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 didn’t really want to go over this again, but OK, one more time.
I don’t have any problem with “having a conversation about the evidence”–but suppose the conversation is as follows:
“That’s not evidence!”
“Sure it is, you just don’t like it”
“You haven’t responded to my request for evidence. You must retract or be seen to be a liar.”
Because that is exactly the kind of “conversation” that we generally have at this site. Somebody decides that they are the final arbiter of what constitutes evidence. I don’t believe you have responded to my questions about “seeing it in a newspaper, I think” or “seeing it in the Enquirer.” If Erik had said this, would you consider him to have provided evidence for some claim about Biblical verities?
OK, I really am through. And so you’ll know, I’ll be taking another response of the “you haven’t indicated what your problem is with asking for a retraction when no evidence has been provided” as a good example of the problem with your contentions here.
walto,
You haven’t addressed this comment.
That is it in a nutshell. On this site the demand for evidence is the equivalent of saying “I don’t find your evidence convincing and I have appointed myself the sovereign authority in matters like this”
peace
Perfect example. I think I’ve provided an over-abundance of support. You haven’t been convinced by it. Good for you.
walto,
Thank you for the clarification
If I understand you correctly, you have asked a question about a hypothetical, and made a statement.
You wrote:
Excellent. I am glad to hear that.
Your hypothetical:
As with any such conversation, my opinion about the various commenters will be adjusted in light of my perception of their behavior. As will yours and everybody else’s.
Your statement:
While I agree that this happens more often than I would like, I’ve learnt to cherish the occasions when the conversation is more substantive. As to whether this is “generally” the case, our respective confirmation biases may be leading us in different directions.
walto,
Links, please. I haven’t seen you even attempt to demonstrate that
Edited for accuracy.
Of course you have seen them. There have been literally scores, if not hundreds, of posts of mine devoted to those particular issues which are particular faves of yours (likely because you both do and do not consider insults important). Ask anybody.
You can now add my assertion “You’re being ridiculous” to the accusations you claim I’m unwilling to support.
walto,
Links, please, to where you have justified your claim that
The point is that if it happens even infrequently, there shouldn’t be a recantation rule if “no evidence is provided”, n’est pas? (I’d have added “especially if Patrick is a moderator” but I take it that would require moving to a different thread….)
re: Jesus Mythicism
First Patrick wants evidence from a contemporary historian, then he just wants contemporary evidence, but when asked for an objective means for judging the actual existence of a person in history, well, ….
When people ask for evidence, they generally mean to say objective evidence, but really what they are looking for is subjective evidence.
What evidence would you accept seems an appropriate question, no?
John claims to be an eyewitness.
But what evidence is there that John actually was an eyewitness?
I just can’t believe that anyone here actually got through school by making constant demands for evidence and demanding that their teachers support their claims or retract them.
walto,
DNA_Jock addressed that already:
I also am not, and I don’t think Patrick is either.
Actually, you are. And so is Patrick. Else this debate is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot.
If all you’re asking is that you be allowed to be able to make a request for evidence then you are asking to be granted a power you already have. So it must not be that.
#ThinkKeiths
Depends what you mean by punitive. Patrick’s position has been that anybody who doesn’t “provide evidence” for a claim is under a moral obligation to retract and may be roundly insulted if he/she doesn’t do so. I don’t know if you take that to be “punitive”: it’s certainly obnoxious. That’s sufficient to make it a bad rule, IMO.
Right. Exactly.
Mung,
It definitely isn’t that.
We’re arguing that the request for evidence — even if it makes the requestee uncomfortable, and even if the request is repeated — does not amount to “bullying”. It’s aligned with the goals of the site, and it’s exactly what should happen at a site called “The Skeptical Zone”.
Ask away. No one is stopping you. Is that all you’re asking for, or is there something more?
We’re not stupid, nor delusional. There’s no need for rules that aren’t going to be enforced.
walto,
You make a lot of statements and accusations that you fail to support. No surprise that you find it “obnoxious” when people point to your failure.
On cue, keiths provides another excellent example. He thinks he should be the arbiter of when there has been a ‘failure to support something’. And it turns out that, on his view, there has been such a failure whenever anybody says anything he disagrees with.
He wants to be evidence king. (Hey, maybe that’s what hotshoe has meant by ‘shitlord’!)
walto,
Links, please, to where you have justified your claim that
No. I think you have this backwards. The so-called “recantation rule” is a proposed rule of engagement for participants in this little club: it is the expectation that commenters be willing, upon request, to provide support for (certain categories of) claims. Some commenters may use this rule as a opportunity to indulge in grade-school slapfests; hey, they’d probably find a way to do that whatever the rules were. But if, even infrequently, the resulting conversation about the evidence is substantive, then that’s a win for the “bowels of Christ” exhortation.
Yeah, we see what you want.
You want to codify honesty/dishonesty. Failure to support or retract a claim is dishonest because you say so. It’s in the rules now, so it must be so.
You want to be able to actually accuse people of being dishonest when they fail to support a claim or retract it and have it not be a rule violation.
The idea that there’s nothing “punitive” about these proposed measures is simply ludicrous.
Dishonesty needs to be demonstrated, not asserted, and not codified. Laziness should not be a substitute for burden of proof. If you want to accuse people of dishonesty we have Noyau. Nothing is stopping you from doing so anytime you please. We don’t need rules trying to set out the cases of permitted and not permitted accusations of dishonesty.
No one’s freedom of speech is being curtailed just because they have to post accusations of dishonesty in Noyau. There’s no censorship here.
I’m puzzled. There’s nothing stopping anyone asking anyone else questions and remarking on failure to respond. What’s the problem?
I stand ever ready to retract my “false accusation” against you. If only there was some evidence of it.
It’s the myth of the skeptical utopia.
This Frans de Waal NYT article includes the words “burden of proof” (as well as some off-topic remarks on the consequences of starting with the continuity of evolution rather than the specialness of humanity that may be of interest to a small number of TSZ readers).
The Burden of Proof and What I Learned from Tickling Apes
Excellent! Some of us know we’re talking bout more than just a frustrated desire to be allowed to ask people to support a claim.
Care to attempt a draft of the proposed “recantation rule” [I love that name] along with actions to be taken upon violation of said rule? Pillory maybe?
I also admire your willingness to discuss Moderation Issues outside the Moderation Issues thread, in spite of Elizabeth’s direct statements on the matter. Makes me feel less of a lone outlaw.
BruceS,
Writes well, doesn’t he?
Thank you for posting that. I’ll read it later on today. I think that De Waal is really interesting example of what happens to “traditional” philosophical problems once one puts animality front-and-center: what I call “the zoocentric turn”.
Thanks. That was worth reading. I am sympathetic to that view of other animals. And I like his idea that cognition might be multi-dimensional, with some animals doing better than us in some dimensions.
Yes! It’s about the expectation that commenters be honest!
I’m already working on it. My main problem has been with drafting the line between claims that should be recanted, versus those where JMOing will suffice. It’s a doozy. Your suggestion re pillorying offenders seems impractical; pistols at dawn likewise. What do you think of shunning? That would be the ultimate punishment for any trolls that might wander in here.
Why, thank you for your kind words. You might want to read the OP, though.
😉
Jock, Thank you for attempting to draft a rule. I’m not surprised it’s difficult.
I would think that one could tell a lot about it (certainly whether *I’d* like it) from whether it supports some of Patrick’s accusations concerning my own alleged intellectual dishonesty because of an alleged failure to provide evidence for something I believe I have supported. Similarly, I’m guessing erik would claim that he HAD supported whatever it is he said regarding the Bible–whether or not you or Patrick or I thought he’d done a very good job at it. If the rule requires a recantation or a legitimate accusation of dishonesty in either of those cases then I’m guessing I’ll think it’s a bad rule. (Though my predictions of that sort have been wrong before.)
DNA_Jock, to Mung:
And oddly enough, that expectation strikes fear in the hearts of precisely those who have had difficulty keeping their comments honest in the past. Go figure.
I’m just catching up on the past 20 or so hours of comments, but I noticed this one from Alan and thought it worthwhile to respond to it before reading the rest.
The problem that I see is described in the comment Neil referenced in the OP for this thread. I was replying to hotshoe_ about her objection to being asked to support her claims:
As I noted here, 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.
Specifically, what I am initially advocating is that these three paragraphs, or the essence thereof, from one of DNA_Jock’s comments be added to the Rules page just after the paragraph from Reciprocating Bill:
I’ve emailed Lizzie that suggestion. Frankly, I think the whole Rules page needs a rewrite, and the expectation of having unsupported claims challenged and the encouragement to do so should be explicit.
Someone seems happy as a pig in shit. Not Lizzie’s vision I don’t think, but…she’s not here.
I’m channeling ‘lord of the flies’ again. Which side are you on?
walto,
You, on the other hand, don’t seem happy at all about being asked, repeatedly, to defend your false claims.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Finally, someone gets it!
Oh lord save me. I can’t believe I have to agree with peace-man here, but I do.
The world must be about to end.
Don’t mind your posts at all, actually, keiths. Each one makes my case again. I say I’ve provided more than sufficient evidence for all of my remarks. You disagree. Everybody probably knows that by now.
But the repetitions are nicely illustrative of your character. Plus the shots game is over (or I’d be dead by now).
Nothing, because the scientist can then demonstrate empirically how to observe listeria and anyone can look in the microscope and see it.
How about for quarks?
What is your objection to asking for claims to be supported or retracted? What value do you find in allowing baseless assertions to remain unchallenged?
If we’re putting things up for a vote …
If I were keiths, I wouldn’t be so sure of my chances to remain on the island.
I’ll bet anything that keiths dreams of wearing the red robes. 🙁
Not my style, but it looks good on you.
Having the default expectation for the site be that unsupported claims will be challenged is not self-defeating, given Lizzie’s stated goals. If people stop participating because skepticism is encouraged (not mandated), then that suggests that Lizzie’s experiment has failed. I don’t see that happening.
While he doesn’t speak for me in general, I agree with keiths’ statement you are responding to.
Patrick, to Mung:
Insert the word ‘your’ before ‘baseless’ and the question answers itself.
Yes, well, I am sure we’ll all express the appropriate level of contrition when we get nominated for the biggest liar and quote-miner in these parts.
🙂
#HonestToKeiths
Exactly.
Yet another point in the unbeatable tally of Least-Self-Aware posts that keiths is racking up.
What’s it to keiths if I tell him to suck it? So what? He can still repeat his demands for “evidence” as often as he chooses, to infinity and beyond! He can still make side comments about how it shows my dishonesty or shows I’m uncomfortable or whatever, as long as he can keep on the right side of the moderation line. So what is the argle-bargle still for?
The obvious conclusion is that he won’t be happy until everyone submits to his authority and swears fealty to his rules for “support-or-retract”. Although I still can’t imagine what pressure he plans to apply when some rash knave becomes forsworn about it in his future “skeptic” demesne. .
I’ve been noticing a lot of common ground between me and you here lately as well.
I chalk it up to niceness being contagious
😉
peace