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.
Don’t be more of an idiot than you have to be, keiths.
If you could tamp down your indignation for a moment, breathe, and practice a little reading comprehension, you would notice that was a hypothetical (but easily imagined) case which would follow after DNA Jocks’ preferred “slander, must retract” rule (rule of thumb? or actual written rule? bad either way) is put into effect here. See that first line “Instantly you’d be back …”
That was your clue that what follows is intended to be a future hypothetical, “you would” means it hasn’t happened yet.
Too bad you’re so strung out on hating me. Or whatever’s up with you. Whatever it is, it’s definitely affecting your ability to read and make sensible comments.
Of course I “made it up.” I made it up as an example of why his “slander then retract” suggestion cannot possibly work — that you jump to implying that I made it up for some nefarious purpose (what, to make you look wicked? to make myself look dumb?) shows a whole lot more about your character than it does about mine.
And then, just to make sure any idiot didn’t miss that was a hypothetical, I closed my comment by asking if that’s the way he pictures it will play out.
Will play out in the future, having not happened yet. Idiot.
Yes, exactly, stainless. Still stainless in spite of your attempts to slander me by implying that I’m not telling the truth here.
You’re a fool. But even a fool sometimes learns to keep his mouth shut. Hope springs eternal.
Usually a comment about reading comprehension is about reading some particular text rather than about a person’s general nature. So I think there’s a difference. One could fail to comprehend a particular text for all sorts of reasons that don’t reflect on the person’s character.
Who said anything about prohibiting anything? And why is truth more important than pain again?
hotshoe,
Right. Just a “hypothetical example” of you making a ridiculous claim about Dawkins and then getting called on it. No relation to the the fact that you made a ridiculous claim about Dawkins and got called on it.
walto,
I did. I was explaining to you why truth is more important at TSZ than whether someone feels insulted. The rules are not intended to protect people from that feeling, which is why insulting remarks are not prohibited.
Because the pursuit of truth at TSZ depends on the open discussion of the merits and flaws of ideas and positions, and such discussion tends to lead to hurt feelings, particularly when the flaws are being discussed.
Those who find that too painful can choose not to participate. It’s entirely in their hands.
walto,
If you haven’t noticed, I will dispute claims I think are untrue even when they aren’t insults. That should be pretty obvious.
But setting that aside, so what? So what if I care about those assertions because they are insults?
I don’t agree.
I think – in general – that comments about “reading comprehension” are intended as insults about a person’s nature, even if triggered by a particular text question, and ostensibly limited to those particulars.
I think similar is true about comments like “that’s a lie” – n general – they’re intended as insults about the person’s character (unavoidable implication that they’re a liar who lies) even if triggered by one particular statement.
I poked at keiths myself for reading comprehension above. I assure you, I did mean it as an insult even though it’s just on the surface about keiths’ motivated-misreading of one specific comment of mine — which he could have failed to comprehend for any number of reasons. None of which are flattering to him, as far as I can guess.
Sure, there’s a hierarchy of insults from nearly lethal to playground. I agree with what I take as walto’s implication: how would anyone find agreement on where to draw the line? What crosses the line to “slander”, what to mere “insult”, what to “that’s not even personal, that’s just a general observation”?
I’m glad that you’re reasonable or charitable or thick-skinned enough to let slide a rude remark about lack of reading comprehension. Definitely a more stable attitude than jumping to offense at every little thing.
So what if someone thinks Utica has a population of 30K. There are more and less important truths and more and less important insults. As you’ve got all the priorities down, you can put your scale in the rules.
ETA: I was responding to keiths here, if that wasn’t clear. I agree with hotshoe’s post above.
See, I knew you wouldn’t be able to stop yourself from being an idiot.
Of course it has relationship to the fact that I have made previous comments about Dawkins that wound you up so terribly. That’s what makes it a meaningful hypothetical case, because we all know something very similar could come up in the future. If I just made up a completely arbitrary hypothetical case about me “slandering” Ken Ham, no one would believe that illustrates the problem with DNA Jock’s crazy-stupid “slander/retract” rule.
You were wrong. You saw what you wanted to see, and you were wrong about it.
God, you turn into a fucking dumbwad when you’ve got your panties in a bunch about me like you have lately.
I’d suggest you take a deep breath before you post anything else idiotic, but I already tried that once and it didn’t work.
If you think of anything helpful yourself, though, do let us all know.
walto,
That’s exactly what I don’t want. Aside from the spam/porn/outing rules, I can’t think of any rules that we actually need.
I don’t think we need a rule that says “you must speak the truth”, and I don’t think we need a rule that says “you must not insult anyone.”
What I am arguing is that at TSZ, it is shitty to make false accusations, and one way of discouraging that is to put people on the hot seat when they do it. You don’t like it, Mung doesn’t like it, and hotshoe, despite her empty protests, clearly does not like it.
