Naughty.
ETA: And no links. -40 skeptical points.
keiths,
I believe that!
Patrick,
Well exactly!
Why don’t you straighten it out for us, as it’s obviously clear to you? What, exactly does patrick want lizzie to do to change the site (as it’s not a rule change)? Can lizzie change mung’s ‘expectations,’ regarding being questioned, or mine? Can she make you stop quote minining? You want her, sans rule, to make me tell you I don’t think you’re a liar when I do think you’re a liar? You want her to get me to post and repost and rerepost stuff that i think is evidence for what I say but that you disagree with anyhow? As you understand all this and think it’s crystal clear, and I don’t, why not explain it in your own words?
You think that keiths removed my words from their surrounding matter in such a way as to distort my intended meaning? Really? Because to me, keiths’s excerpt conveys my intended meaning just fine. And I should know…
Holy hannah, that’s hot.
Arrived on site today with this being the first post I see. Dunno where this convo has been or where it’s going, but sure glad to see you haven’t lost your touch, walto.
I think there should be a rule requiring keiths and Patrick to each tattoo your entire comment on the backs of their hands where they can read it before posting any more crazy rule/expectation shit, and post photographic proof of their tattoos, before being allowed to comment at all …
God, when will the Bobsey twins finally comprehend that they can’t force their particular subjective beliefs about “skepticism” on anyone else?
All they can hope to do is be unpleasant enough that they can drive away anyone who doesn’t want to play their games.
And self-granted permission for Patrick to be as self-important and obnoxious as he wishes to be whenever he sets himself up to remind others of the “guidelines and expectations”.
It’s no different being a forum enforcer of “guidelines and expectations” than it is being an enforcer of “rules”.
I know. They’re so stupid.
Well, it’s not completely true that they won’t be able to “enforce it”. It can be enforced same as any other rule here – by moving comment to guano for “breaking the rules” – in subjective decisions by moderators .
Cue Patrick completely missing the point, and whining that he doesn’t want any more “rules” in … 3… 2… 1…
I’m trying to figure out how to take the implicit and make it explicit without actually putting it into writing.
Absolutely I do. And I think it’s blatant.
Alan was asking about the intent of the proposed new site position statement that will not be a rule and keiths quoted you as if you were talking about the new proposed site position statement that will not be a rule when in your quote you were not talking about the new proposed site position statement that will not be a rule at all. You were talking to walto about your own personal handling of claims of some members. A completely separate matter.
Here’s the full quote:
If Patrick and keiths took your attitude we wouldn’t need this new “rule that is not a rule” put into writing at all. You were working on putting something onto writing, right? I like your slapdashery. Please keep it that way.
Someone is damn sure proposing something beyond the status quo, in spite of the attempt by keiths to make it look otherwise.
Alright, everyone, I had to do a bunch of driving today and so had time to give this matter some thought, and now think I’ve figured this whole biz out. Therefore, in the spirit of comity and “rancour-free” dialogue, I will disclose both what I think I now understand regarding this burden/skepticism/rancour issue and the clear road out of the wilderness to the light that I believe all parties here will support.
Let me begin with what I think it is that is motivating Patrick and what he wants to obtain through his recent proclamations. (Naturally, he can correct me if I am wrong: I don’t want to substitute my judgment for his on this matter).
My take is that this whole kerfluffle got started after erik gave some non-responses to Patrick’s, mine, and some other people’s questions regarding alleged Biblical verities. Everybody gave up on the matter except Patrick, who upped the ante by starting to call erik names (I think “coward,” and “dishonest” were among them.) Anyhow, after he repeated that about fifty times, I said I thought patrick was being a bully and should stop already.
Boom! THIS was the actual problem. In Patrick’s view, it was Erik who was behaving inappropriately, but now it looked like HE (patrick) might be the one violating the ad hom rule! I mean, what the fuck?!? It is that, I believe, that got Patrick all snooty and first wanting a rule defending skepticism from the nitwits, and now wanting something like a rule but not a rule, etc.
Well, I have a solution which I believe ought to appeal to keiths, patrick and others who don’t like rules, period, and may (though I’m less sure of this) be OK with everybody else too. So AHEM, submitted for your approval:
When somebody (“X”) behaves like Erik did, i.e., says something for which somebody else (“Y”) thinks the evidence is bad or non-existent or insubstantial or whatever, “Y” and others who agree with Y are allowed to call “X” names like the names Patrick called Erik, say that X is being insufficiently skeptical or scientific or smart, should post on baby sites instead, and so on, without it being a violation of any rule. No guanoing threat.
Then, in response to that, X and anybody who agrees with X is allowed to call Y a prig or overly scientistic, or a bully, or a sanctimonious asshole, or whatever, and they, too, will not be considered to have violated the ad hom rule. Again, no guanoing threat.
Sweet, right? Two brand new exemptions to the ad hom guanoing rules. Patrick gets to say that Erik is not being a good bunny and has no idea of the value of skepticism without fear of being guanoed, and Erik gets to respond that Patrick is being a bully and know-it-all: again without fear of being guanoed.
Those who don’t like moderation rules generally should be thrilled, but really, since it’s perfectly symmetrical, it should satisfy all the fair-minded skeptics here!
But will it??? Let’s listen and find out!
See, people, what happens when you have too much time to think?
I just figured that if I sorted this out for everyone, we could stop finally stop fussing about this and keiths could spend time on something that’s really important: his OP on how he manages to find it so easy to admit when he’s wrong while nobody else can ever seem to do it!
That’s going to be extremely valuable to everyone, I think!
Sorry walto, but I’m not sure that’s going to cut it.
It’s not enough that the site is called “The Skeptical Zone,” it needs to be made explicit that this is a skeptical site. Preferably in writing!
I have two additional proposals.
1. Patrick can set up a mirror of this site and posts here will appear there and they can do as they like there.
2. Ask keiths to develop a subscription service for people who want to play by “the skeptical rules.” People can vote that a claim has been made that ought to be supported or recanted and those who subscribe will be able to see the vote counts. Those who think it’s nonsense will not be required to subscribe.
In the future perhaps we can vote posts up or down based on how skeptical they are. Not skeptical enough, too skeptical, etc…
Firefox can’t find the server at http://www.skepticalutopia.com.
Someone should grab that.
Well then, Mung, you misunderstood my comment. I was referring to the circumstances under which I, DNA_Jock, would give a “pass” to someone, and not challenge them to “Support their Claim” under the “new proposed site position statement”.
I was replying to walto’s
So keiths’s omission of the parts you bolded did not distort my meaning.
No, You still don’t get it. I do want it in writing.
Try to think about it this way. You are sending out invitations to your daughter’s wedding. You’re planning (and paying for) a rather formal affair. So, do you put “Black Tie” on the invitations, or not? By writing it down, you are codifying the idea that you expect people to at least make the effort. The younger generation will turn up in suits, and that’s okay, they’re making the effort. The benefit of codifying it is your asshole brother-in-law, who shows up in torn jeans and a T-shirt and insists on being in every picture. Nothing on the invite, he can pull his “Wow! I didn’t realize we were gonna get all dressed up for this!” routine yet again. But you wrote “Black Tie” on the invite, so everyone can see that he’s an asshole.
Nobody gets kicked out of the party.
P.S. “Dress Optional” is not nearly as much fun as it sounds.
You’re right of course. I wasn’t thinking of everyone else’s welfare like you were.
I still have my OP on Moral Compasses to finish.
🙂
walto,
We have the “Would you like to discuss this comment on Noyau?” gambit for that.
I did not claim that leaving those out distorted your meaning.
My assertion of quote-mining was based upon his use of your quote as an example for something other than what it was actually about. He was misleading Alan and using your quote to do it. Classic quote-mine tactic. I should know.
Here I am, an expert witness on quote-mining, and you’re going to doubt my word on the matter? I’m offended.
What’s your proposed non-rule again, Jock? What I’ve suggested above would also be in writing–two explicit exemptions to the ad hom rule. But I’d like to compare it to what you are suggesting.
Sorry, I hadn’t seen Jock’s Noyau suggestion when I made my last post.
That’s fine with me.
ETA: Now I see that Jock didn’t mean he wanted to suggest that we compare our two proposals on Noyau. So, in the immortal words of Gilda Radner, “Nevermind.”
So what’s your suggested “STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES” (or whatever it is) again? Thanks.
Thank you for being clear on that. I am fairly certain that Patrick also wants something in writing.
But you wouldn’t know that from the quotes keiths provided to Alan. The idea of getting something in writing is strangely absent.
So keiths failed to accurately represent your position and he failed to accurately represent Patrick’s position.
I’d say that the better solution would be to just move to noyau at that point. As I recall, we did not have noyau when the issue began.
So far as he has clearly expressed to date, Patrick’s position on this is that when he has disputes with someone about something, it should be clear in advance that he is always the party that is right.
If I’m wrong about this and that’s NOT a fair assessment of his view, I think he ought to go for my proposal above, which leaves open the possibility that he too might occasionally be wrong about something.
I take it you are saying that nothing ought to be changed? Obviously, that’s not satisfactory to Patrick, keiths, and DNA_Jock. They believe we need something else. Something in writing. So my suggestion was intended to be a change that they might support that would not be opposed by me and maybe others who have not liked their idea.
You’re being obstructionist by saying Do Nothing, Neil! I’m trying to resolve this matter!! X>{
You’re making it too easy on me. I appreciate that you’re not playing word games and are willing to agree that there is a move underway to get this idea codified, which is exactly what I had been saying, and keiths can go suck eggs.
keiths to Alan:
Right. We’re simply confused.
Definitely. I asked keiths for a clarification, since it’s all like crystal to him, but I believe he hasn’t responded.
My proposal has the signature merit of being CLEAR.
What does it mean to be a “skeptical site”.
I remember that I started following “sci.skeptic” on usenet. And I soon began to wonder whether “sci.septic” would have been a better name. That’s where I became very skeptical of skepticism — or, more accurately, of organized skepticism.
Actually, I take that last sentence back. At one time, I subscribed to “The Skeptical Inquirer”. And that was where I started to be skeptical of skepticism. I was reading too much of the same old same old.
(Shhhh. I’m not sure you’re allowed to be skeptical of skepticism here, Neil.)
Well, skepticism only works if you believe in it, you know.
So take it on faith.
Glen Davidson
And you’ve had repeated opposition to that idea.
You won’t have agreement among the participants of the site for the “certain set of expectations among participants” that you are advocating for, not if comments in this thread are any indication. So stop trying.
You can’t force a set of expectations on people who don’t agree. The “set of expectations among participants” you’re asking for will be a fiction.
I bet this is how sects get started. 🙂
How about this?
Participation at this site entails obligations similar to those that attend playing a game. While there is no objective moral obligation to answer questions, the site has aims, rules and informal stakeholders, just as football has same. <insert> As such, participants are expected to be willing, when asked, to clarify and support their claims, or alternatively to explicitly acknowledge that they decline to do so. </insert> When violations of those aims and rules are perceived and/or the enforcement of same is seen as arbitrary or inconsistent, differences and conflicts arise. No resort to objective morality, yet perfectly comprehensible and appropriate opprobrium.
Or is that insert too much of a quantum leap ?
It appears to be a site where people use logic and reason and critical thinking and evidence, you know, like pretty much every other site.
Is “quantum leap” an oxymoron? Are the physicists having a nice laugh at our expense?
The thing about expectations is that if they’re going to exist, somebody has to have them. So patrick, and presumably some others, have some expectations of how they believe right-thinking people ought to thiink. And so they write, ‘At this site, this is how people will be expected to think!’ But…will it be? How can a statement do that?
As, I believe hotshoe posted, it can’t do anything unless it’s followed up with ‘ and if they don’t…’ But, of course, that would be a rule, and they keep insisting they don’t want a rule.
Why have a pretend rule that some unsuspecting visitor my take for a real rule, rather than my flesh and blood proposal? None of these made-up (or hoped for) ‘expectations,’ a real, bona fide rule change that protects patrick’s assertions–on whatever thread they appear–that people who don’t agree with his views about truth-finding are dunces!
What I’m suggesting is REAL, baby–not some fantasy-land, pretend–or wished for– unanimous expectation!! Plus, those who are anti-moderation just have to love it!
Mung,
No.
ok, but that doesn’t mean physicists are not having a laugh at our expense, right?
DNA_Jock,
I think it fails to capture the essence of what Patrick is looking for, which is that evidentiary support for claims must be objective and empirical
In almost every legal proceeding, the parties are required to adhere to important rules known as evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. These rules determine which party is responsible for putting forth enough evidence to either prove or defeat a particular claim and the amount of evidence necessary to accomplish that goal.
JUSTIA
Rules. Ouch.
That’s okay, walto. I’ll trust you to not tell anybody.