seebs

The difference is, the evidence for evolution is the type of evidence we decided we would accept, and we havent' got a firm belief that it's impossible through which all "evidence" must be filtered.

No. I was observing that there are things for which no one can offer the slightest evidence one way or another, and yet on which most people have opinions.

I am a mathematician by nature, so I just think that "proof is proof, everything else is just evidence".

But yes, I agree that your usage is plausible. In philosophical matters, "personal experience" is often interchangeable with proof.

Agreed.

Uh-huh... But here we run into the problem of the YEC who doesn't believe there's evidence for evolution. Someone who is strongly biased in favor of purely natural explanations can almost always come up with a merely-very-unlikely explanation for a given allegedly supernatural event. This is consistent with expectations, so far as I'm concerned; supernatural things obviously shouldn't, most of the time, have physical forms; they should be manifest in the fuzzy boundaries.

The question, then, is whether I'm biased *towards* supernatural explanations, or the other guy is biased *against* them. My thinking is that the only purely skeptical position, for now, is to have no opinion, since there is neither proof nor disproof, and both worldviews appear to be able to be consistent and as rational as anything humans do.

Nope. Because, see, in a murder trial, we don't care about the details of an opinion; it's a yes/no question, "are you at least this-much certain that he's guilty". We don't care whether you think he's probably guilty, or don't know, or think he's probably innocent. That's all the same; the only difference is if you're *sure* he's guilty.

In other fields, opinions are fine. I don't have proof (in my mind) that vitamin C really helps me get over colds, but it probably doesn't hurt, and it makes me happy to think I'm doing something about a cold, so I take vitamin C pills for it. I have almost no confidence, but it's my best guess.

Emergency-room doctors, likewise, often need to make life-or-death decisions when they are not 90% sure, or maybe even 50% sure.

Sometimes, moving forwards is more important than certainty. We have different rules for different contexts, both in terms of how important it is to get an answer, and how comfortable we are with which types of errors.

It is very misleading to compare the standards of a murder trial to the standards by which people judge philosophical beliefs. In a murder trial, we have specific reasons to prefer "no innocent people convicted" very strongly, and (as you note) good reasons to get a trial over with.

On the other hand, I've still yet to see a single example of a core philosophical belief supported by evidence. People hand-wave and talk about the evidence you can get that a given course of action will produce desired results, but the results you desire are purely a result of personal opinion and experience.

My opinion on the burden of proof works fine there: If he wants anyone else to believe him, he has to convince them, and until then, they will ignore him.

Yes, and in practice, what we always assume is "what we currently believe", not "the negative". Your model of burden of proof doesn't work very well when you need to make a decision *right now*; in such circumstances, an unproven opinion may be the best chance you have.

That works tolerably for existance claims. Try it with "Is Elvis alive?" and "Is Elvis dead?", and you'll find that both positions are "negative claims".

The "negative claim", for anything but existance, strikes me as a purely linguistic construct. For existance, it really applies well only to things that are asserted to be part of the physical world with predictable behavior. For anything else, we may as well let people hold their own opinions, until such time as they have evidence, and it doesn't seem to do much.

Sure. And you can't prove your position to non-determinists any more than we can prove ours to you. It's a personal belief; nothing that anyone not already convinced will accept as evidence.

GunnerJ

What are you talking about?

And yet, we've already established that evidence isn't always needed for proof.

Why is this a problem? Such a person is either ignorant or in denial.

Didn't we just agree on the meaninglessness of the term "supernatural?" Before we talk about biases toward natural or supernatural explainations, shouldn't we know what we mean by these terms?

So, now you accept the concept of the burden of proof? I mean, you're properly placing it on the positive claimant.

The burden of proof makes no statement about what the proof must constitute. For the purposes of determining who has to support their claim, it makes no difference whether the court will accept only "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or "second hand hearsay" as a standard of proof.

Interesting, but this doesn't seem relevent to the subject at hand. Are you trying to lump theism into the realm of "philosophical beliefs?" But seebs, don't you later claim that the burden of proof works well enough for claims of existence? Wouldn't the existnce of God come under that aegis?

Nonsense. You act as if it can't be both, and usually it is. Take my example: we have two theories about the sun. One is that it is composed of hydrogen fusing into helium. This is a positive claim that we currently hold due to the evidence for it. The other claim is that the sun is made of magic crystal mimicing hydrogen to helium fusion. It has no evidence to support it, and thus we hold to the negative claim that the sun is not made of a magic fusion-miming crystal. To recap: we hold that the sun is made of hydrogen, and we hold that it is not made of crystal: both the old claim, and the negation of the new.

I never claimed that the concept of the burden of proof is universally aplicable. In fact, this entire line of argumentation has been to inform you of what the burden of proof is and isn't capable of.

To make this relevent to the discussion, are you claiming that there is some time limit, a very immeadiate limit, on my decision on the existence of God, after which, if I cannot decide, there will be dire consequences?

Seebs, I was under the impression that the meaning of "dead" is "not alive." The "not" here indicates a negative claim.

Also, since we're discussing claims of existance here (i.e., the existence of the supernatural [however you wish to define it]) why bring up that the burden of proof may not work on anything other than exsistence claims?

