The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 05:54 PM
The Burden of Proof
The shear fact that ol' TommyBoy didn't recognize that this thread was an exercise in futility on his part because of the impossibility of proving with positive evidence fictionality/nonexistence, is a testament to how deeply ingrained the illogical religious beliefs run into his brain.

Theists can't see the forests through the wool they've pulled over their own eyes.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:25 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Tomasia claims otherwise, and I've asked him to pony-up his evidence of fictionality/none xistence and he hasn't disappointed in his inability to deliver or admit he doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about Drinking Beverage

Theists hide behind the claim that their God can't be disproved, but they make claims about the nature of the universe which can be shown to be false. I'd just like one of them to tell me of a reliable method to distinguish what they call God from something that is merely imaginary. So far not one that I have asked can do it.

Until they can do that there is no reason to even consider their claims.

This is why I've more or less given up on religious debates.


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
20-10-2015, 05:58 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Theists hide behind the claim that their God can't be disproved, but they make claims about the nature of the universe which can be shown to be false. I'd just like one of them to tell me of a reliable method to distinguish what they call God from something that is merely imaginary. So far not one that I have asked can do it.

Until they can do that there is no reason to even consider their claims.

This is why I've more or less given up on religious debates.

On religious debates, yes. On generic bullshit illogical claims that contradict logic, no.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
20-10-2015, 06:23 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence is determined by the same standards in the sciences: testable predictions, controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity.

Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, History use the same meaning of evidence as well?

You drew a distinction between the meaning of evidence in a law court, and I'm just asking if there are distinction in meaning across academic disciplines as well?

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.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-10-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 05:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The shear fact that ol' TommyBoy didn't recognize that this thread was an exercise in futility on his part because of the impossibility of proving with positive evidence fictionality/nonexistence, is a testament to how deeply ingrained the illogical religious beliefs run into his brain.

Theists can't see the forests through the wool they've pulled over their own eyes.

In a way, it is not their fault. I think back now to when I went to church and school and college. I was not taught to think. I was told what to think and I was told that to think otherwise was to be an evil person. And this was backed by threats of either eternal torture or social ostrisization. I was never once given a definition of reason. I had to discover it on my own. It is a rare individual who goes against the mainstream.

I certainly was not given any instruction on reasoning or logic in church. You won't find anything in the bible about reason. What is the biblical definition of reason? The word doesn't even appear anywhere in there much less how to go about it. It's just obey or else! Who are you to lean on your own understanding? You are corrupt, your mind is useless and you have no business questioning. You can't do anything right.

What is the distinctive Christian or theist epistemology? What is the distinctive Christian theory of concepts? There isn't one. The Bible is completely silent on this subject, with no guidance whatsoever. I've asked theists for one and so far it has been a complete blank out. the day that I finally learned and understood the objective theory of concepts was the day of my real birth as a person.

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
20-10-2015, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 08:45 PM by Stevil.)
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 10:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Is this a variation of the garage dragon?

In a sense, but I am trying to intentionally use examples for which one might conceivably come across people claiming they know them to be hoaxes/fictions because they are the ones that created/perpetuated them.

In these cases, how does one distinguish between the verbal or written claim of existence, and the verbal or written claim of nonexistence? It should be rather obvious that the burden rests with the person postulating the positive claim, for that is the only one where proof positive evidence can be found. Only a paucity of evidence could be expected in the case of nonexistence.
Yes, I think this is exactly what was represented by the Garage Dragon analogy.
A claim is made, one that appears at quick glance to be provable or falsifiable but when attempts are made to verify then the claim changes and thus any attempted evidence become null and void.
The answer is that the claim is insufficient for evaluation and hence ought to be disguarded entirely. This is not to say that the conclusion of the claim is false but is to say that the conclusion has no grounds in which to be evaluated.
The follow-up question is this "Why is the claimant making this claim when they have no evidence to support it?

As shown in Tomasia's criticism of me in that same thread
Tomasia Wrote:If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions.
EDIT:
There is however a fundamental difference between a claim that something does exist as opposed to a claim that something does not exist.
A claim for the existence of something requires some evidence supporting the existence of that thing. This would be giving some reason as to why a claimant is making such a claim.

A claim for the non existence of something can come from several paths.
1. I have falsified a falsifiable claim thus the item claimed for cannot exist.
2. The claim is falsifiable, although I have not falsified it, however I have not been presented with evidence in support of the claim. I do not know how the claimant came to the conclusion of their claim. I'm not going to invest time in order to test the falsifiable criteria until the claimant has first provided supporting evidence for their claim.
3. There is no evidence supporting the claim, the claim does not lend itself towards verification (it provides no falsifiable criteria), the claimant has not offered a logical evidentiary supported path towards the conclusion of their claim (it's a non sequitur).

The positive claim for non existence is item 1. This requires supporting evidence and a reference to the original claims falsifiable criteria. This fulfils the criteria of evidence of absence.
Items 2 and 3 are negative claims, they aren't as strong as item 1 and they address the claim itself more than the conclusion of the claim. They default to "non existence" because the Burdon of Proof falls onto the claimant although technically they fail due to the "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence".
In my opinion, if you are in situation 2 or 3 you are better to say that the claim is insufficient rather than to say that the subject of the claim doesn't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
21-10-2015, 05:11 AM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 06:29 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 05:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The shear fact that ol' TommyBoy didn't recognize that this thread was an exercise in futility on his part because of the impossibility of proving with positive evidence fictionality/nonexistence, is a testament to how deeply ingrained the illogical religious beliefs run into his brain.

Theists can't see the forests through the wool they've pulled over their own eyes.

In a way, it is not their fault. I think back now to when I went to church and school and college. I was not taught to think. I was told what to think and I was told that to think otherwise was to be an evil person. And this was backed by threats of either eternal torture or social ostrisization. I was never once given a definition of reason. I had to discover it on my own. It is a rare individual who goes against the mainstream.

I certainly was not given any instruction on reasoning or logic in church. You won't find anything in the bible about reason. What is the biblical definition of reason? The word doesn't even appear anywhere in there much less how to go about it. It's just obey or else! Who are you to lean on your own understanding? You are corrupt, your mind is useless and you have no business questioning. You can't do anything right.

What is the distinctive Christian or theist epistemology? What is the distinctive Christian theory of concepts? There isn't one. The Bible is completely silent on this subject, with no guidance whatsoever. I've asked theists for one and so far it has been a complete blank out. the day that I finally learned and understood the objective theory of concepts was the day of my real birth as a person.

Theists believing because of indoctrination and a lack (or suppression) of critical thinking skills is one thing. Blatant dishonesty is another. And it's the latter that annoys me the most about people like Tomasia.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2015, 05:18 AM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 06:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In a sense, but I am trying to intentionally use examples for which one might conceivably come across people claiming they know them to be hoaxes/fictions because they are the ones that created/perpetuated them.

In these cases, how does one distinguish between the verbal or written claim of existence, and the verbal or written claim of nonexistence? It should be rather obvious that the burden rests with the person postulating the positive claim, for that is the only one where proof positive evidence can be found. Only a paucity of evidence could be expected in the case of nonexistence.
Yes, I think this is exactly what was represented by the Garage Dragon analogy.
A claim is made, one that appears at quick glance to be provable or falsifiable but when attempts are made to verify then the claim changes and thus any attempted evidence become null and void.
The answer is that the claim is insufficient for evaluation and hence ought to be disguarded entirely. This is not to say that the conclusion of the claim is false but is to say that the conclusion has no grounds in which to be evaluated.
The follow-up question is this "Why is the claimant making this claim when they have no evidence to support it?

As shown in Tomasia's criticism of me in that same thread
Tomasia Wrote:If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions.
EDIT:
There is however a fundamental difference between a claim that something does exist as opposed to a claim that something does not exist.
A claim for the existence of something requires some evidence supporting the existence of that thing. This would be giving some reason as to why a claimant is making such a claim.

A claim for the non existence of something can come from several paths.
1. I have falsified a falsifiable claim thus the item claimed for cannot exist.
2. The claim is falsifiable, although I have not falsified it, however I have not been presented with evidence in support of the claim. I do not know how the claimant came to the conclusion of their claim. I'm not going to invest time in order to test the falsifiable criteria until the claimant has first provided supporting evidence for their claim.
3. There is no evidence supporting the claim, the claim does not lend itself towards verification (it provides no falsifiable criteria), the claimant has not offered a logical evidentiary supported path towards the conclusion of their claim (it's a non sequitur).

The positive claim for non existence is item 1. This requires supporting evidence and a reference to the original claims falsifiable criteria. This fulfils the criteria of evidence of absence.
Items 2 and 3 are negative claims, they aren't as strong as item 1 and they address the claim itself more than the conclusion of the claim. They default to "non existence" because the Burdon of Proof falls onto the claimant although technically they fail due to the "absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence".
In my opinion, if you are in situation 2 or 3 you are better to say that the claim is insufficient rather than to say that the subject of the claim doesn't exist.

You're allowing the burden of proof to shift in your latter scenarios.

When someone says "your claim is bogus. X doesn't exist or didn't occur." <-that's not a claim. It's a shortened way of saying "you have not provided sufficient evidence that logically connects to your conclusion. As such, your claim is rejected as plausible."


People like Tomasia, as pointed out on this thread by others, start off with a conclusion and then try and fill in the rest as they go.

Also, this is similar to the garage dragon, but the goal isn't to continue to shift the goal posts whenever someone postulates a test or measure of the dragon. I explained it a little more in a reply to moms early on in the thread. Basically, how does one distinguish between a verbal/written claim of existence and a verbal/written claim of nonexistence? They aren't equal and can't both be true. It's a very simple answer actually. Only one of them has the burden of proof to demonstrate their claim.

So, when ol TommyBoy claims Jesus is real and points to records written about him decades after he lived, he's provided the claim with no evidence, and he doesn't see it.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-10-2015, 06:26 AM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(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?

"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, 06:30 AM
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?

Back to lying

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: