The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2015, 10:22 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 08:02 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  You started off good but then blew it by in essence asking that one prove a negative, I.e., a godless universe. How about if someone proved that the idea of God can not be true?

I should say, I don't expect anyone to prove that to me. I'll take your views, the views of others, of atheistic philosophers and writers, and if one day I find their picture convincing enough perhaps I'd become an atheists. I don't ask you to prove to me God doesn't exist, I'll just read your responses as to why you believe there isn't one.

And sure if someone "proved" to me that the idea of God cannot be true, and I actually bought the argument they peddled I'd probably stop believe in God all together. And given some past experience with you, I think I know where you're going, to the whole laws of non-contradiction, laws of identity thing, while it's an amusing argument, I don't think it's a particularly good, We had a brief discussion about it before, you said you'd get back to me, but didn't as I recall.

OK, here you have regained the ground after your weasel move in your previous response where you did shift the burden of proof, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to put the word prove in quotes. This implies that you wouldn't accept any proof that was offered. I just want to point out that a proof does not depend on your acceptance of it. It depends on Validity and soundness. If I left you hanging on another thread I apologize. I am very busy and sometimes I go for a week or more without much time to post. Do you happen to remember what thread that was? I'll be happy to go take a look at it and respond. Or you can give me the reason you found the argument to be invalid or unsound here.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 06:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  History is not a science; it does have different standards of evidence.

What is your point? This is yet another deflection. The issue is that you are conflating legal procedure with scientific methodology.

I'm not conflating methodologies at all, since I haven't said anything about methodologies. I'm just trying to get handle on where you draw the line between the distinct meanings of evidence.

Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology use the same meaning of evidence, as Biology, and Physics, according to you. While History and Law use a different meaning? Is that correct?

And since you bring up methodology, is this to say methodology defines the meaning of evidence for any particular discipline, or practice?

I actually explained this earlier in this thread. You must have passed over it. Drinking Beverage


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-10-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:02 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Scientific evidence is totally different from legal evidence.

The legal evidence bar is actually quite law because regular people decide.

In other words while lawyers and judges might understand science they aren't scientists.

Biologists decide about biology. An astrophysicist might know a great deal about biology, but they're not considered qualified to decide if a paper by a biologist is correct.

In a court case anyone who sounds authoritative could offer testimony. So in court the aforementioned astrophysicist could offer testimony as to whether a biologist is right or wrong. If the other side doesn't impeach the witness, the jury gets to decide if they liked what was said or not.

In short the rules of evidence standards are different.

I'd say the main difference is that a court has to deal with all the messy habits of people, and interpretations of law of particular jurisdiction. And trials can often involve expert testimonies, psychologist, ballistic experts, etc.. They're likely not gonna have a random joe sharing his opinion on the trajectory of bullets. They'll hear witness accounts, accounts from police, character witness, expert accounts, the use of evidence by the prosecution and the defense, etc... And try to form a picture of what occurred at the time, and if there's enough here to convict a person, which entails real consequences of the person being thrown in jail.

The only thing that can really be brought into question here is a random joes ability to discern between these variety of factors, to form a reasonable judgment. And the only real difference in the meaning of evidence, as opposed to methodology, is that encompasses a broader composition, than the limited categorization of a physicist. Physicist don't have deal with the interpretation of the judicial laws, or the messy habits of people.




,

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 10:22 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  OK, here you have regained the ground after your weasel move in your previous response where you did shift the burden of proof, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to put the word prove in quotes. This implies that you wouldn't accept any proof that was offered. I just want to point out that a proof does not depend on your acceptance of it. It depends on Validity and soundness.


But it's still my mind judging the validity and soundness of it. Perhaps you have a valid and sound argument, but I'm still entirely dependent on my mind to decipher the validity and soundness of it.

Perhaps you think you have a valid and sound argument, like the one you often appeal to. But I might not find it valid and sound. And I point out why I don't find it valid and sound, and we just go back and forth, without an agreement, or perhaps we get exhausted and go back to our wives, and dinner.


Quote:If I left you hanging on another thread I apologize. I am very busy and sometimes I go for a week or more without much time to post. Do you happen to remember what thread that was? I'll be happy to go take a look at it and respond. Or you can give me the reason you found the argument to be invalid or unsound here.