That’s good. If people feel uncomfortable as a result of making false or unsupportable claims, they will tend to do less of it. That will make TSZ a better place.
I’d add, too, that there’s actually a difference between thinking truth is important and thinking that never being wrong is important. My sense is that most of the motivation around here comes from the latter impetus. I find it really weird and disheartening that the second somebody disagrees with anybody here about the slightest thing they post, the person being disagreed with starts in with the insults, including the classics involving “reading comprehension” and “Errr.”
Nobody cares about Utica; what people care about is never being wrong about the slightest fucking thing. If there was a bit more comfort with disagreements there would be many fewer demands for recantations and JMO prefixes. It’s not any more skeptical to be obnoxious, imho. But there seems this absolute need to never have uttered an erroneous remark or something.
The worst offender with respect to that stuff, imo is Frankie, but there are a ton of folks chasing him.
Or IMNSHO.
Never humble. walto. No need for humble. 🙂
Not-obnoxious is preferable to obnoxious (all else being equal). Clearly, you’re right about that!
IMNSHO. 🙂 🙂
What you’re not getting, keiths, is that your assessment of what is supported, unsupportable, etc. is not infallible. IMO, it isn’t even good. It’s kind of bad, to be honest. Is that an insult? It’s JMO.
hotshoe,
Oh, please. You could have easily picked a hypothetical that was clearly a hypothetical, instead of one that clearly wasn’t.
Jesus, hotshoe.
Well, I know that “intention isn ‘t magic” — but was that intended as an insult?
If it wasn’t intended as an insult, is it not an insult then?
Is it any less insulting if it’s totally true?
Jesus?
Not quite. 🙂
But thanks anyways!
walto,
So?
walto,
I’m thinking of doing a post on the psychology of admitting mistakes. A lot of people here, including you, struggle with it sometimes.
But that’s a separate topic.
And with gusto, I might add. Maybe if you try really hard you can force everyone into the same mold.
My own view is that I have the highest ratio of admitted errors to posts of anyone who participates here. You may say that that’s because I make the most mistakes. That may well be true. Dunno about that. But I admit errors here all the time. You don’t do that.
But of course you have the excuse that you’re extremely busy improving others. No doubt your OP on the subject will exhibit more of your vaunted generosity.
Ah, so skepticism is now about making everyone be a moral person. LoL!
And the logic, ektihs.
The url of this site is http://www.theskepticalzone.com, therefore this is place where skepticism ought to rule supreme. Oh yeah, that follows!
hotshoe_,
I was wondering if I could drag you away from the ongoing flame war to discuss why you view my “slander/retract” amendment as “crazy/stupid”.
Your argument appears to consist of
Ironically, earlier in this thread I was thinking of introducing the hypothetical statement
“Dawkins is an admitted child-molester” by way of example.
Granted, libel laws differ by jurisdiction, but let’s stick with the sane ones, where truth is a valid defense. I think that should be the standard at TSZ. If you claimed that “Dawkins is an admitted child-molester”, or “Ken Ham is guilty of tax fraud”, I believe I would be justified in ever so politely asking you to support the statement. And in this case (in contrast to a disagreement about the population of Utica, where “It’s JMO” is sufficient to allow us to move on) if you were unwilling or unable to provide evidence to support the allegation, you should retract it. If you proffer support for the statement, we can debate the merits of your evidence. We should at least try. I don’t see the crazy/stupid in refusing to let denigrating statements stand if the claimant will not even try to support the claim.
I don’t see what’s so terrible about retraction: I have, in my time, whole-heartedly and unequivocally retracted a statement I made at UD about Dembski’s math. It smarted a bit at the time, but I preferred that to leaving my error out there, uncorrected.
Ooh, that’s the most self-unaware phrasing of the day. Maybe of the year. Maybe of TSZ’s whole history so far.
Well done, keiths.
Congratulations, you’re the winner!
walto,
The relevant metric would be admitted mistakes versus actual mistakes.
Once again I reject your premise. I like to use the “take it or leave it” approach. It may be my opinion, it may be a fact. You can do with it as you will. Take it or leave it. It doesn’t at all follow that it is “just my opinion” or that you are justified in concluding that it’s “just my opinion.”
Is shoddy logic a requirement for being skeptical? It must be.
Let’s consider a couple of examples. You have had fairly direct diagreements with neil, patrick and DNA-Jock on this thread. The latter has also had a disagreement with Glen. Who has admitted to being wrong about one single thing? To tell you the truth, i’m not sure you guys can actually do it..
Mung,
Err… no.
And as you’ve never made one…
Stop trying to bully the mods.
Mung,
Says the guy who demanded Patrick’s resignation… twice.
I take it from this post that you don’t agree that it’s only about the truth. Insults make a difference. Have you discussed that with keiths?
keiths claimed I falsely accused him. When asked for evidence, none was forthcoming. Neither was a retraction. He didn’t even try to go the JMO route.
Apparently these “rules” of his are meant for others.
Support or retract is a literal mantra with you. I swear you use it in your meditation.
I want my own area, called Mung’s Naughty Bits.
ETA: Don’t be surprised if you find keiths frequenting it.
Friday Night Smackdown!
I give keiths credit for saying he’s opposed to moderation rules. It would be a bad change, IMO, but he’s quite consistent about it.
Rules are bad for him (and would be even more so if they were always enforced), and though he’d never acknowledge the fact that he’s a serial violator, I do give him credit for not crying to the refs when others do so.
Patrick doesn’t share that merit, I don’t think.
Why would he discuss that with me? Of course insults make a difference.
keiths:
walto goes for the easy lie:
What is it with you and dishonesty, walto? Not only do I admit my mistakes, I’ve even admitted a couple that you pointed out. Why lie about that? Can you really not help yourself?
Alan also claimed that I don’t admit mistakes. It didn’t work out very well for him.
Speak for yourself, darlin’.
Oh, who am I kidding. Of course I’ve made baseless claims sometime or other — just not the ones keiths has chosen to throw a hissy fit about.
Either he missed the baseless claims I actually slipped into comments, or he chose to ignore them because they fit into his “skeptic” biases, or … oh, who cares what the reasons were why other remarks of mine got a free pass.
It’s transparently obvious that the reason why keiths keeps trying to make hay out of my unforgettable unforgivable Dawkins et al comment is because I hurt keiths’ personal feelings with that. Sure, attack Feser all I want. Not a peep out of keiths. Attack Erik for being a literal-Noah-flood idiot. Not a peep out of keiths against me. But attack Pope Dawkins – holy hell, what a sin!
Note for the hard-of-reading-comprehension (that’s you, keiths, hello! ): the previous paragraph is (obviously!! ) not intended as an objective fact which must be supported with evidence if challenged, or else. Duh. I’m not a mind reader any more than DNA Jock or keiths are; I’m only guessing – or “making inferences” based on my knowledge of human character. As DNA Jock says:
Ah yes. Just the sort of site Elizabeth had in mind. A site where truth in personal attacks is what is most important. All aboard!
An old comment regarding the insult issue:
keiths June 11, 2014 at 11:49 pm
It’s also ironic that petrushka, the bystander who objected to this characterization of William…
…is nevertheless fine with describing some of William’s views as “mental masturbation” — a phrase I have also used, and for the same reasons.
Now, petrushka’s comment satisfies the letter of the law because it is technically about William’s views, not about William himself. But the comment has a direct and inescapable logical consequence: that William is a mental masturbator.
If the rule is applied for its own sake, then
a) William’s view amounts to mental masturbation.
…is fine, while
b) William is a mental masturbator.
…is not.
If the point of the rule, as Alan says, is to
…would anyone argue that (a) is “welcoming enough”, while (b) is not?
Positions and ideas are fair game at TSZ, even when criticism of those ideas directly implies something unpalatable about the person holding them. The rule isn’t supposed to protect commenters’ egos or to shield them from criticism. I think Lizzie’s intention was to promote discussion while discouraging Gregory-like name-calling.
I’m upset that you would even think about participating in a “meta-issues” discussion that isn’t taking place in “Moderation Issues.”
When all else fails, toss out a red herring!
keithsSkepticalLogicFail
Only a person of Mung’s unique, um, logical gifts could leap from this…
…to this:
I dunno, are your bits cute?
No, don’t answer that with photographic evidence. 🙁
We certainly don’t need a rule about meta-issues only being raised in “Moderation Issues.” Oh wait. I already fought that battle and lost.
hotshoe,
Heh. Reminds me of Mung’s comment about how he was “right smack in the middle of my comfort zone.”
This is utterly hilarious coming from you. You claimed I made a false accusation against you and you never backed it up in spite of your other claim that you always back up your claims.
Was that your way of “discouraging” me? LoL!
well keiths, you said this about insults about five minutes ago:
I’ll also concede that you have to my knowlege admitted being wrong a couple of times. And I believe jock when he says he admitted he was wrong about dembski someplace once. That’s lovely. But you–we all are wrong all the time. Regularly. Certainly weekly at a minimum if we’re hocking about often difficult issues as much as we do here. So you said you were wrong before (likely when you said you were srong and it turned out you were right all along). But what about today. Has every single one of your remarks contra me, mung, hotshoe, patrick, jock, neil been right in every single respect? And this when they/we’ve always been right too? How have you managed it?
Anyhow, I look forward to what is bound to be your remarkably edifying post on how you are better than everyone in an additional respect you’ve just thought of. As i’ve said, it’s impossible to thank you enough for your services. I hope one day you’ll collect all of your OPs into a book. Maybe call it ‘They’re All Liars But Me’!
Ah yes. keiths and his pal tu quoque. Another logical fallacy. This place isn’t allowed to be a skeptical site until it at least graduates logic kindergarten.