seebs

I used it as an example precisely for that reason; because it's so well-tested and well-supported that it is pretty much rediculous to reject it... and yet, nonetheless, if you want to convince someone of it, the burden of proof is whatever *he* says it is.

S.D.Jim

Seebs and Pascal.. Thanks for the posts they very convincing on the basic propositions.

In my experience most who accept evolution see no need to try to convince anyone of the value of evolutiuon, since to us it appears to be evident and in no need of defense.

In my own case, the only time I am spurred to action is when I feel compelled to respond to some rediculous statement by a YEC in the local paper. My amature efforts at defense are in letters to the editor pointing out their fallacies. Here in Rapid City, S.D. I usually seem to be alone in this activity. And the only reason for my missives is in hope that I may be able to dispell the confusion that may be induced in the average person not normally concerned with the debate.

I am going to leave this board now. It's about time for the Rockies game to start.


I know pity me if you must.

Jim.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Thanks for your reply to my post, Jim.

I'm the same way. I don't try to convince anyone of the truthfulness of evolution either, since those who accept the theory don't need more evidence, and those who flat-out deny it won't be convinced by anything I say. I really don't like debating with people who are in the debate just so they can be "right", and not to learn or expand anyone's knowledge.

I will admit that I'll jump in if a creationist is feeding someone misinformation, and that person seems to be accepting this misinformation. In this case, I put my reasoning on the table, the creationist puts his, and the neutral third party decides from there. In such a case, it would seem to me that the burden of proof is nonexistent, since the ultimate "winner" is whoever can provide the most evidence. Actually, I believe the more correct idea is that the burden of proof is on both debating parties.

I'm starting to develop diarrhea of the mouth, and before long I'll start to ramble on about some incoherent concept.

Enjoy the game!!

-Nick

John Page

seebs:

I agree with the essence of your post. Proof is a social convention and exposure of hypocrisy and contradictions are its friends.

Cheers, John

seebs

This fits in nicely with my general rule: The burden of proof is on anyone who wants other people to accept his position. A creationist who doesn't care much about science has no burden of proof to meet to reject evolution, but a creationist who wants the schools to stop teaching evolution has a burden of proof to meet - even though it is the *scientists* who are making a claim - because he's trying to get people to *change their minds*.

seebs

Agreed. This is why, I think, a lot of Christians make *horrible* "witnesses" about God - the question is so evident to them that they can't even comprehend why anyone would be asking for "evidence", because, well, duh, all that love and stuff, that's evidence, right?

A lot of atheists fall into the same trap. They announce that they don't have a "reason" to believe in God, so therefore, everyone's gonna deconvert now, right?

It doesn't work because people are viewing burden of proof in terms of what would convince *THEM*, which is, of course, not what's at issue.

Yup! So... you're reacting to the expected burden of proof placed on you by the hypothetical readers, and as such, you're arguing, not in terms of what might convince you, but what might convince them!

This theory is holding up tolerably well.

NialScorva

I'm repeating what others have already said, but:

The Burden of Proof is *always* on the person advancing the truth claim. This has nothing to do with counter claims, the default position is the null claim, "I don't know".

The degree at which something must be proven is another issue, and I think this is inherently a moral choice, as it deals with what one values rather than statements of fact. For example, metaphysical naturalists tend to value rules based systems, with a *very* high threshold for accepting the initial premises from which all the rest is derived, and the stark primacy of direct experience. Ultra conservative christians tend to value biblical testemony, and IMO, things that make them comfortable good rather than those that can be perceived. The trick is trying to identifying those moral values, and operating on a way that appeals to both participants.

Go look up some of the old conversations with John Michel (I think that's the right name). His valuation as to what consitituted proof was so alien that it was literallyimpossible to have a meaningful discussion with him. There was no common ground.

Another thing to keep in mind is how one values contradiction. Often some results are valued more than one values a consistent view of the world. You could set me back quite a bit by showing a contradiction in my arguments, since I'm quite paranoid about it. A young earth creationist isn't likely to be impressed by a contradiction, even if you can get him to acknowledge it.

seebs

Hmm.

While that's true in one useful sense, if someone else has a belief in something, and you want them to change it, it's not sufficient to say "you are making a truth claim, you have the burden of proof". They already feel they've met it *for their purposes*, so they have no further burden to satisfy.

The problem comes in because there are undecidable issues where people still have *opinions*, and these don't really fit the same set of rules as truth claims.

Yeah. And sometimes, you simply can't; you have to either prove something once from each set of axioms, or give up.

Interesting. I've had discussions like that on a lot of issues; I simply can't figure out the framework in which someone is arguing.

Indeed.

I'm moderately concerned about contradictions, but a lot of things I believe are sufficiently hard to nail down that I'm not sure what would constitute a contradiction in them.

I think the issue here is that there's a difference in the moral burden of proof you acquire when you say "I believe that [...]" and the moral burden of proof you acquire when you say "You should also believe that [...]".

So... if I want to tell you that *I* accept the theory of evolution, it's sufficient for me to point out that my cat and I have awfully similar bone structures for "separate" creations, but would make sense as fairly divergent branches of a single tree of species.

If I want to convince a biologist of the theory of evolution, I may need to use arguments from the similarity of the gene sequences that code for specific proteins.

If I want to convince a YEC of the theory of evolution, I probably need direct, immediate, unmistakable divine intervention.

None of these burdens of proof is the "correct" one; the concept doesn't mean anything in this context. Within, say, mathematics or science, you can establish a specific, well-defined burden of proof. The problem comes in when I take the standard of proof I use in mathematics, and turn it to something else; for instance, I think it would be horrendously silly to demand a "proof" that God doesn't exist that would be evaluated by the same standards as a "proof" that there are no even primes greater than 2. And yet... for some people, that's the standard of proof they want.

So, as an example, I don't feel I owe anyone anything just because *I* believe in God; the only point at which my nominal burden of proof becomes an issue is the point at which I expect *them* to become convinced, at which point, yes, I carry the obligation to "prove" something. However, I don't buy the claim that you're obliged to justify your beliefs to someone else's standards, or be judged "irrational". I don't know that I've ever met two people such that one of them could support everything he believed to the other's satisfaction. It seems unlikely, although I shy away from claiming that no such pair exists.

Vorkosigan

For example, metaphysical naturalists tend to value rules based systems, with a *very* high threshold for accepting the initial premises from which all the rest is derived, and the stark primacy of direct experience. Ultra conservative christians tend to value biblical testemony, and IMO, things that make them comfortable good rather than those that can be perceived. The trick is trying to identifying those moral values, and operating on a way that appeals to both participants.

I think this is entirely wrong.

The rules-based valuers are not MNs but fundies. Fundies are people who are uncomfortable with the idea that rules are value-based and ultimately relative; they are people who do not want to think for themselves, and instead want to be told what is right and wrong, and have a system ready-made, for re-assurance. They are legalists, authoritarians and controllers. The most popular brand of Fundyism is Dispensationalism, based on the most popular single work of all time, the 1907 Scofield Reference Bible. It is no coincidence that Scofield's system is arcane, exhaustive and extremely rules-oriented.

Metaphysical naturalists, by contrast, are simply people who think methodological naturalism actually describes how the world works, and is not just a convenient game that scientists play when they are doing science. MNs are ruthlessly empirical and highly-practical.

I cannot see a way that MNs and Fundies can find a common ground in the struggle over reality, because the Fundie view is that reality as we experience it is a fraud and a conspiracy, while the MN view is that reality as we experience it is all there is. There doesn't seem to be common ground; perhaps you can show some.

Vorkosigan.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

seebs

Both are inclined to react with fear or contempt when someone attempts to challenge their belief system. Not all of them do, but I think there are fundies who believe in a complicated and unchanging set of rules for security, and I believe there are MN's who believe in a completely predictable and naturally-explained world for security.

Both have a worldview that is committed to rejection of anything inconsistent with certain core axioms of the current worldview.

As Steve Jackson's _Illuminati_ card game observes, any two fanatic groups are necessarily opposed to each other.

It is quite possible that not all MN's are fanatical, or that not all fundies are fanatical; I think it is assumed that we're discussing the people who get very offended when you suggest alternative theories.