I was able to dig up, and no worries, it was several months ago, but I was still able to find it:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid738775

And there's another thread we're we briefly continued the subject as well:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ber?page=9

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 09:34 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  What? So you have all the smarts to discern what is true or not in this world/universe? There is much you can do about it - like trust the scientific method,

I’m just stating what should be an obvious fact, that we’re trapped in our minds. And a part of that discernment is discerning who to trust. Part of that trust involves trusting the conclusions of experts, drawn by methods and means, and calculations, that I might not personally understand. I don’t particularly understand time dilation, or an event horizon, or the complex ways in which these things are calculated, or formulated by the experts. But I trust those who did these calculations, to have formed valid conclusions from them.

And I don’t really find myself in a predicament as some theists might, disagreeing with some observations made by some peer reviewed article in a science journal. But perhaps one day I find myself dating a scientist, who cheats on me, and does me wrong, and I develop some paranoia of scientist, and the scientific establishment as whole, thinking of them as bunch of charlatans in the pockets of corporations, and special interest. But until then I’m moderately trustful, not many disagreements. My main disagreements, typically involve when they venture beyond their field of expertise, like a famous biologist opinions of politics or religion, are likely to be as valuable to me as my local celebrities.

Quote:f I told you that to me it cannot make sense that my body is made up of trillions and trillions of atoms, would that be true to me? I mean, I can't hold and see an atom in front of me so it must be hogwash

Maybe you subscribe to some epistemology in which you only consider things true that you can hold and see. Anything you can’t hold and see you don’t necessarily deny, but remain agnostic about. Maybe you’re consistent with this epistemology. I might consider this man’s perception of reality, of human life, and existence to be partial, unable to take it all in. I might feel sorry for him. I wouldn’t really know how to argue with him though. Perhaps all the things he holds as true, actually are true. Perhaps his epistemology while only a partial taking in of the reality around him, allows for significant degree of accurately gauging what’s true in regards to his limited perceptions. It’s just that what he holds and recognizes is a small part of the picture, not the entirety of it.

When people try and impose some box restraining my wild and organic thought process, that wanders curiously through the world, provoked and plodded by it, that I need to restrain this thing to correspond to some predefined rules, or methodology, I can’t say I really care for it. I don’t care for it if it’s the preacher on Sunday suggesting it, or a group of rationalist.

If someone suggested that I limit my perception of the world, to the take of it offered by scientist, to conceive of it’s entirety in what’s commonly referred to as the scientific image. And close my eyes to see anything else. I wouldn’t care for it. I want to take it all in as much as I can. I want to hear of the world in the eyes of not just scientist, but theologians, and writers, and poets, and musicians, mechanics, and bakers, the poor, and the rich, the muslim,and the scientologist, and the charltan, the ignorant, and the educated, the atheists and the theists, and just every day common folk, and men several thousand years before me. I want to see the world as rich as it can be possibly be composed, and not of how much of it I can squeeze through a straw.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 01:18 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 11:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:02 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Scientific evidence is totally different from legal evidence.

The legal evidence bar is actually quite law because regular people decide.

In other words while lawyers and judges might understand science they aren't scientists.

Biologists decide about biology. An astrophysicist might know a great deal about biology, but they're not considered qualified to decide if a paper by a biologist is correct.

In a court case anyone who sounds authoritative could offer testimony. So in court the aforementioned astrophysicist could offer testimony as to whether a biologist is right or wrong. If the other side doesn't impeach the witness, the jury gets to decide if they liked what was said or not.

In short the rules of evidence standards are different.

I'd say the main difference is that a court has to deal with all the messy habits of people, and interpretations of law of particular jurisdiction. And trials can often involve expert testimonies, psychologist, ballistic experts, etc.. They're likely not gonna have a random joe sharing his opinion on the trajectory of bullets. They'll hear witness accounts, accounts from police, character witness, expert accounts, the use of evidence by the prosecution and the defense, etc... And try to form a picture of what occurred at the time, and if there's enough here to convict a person, which entails real consequences of the person being thrown in jail.

The only thing that can really be brought into question here is a random joes ability to discern between these variety of factors, to form a reasonable judgment. And the only real difference in the meaning of evidence, as opposed to methodology, is that encompasses a broader composition, than the limited categorization of a physicist. Physicist don't have deal with the interpretation of the judicial laws, or the messy habits of people.




,

I think you need to stop watching crime shows on tv.

75 percent of court cases aren't criminal.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-10-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 01:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think you need to stop watching crime shows on tv.

75 percent of court cases aren't criminal.

But most of the ones on The Good Wife are.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(21-10-2015 01:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2015 01:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think you need to stop watching crime shows on tv.

75 percent of court cases aren't criminal.

But most of the ones on The Good Wife are.

I can't watch law shows...they annoy me. I liked the fact the main character is an atheist...but the actress who plays her anooys me.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: