Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[Thief]

What reason?


How can an omnipresent being NOT be in a laboratory or library?


Well, you've got plenty of faith at any rate.

Reason by means of cause and effect.
Let's not let go of that.
If we do....there NOTHING anyone can with certainty....
(unless you wanna go by faith alone!)

And God might be omnipresent.....might not....
He could be looking over your shoulder as you compose your next post.

And faith I got.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reason by means of cause and effect.
Let's not let go of that.
If we do....there NOTHING anyone can with certainty....
(unless you wanna go by faith alone!)

Reason is the process of inferring valid conclusions from premises. The validity of your conclusions is only as good as the validity of your premises, and we determine how valid premises are with evidence.

 

[Thief]

Reason is the process of inferring valid conclusions from premises. The validity of your conclusions is only as good as the validity of your premises, and we determine how valid premises are with evidence.

So like if substance first....then all of life is a mystery without purpose.
No Spirit in the beginning.

And therefore substance is 'self' starting....'self' reproductive.....
(contrary to the laws of physics)

And dead things (substance) beget the living.

I think THAT would be unreasonable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So like if substance first....then all of life is a mystery without purpose.
No Spirit in the beginning.

And therefore substance is 'self' starting....'self' reproductive.....
(contrary to the laws of physics)

And dead things (substance) beget the living.

I think THAT would be unreasonable.

I don't feel inclined to trust your judgement of what is and isn't reasonable.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't feel inclined to trust your judgement of what is and isn't reasonable.

That's a really good point. What I think is reasonable may not be to you. You should trust your own judgement of what is reasonable but why should I.

Your request for additional proof I judge unreasonable. Assuming you're claiming I have a burden of proof. I say the burden has been reasonable met. The burden is on you to show it has not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a really good point. What I think is reasonable may not be to you. You should trust your own judgement of what is reasonable but why should I.

Your request for additional proof I judge unreasonable. Assuming you're claiming I have a burden of proof. I say the burden has been reasonable met. The burden is on you to show it has not.

Do you agree with how I described the burden of proof, i.e. that the burden of proof hasn't been met until all reasonable objections and uncertainties have been addressed?

 

[Willamena]

Do you agree with how I described the burden of proof, i.e. that the burden of proof hasn't been met until all reasonable objections and uncertainties have been addressed?

Truthfully, no. No burden could meet that criteria.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Truthfully, no. No burden could meet that criteria.

I disagree, but I'm curious: how would you describe the burden of proof? How can you tell that it's been met?

 

[Willamena]

I disagree, but I'm curious: how would you describe the burden of proof? How can you tell that it's been met?

The burden of proof (philosophical version) is the obligation to have sufficient warrant for any claims that are intended to be convincing. It is met with evidence. With it, we may claim a giant tower in Paris; without it, we may claim a tiny teapot orbiting Mars--although I've never personally seen or experienced either, one of them is a sufficiently warranted claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The burden of proof (philosophical version) is the obligation to have sufficient warrant for any claims that are intended to be convincing. It is met with evidence. With it, we may claim a giant tower in Paris; without it, we may claim a tiny teapot orbiting Mars--although I've never personally seen or experienced either, one of them is a sufficiently warranted claim.

And how does one determine what is "sufficient warrant", other than how I described it?

 

[Nakosis]

Do you agree with how I described the burden of proof, i.e. that the burden of proof hasn't been met until all reasonable objections and uncertainties have been addressed?

Until a sufficient number of reasonable objections and uncertainties have been met.

You get to determine what is reasonable and sufficient for you. I think that is the way it works in practical application.

Between you and me, we may reach an agreement on what is reasonable and sufficient. Or we may not.

What I think is reasonable and sufficient is a personal experience with God of such a nature that you become convinced of God's existence.

Personally I wouldn't expect you to accept anything less. Obviously there is no evidence or proof that I would be able to provide. You lay this burden of proof at my feet that per my own requirements, I already know I can't meet.

Do you think it reasonable to ask for a level of proof we both know I can't provide?

 

[Willamena]

And how does one determine what is "sufficient warrant", other than how I described it?

Sufficent warrant rests in what we can believe (where I'm using "belief" in its context of "trust that something is true"). If through photographic, anecdotal and other evidence, I can be convinced of the claim that there is a giant tower in Paris, the claim is sufficiently warranted.

I don't find it believable that all 'reasonable objections and uncertainties' can be anticipated. One can address as many as one can conceive. I do find it believable that we will address the most significant ones that occur to us.

 

[Willamena]

Obviously there is no evidence or proof that I would be able to provide. You lay this burden of proof at my feet that per my own requirements, I already know I can't meet.

Personally, I think I could convince someone of god, the god that I have met, but it would be such a prohibitively long and involved discussion that the sheer enormity of that is discouraging.

 

[Nakosis]

Personally, I think I could convince someone of god, the god that I have met, but it would be such a prohibitively long and involved discussion that the sheer enormity of that is discouraging.

Well you're more awesome then I am.

I wouldn't know how other then to talk of my own experiences. I don't know how convincing that would be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Until a sufficient number of reasonable objections and uncertainties have been met.

"A sufficient number"? So you think you've met your burden of proof even when reasonable objections to your argument remain unanswered, just because you've answered "a sufficient number" of other objections?

You get to determine what is reasonable and sufficient for you. I think that is the way it works in practical application.

Between you and me, we may reach an agreement on what is reasonable and sufficient. Or we may not.

... though as I've said several times, a standard for what's "reasonable and sufficient" that's so low that it allows through mutually exclusive claims is demonstrably too low. Reasonable disagreement about how much is "sufficient" is only possible above this level.

What I think is reasonable and sufficient is a personal experience with God of such a nature that you become convinced of God's existence.

... while I think personal experience is a generally poor form of evidence. It's based on a sample size of one (i.e so unreliable that we can't even apply statistical tools to figure out how unreliable it is) with no blinding, controls, or opportunity to test repeatability.

Personally I wouldn't expect you to accept anything less. Obviously there is no evidence or proof that I would be able to provide. You lay this burden of proof at my feet that per my own requirements, I already know I can't meet.

Do you think it reasonable to ask for a level of proof we both know I can't provide?

If the level of proof is justified, then yes, it's reasonable. Burden of proof is established based on what is needed for a conclusion to be reliable; it's not based on what you feel comfortable meeting.

If you don't have enough money for something you want to buy, you don't just plunk what money you do have on the counter and take it anyway. The price is the price, and if you can't afford it, then you just have to go without.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sufficent warrant rests in what we can believe (where I'm using "belief" in its context of "trust that something is true"). If through photographic, anecdotal and other evidence, I can be convinced of the claim that there is a giant tower in Paris, the claim is sufficiently warranted.

I don't find it believable that all 'reasonable objections and uncertainties' can be anticipated. One can address as many as one can conceive. I do find it believable that we will address the most significant ones that occur to us.

Once you reach a certain point, the objections become unreasonable.

Also, remember that we're talking about the case where the claim has been made that the burden of proof has not been met, so it can't be said that the objection can't be anticipated: the parties to the debate are all presumably aware of the claim, even if they don't agree with it.

 

[Willamena]

Once you reach a certain point, the objections become unreasonable.

When unreasonable objections are offered up, sure, but that rarely happens in internal dialogue.

Also, remember that we're talking about the case where the claim has been made that the burden of proof has not been met, so it can't be said that the objection can't be anticipated: the parties to the debate are all presumably aware of the claim, even if they don't agree with it.

Well, you were talking about that case. Others of us were talking about the case where the burden of proof was not recognized.

 

[idea]

I don't understand how ethics apply unless there is something derogatory by how thiests are treated in relating their position.

Calling someone a liar is derogatory.

 

[Ingledsva]

Calling someone a liar is derogatory.

Who called you a liar?




*

 

[Nakosis]

"A sufficient number"? So you think you've met your burden of proof even when reasonable objections to your argument remain unanswered, just because you've answered "a sufficient number" of other objections?

Depends, some objections are the result of ignorance. A ignorance which cannot be easily bridged. So it is unreasonable to believe every objection of every individual can be satisfactorily answered.

... though as I've said several times, a standard for what's "reasonable and sufficient" that's so low that it allows through mutually exclusive claims is demonstrably too low. Reasonable disagreement about how much is "sufficient" is only possible above this level.

Sorry, maybe I'm being dense but I don't think I understand your point here. You think there is some level of objective reasonableness?

... while I think personal experience is a generally poor form of evidence. It's based on a sample size of one (i.e so unreliable that we can't even apply statistical tools to figure out how unreliable it is) with no blinding, controls, or opportunity to test repeatability.

Yet every validation is the result of personal experience. Just the quantity of reported personal experiences gives you certainty?

If the level of proof is justified, then yes, it's reasonable. Burden of proof is established based on what is needed for a conclusion to be reliable; it's not based on what you feel comfortable meeting.

Who gets to decide how much proof is needed for a conclusion to be reliable?

If you don't have enough money for something you want to buy, you don't just plunk what money you do have on the counter and take it anyway. The price is the price, and if you can't afford it, then you just have to go without.

Or you barter. Or steal. The price is the price only because people agree to pay that price. If no one agrees to that price then the price is not relevant to it's actual value.