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.
If your disagreement consists in saying the sun is actually a NY-State-county-sized shining apricot, who has made the “positive” claim?
No context provided. No link provided.
Yay, we have another thread in which burden tennis can be played.
I think one problem with the discussion is that most sorts of claims are able to be turned into “prove it” or “provide adequate evidence.” Why can’t we ask what people really believe, at least in many cases? That’s often what is in dispute, whether a person really believes some pious claim, and applies it across-the-board.
I don’t think there really is a category that is off-limits for asking for evidence, in fact, while there are many specific instances where it should be off-limites. “I believe” this or that can be either “who cares, it’s just what I believe,” or “here’s this really important factor, but I don’t have to back it up because it’s my belief,” or further, it can be somewhere in between. I may care whether one says “God exists” or “I believe in God” because they can be markedly different claims, or I may not care because they may really be roughly the same claim, and the one saying the latter phrase thinks that no evidence is required if it’s couched as “a belief.”
We should all know (and likely we all do) that these matters don’t get resolved, and are only dealt with again and again as they inevitably arise. I don’t have a problem with it being brought up as an issue, since it is one, but we’re really not going to get anywhere with it, since it really involves just about all of the justifications we have (or don’t have) for making any and all claims. And FMM thinks that only presuppositionalists have sufficient reason for knowing anything, which is fine for him if he keeps it to himself, while it’s quite useless in any discussion of evidence and reality.
Hence, it may be helpful to point out that demands for “proof” or “evidence” can be quite unreasonable just so that people might keep it in mind, but the thread pretty much ends up with a few more rounds of burden tennis being played.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
+1
I always take your advice, keiths (because I know you’re the awesomest and care only about the welfare of others–never about yourself) so you know I will!
But I may want to blow it up first if that’s ok.
That’s pitiful, Neil. After all this time, you still don’t know what a quote mine is?
Let me help you out:
From Wikipedia:
From RationalWiki:
From an article entitled Quote-Mining: An Old Anti-Evolutionist Strategy:
From Urban Dictionary:
[Emphasis added in all four quotes.]
This is not a difficult concept, Neil. Think it through.
And then retract your false accusation.
walto,
Who cares? My point is that positive claimants don’t automatically assume the burden of proof.
What an incredibly stupid thing to argue about.
Unless you are a paid consultant, you have no burden of anything.
If you are engaged in a friendly discussion or debate, you are expected to provide evidence for disputed claims.
If the claim is consistent with “common knowledge”, as in something found in encyclopedias or dictionaries, you may choose to say it’s common knowledge; look it up.
If it is common knowledge, but central to the discussion, and disputed by your interlocutor, you may choose not to provide further evidence.
All this is a matter of manners, not of ethics or morality or necessity. It’s just part of interacting in a discussion.
Glen,
I agree that there is ambiguity in English usage, such that “I know…” overlaps “I think…” overlaps “I believe…”, without even getting into the I-message-forbidden usage of “I feel that…”
Hence the benefit of being able to ask “Can you support this claim?”, with JMO as a perfectly valid clarifying reply.
Would you care to support that statement?
I agree absolutely that we may be rather poor assessors of our own internal states — our nearest and dearest may be far more accurate — internet interlocutors, not so much. But you seem to have picked a famously bad example for the ‘external’ case – the perception of color! Change your example to the perception of heat – is it really irritating if you say “My, it’s hot in here!” and the response is “What makes you say that?”
I have been pretty clear that recanting is never required. JMO’ing will do just fine, thank you.
But that’s, y’know, just my opinion.
You provided three quotes.
You asked us to judge whether posting those was appropriate. There’s an implied criticism of the posters there, making your post borderline ad hominem.
Making such a judgment requires seeing the context. You failed to provide context either directly or via a link.
Yes, those were quote mines.
Get back to us when you’ve made your case for scientism. Be sure to use the scientific method.
Neil,
Doubling down on your mistake makes you look ridiculous. If that’s your intent, then carry on. Otherwise you might want to look at the definitions I provided, observe that my quotes are clearly not quote mines, and retract your false claim.
I don’t accept your premise. So now what?
This is a site where people can come to discuss their differences without rancor. It’s not your “skeptical playground.”
“”I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be skeptical.”
Your logic sucks Patrick. If someone doesn’t support a claim it doesn’t follow that they just made it up. And the idea that you or anyone else are rationally justified in summarily dismissing some claim just because someone chooses not to support his or her claims is just ludicrous.
Patrick, apparently. He says the standards are different for “positive claims”. I have two reasons for not providing the link, however. 1. It’s just a few posts up (you can recognize it by the excessive sanctimony). 2. He’s just as likely to deny he said it with the link right in his face anyhow.
petrushka,
That is, to borrow your language, an incredibly stupid thing to say. Do you actually think that money is the only thing that ever obligates a person to back up his or her claims?
And even in unfriendly ones. It’s called “the burden of proof”, and it’s exactly what we’ve been discussing here.
Yes.
Making false claims and dodging requests for evidence is an ethical issue.
Does used-napkin keiths bore eveyone else as much as he bores me?
I was thinking of the tradion expressed in such works as Sellar’s ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind’ and Quine’s stuff on ‘naturalized epistemology’. A similar strain runs through the Oxford casualists’ writings too, I think.
Hotshoe, I think he’s upset, but doesn’t want to upset US by mentioning it. He’s so thoghtful that way!!
It wasn’t a claim about you (or about your reading speed) — it was an insult directed at you (and your apparent lack of reading comprehension).
The fact that you still can’t – or won’t – figure out the difference makes it all the more appropriated that walto insulted you as he did then. You deserve it.
walto:
keiths:
walto:
I know. He’s the person I was disagreeing with. Didn’t you notice?
I can’t even enumerate the times you have failed to live up to your own standards.
Imagine a world in which … indeed. Lead by example. Don’t be surprised if no one follows.
I noticed, keiths, but you also used the term ‘positive’ to characterize some claims and not others, no?
It’s a bad habit he has. We’re trying to break him of it. For the good of us all.
Not having Keiths’ mind-reading powers, I can only speak for myself. I’ve always disliked his abrasive posting style here but I think there used to be some content.
Keiths, who has suggested that TSZ users should not be able to ask for evidence? There’s no rule against asking, nor AFAiK, has anybody suggested that there should be. The question arises as to the obligation to answer such questions–particularly when they’re stupid or have already been answered to somebody’s satisfaction.
It makes you look ridiculous to keiths.
AIUI, your references argue for an epistemological continuum, which I did not (and do not) dispute. The question at hand, however, is whether insisting someone provide evidentiary support for their own internal state is the same as insisting they provide evidentiary support for a claim about external reality – so it is not about the epistemology of the claimant.
I guess it could be about the epistemology of the questioner, though…
Was that your point when citing Sellars and Quine?
He like a windup toy. You just have to decide whether you want to take it out and play with it, or maybe give it to your cat.
DNA_Jock,
I believe you said (roughly) that I was conflating ‘interior’ and external claims, so I said that it’s controversial that those are in some essential sense different. That’s part of the moral of the works I cited.
hotshoe,
All of which are relevant, because all of them, including yours, are false statements for which evidence was not provided. That’s precisely the problem we’ve been discussing in this thread.
Like walto, you too should print this comment and tape it to your monitor.
I’m not giving her mine!!
I noticed. *sniff*
(Sorry, no time to reply substantively until the evening.)
Oh, lord, Mung, I take back and heartily apologize for any bad thing I’ve thought/said about you.
I’m actually standing up and applauding, but sadly that doesn’t get through the intertubes.
And I never disagreed regarding the epistemology of such claims.
My point was rather that, in an internet discussion:
So I still don’t find this distinction controversial. Thank you for the clarification, though.
keiths:
Patrick:
Yeah. So much for walto’s “team play” trope.
But then I did give you an “amen” for the rest of your comment. 🙂
I’m shocked. Though I’m also still waiting for you to support a claim.
To whom?
keiths, to Neil:
Alan:
To anyone who thinks that it’s ridiculous to deny an obvious mistake.
Alan, you have some experience making false quotemining charges. What do you think of Neil’s accusation? True or false? Why?
Alan,
No, you’re not. I’ve already supported my claim, as you know.
However, since you’re foolish enough to ask, I’ll do it again, at my leisure.
Which makes it an objective fact, doncha know. 🙂
Neil, apologize to keiths for daring to be ridiculous in his presence! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Yes I am. The claim that others agree with you.
Just to be clear, the claim that others agree with you. I’d still like to do a straw poll if you still claim:
A: I’m a habitual liar
B: Everyone here agrees.
It doesn’t necessarily follow, no, but how would we know without asking for evidence to support it?
Actually, it’s just logical. See Hitchens’ Razor.
Skepticism means requiring evidence for claims. This is a skeptical forum. Participants should expect to have their unsupported assertions challenged. That’s neither rude nor personal nor irrational. It’s just a requirement for determining what claims are more likely to be correct.
I won’t think any less of you.
What accusation? I’ve only seen Neil expressing his opinion.
I agree. On the other hand, participation is voluntary. We aren’t the Spanish Inquisition. Or are we?
Don’t you bore even your own self as much as you bore anyone else?
I suggest one definition of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Not that I’d want to insult you by suggesting you’re insane to keep doing the same quotes for years and years … as if you expect to somehow get a result you’ll be happy with from me … because I actually don’t think you’re insane.
I just think you’re too dumb to learn from experience that what you’re doing hasn’t worked, and too dumb to infer that it’s never going to work.
After all, used napkins aren’t exactly known for their brain power.
I think you all should get the comfy chair.