Maybe. I'm reasonably sure that a proof can be constructed so long as certaian axioms can be agreed upon. However, I have no interest in "converting" anyone to determinism, nor do I care what people think of this claim. Compare this to the feelings of most theists on their god-belief, or in general, most religionists on their religious claims.

beyelzu

kassiana,

i dont have a problem with you personally. i have extreme problems with any practice of witchcraft. because the practitioners actually seem to believe that they are capable of harnessing some sort of supernatural force. which is just as silly as any fundie. most of the wiccans i know are warm, caring people. they are also incredibly misguided.

on the subject of deism. i dont have to disprove deism. the razor slices the god right away from the universe. logically there is no sense in deism. much as logically there is no ipu. proof in both cases is as unnecessary as it is impossible.

seebs

Basically, I think the reason that we find the evidence for evolution convincing is that we have already decided that we find that *kind* of evidence convincing, and have no strong objections to it.

If I have a strong enough objection to something, I can always disregard the evidence.

Let me go further; there are things for which there is neither proof nor proper scientific evidence, but on which people form opinions, simply based on personal experience.

Because that's exactly how people who accept supernatural claims often feel about people who "deny the evidence". The question of what is or isn't evidence is dramatically influenced by the expectations and presuppositions you have.

It turns out you can almost always get by with the common-sense understanding. Some people will be biased against any result which does not depend on a piece of physics they already accept. A fair amount of quantum physics contradicts things I was told were certain when I was a kid. Some people reject it because of this.

My concept of burden of proof is that it is a purely social construct, applicable only when we wish to make people make decisions. We place a very high burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases, but that isn't a question of some external ideal of the "burden of proof", but a conscious decision made based on totally unsupported personal opinions about what "seems like justice".

There is no obligation to prove any claim; however, if you want someone to accept any claim, positive or negative, different from what they currently believe, you acquire a burden of proof.

In other words, if you want me to accept evolution, you need to meet my standards (which is quite possible). If you want Joe YEC to accept it, you need to meet his standards, which are much higher.

There is no objective standard of what constitutes "proof" or "evidence", or whose job it is to provide such a thing; we come to agreement on standards in some fields (such as law) simply so we can have a consistent system, but this isn't us discovering the "true" burden of proof, it's us making it up as we go along.

Hmm. Okay, I think I see why we're disagreeing, then. There's two kinds of burden of proof here, and I'm discussing a different one than you are. I think.

There's two questions:
1. Should this statement be part of my belief system?
2. Should I change my belief system?

For the former, of course, burden of proof is on the statement; if it's not supported, you're unlikely to include it.

However, in argumentation, you never *care* about that; you care about the other burden - you want to *convince* someone. And that means that, whatever they believe, you want to change it, and must meet an entirely different standard.

If someone currently has no opinion on a matter, the two standards overlap. If someone already has an opinion, no matter how well or poorly supported, then the second one matters much more than the first.

Claims of *physical* existance, sure. But yes, religion strikes me as being more like philosophical beliefs than scientific ones. IMHO, statements like "I believe in a personal God" are more like "I believe it is wrong to harm others for pleasure" than they are like "Liquids have different freezing temperatures".

That's a very complicated way of describing it. I look at it using the second model of burden of proof; I currently hold the theory that the sun is made mostly of hydrogen. If someone wishes to convince me otherwise, he needs to provide a convincing argument.

After all, he can demand that I "prove" that the sun is made of hydrogen, and I probably can't; he has a working theory (magical crystal) which I doubt I can disprove. So, he still believes his theory, I still believe mine. Neither of us can convince the other.

I have spent a lot of time on burden of proof debates, and I have come to believe that it's almost entirely a rhetorical trick, when used in philosophy. My model, with levels of certainty both positive and negative about things, and a neutral default, seems to accomplish all the same things (I do not believe the sun to be made of magical crystal) while avoiding the fairly substantial (IMHO) risk of throwing out too much data because it doesn't fit my preconceptions.

Not particularly. I think that having an opinion on the subject - either way - is likely to have implications for how you go about your life, and as such, it is useful to have an answer. I will accept an uncertain answer on this issue, because I see no reason to expect a certain one to come along any time soon.

The meaning of "alive" is "not dead". So, we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden is dead, because it's a negative claim? Nonsense! The default assumption is normally "the world is the same way it used to be, or where it should be right now through normal changes", not "everything I can't see has ceased to be".

Because it is often waved around as a purely rhetorical tool; any time someone doesn't like a claim, it can be hand-waved away with "burden of proof". My model, IMHO, is more honest; the burden of proof is a purely subjective question of what it takes to convince a given person, but there are social norms for certain kinds of claims.

Indeed. My beliefs on such matters may have serious consequences, and as such, I want to make sure that my beliefs are true, or that I find out if they aren't, and that I am making decisions based on the most true model of the universe I can form.

To get back to the original topic: There exist levels of certainty where, while I am not certain of something, I think it more likely than an alternative. If it's going to affect my decisions, I'll use my best theory, even if it's not totally certain, because to refuse to accept an apparently better theory just because I don't have *proof* would be foolish.

seebs

Occam's Razor is a great way to simplify your working set, but it's not a tool for discerning truth.

Amergin

There is evidence largely statistical that back up your concerns. I'll use the USA as an example country. It is the most christian country on earth after Vatican City. It has somewhere between 5-8% Atheists and Agnostics add another 5% . So Theists are about 90% of the general population. But they are a 99.9% of violent prison convicts by several different surveys (John Patrick Michael Murphy, Colorado Springs, CO, USA)

Crime is largely a problem with logical thinking and critical analysis. Lower IQ , and poverty are also factors, but are they also not associated with greater precentages of religiosity?

Mental institutions with locked wards have psychotic patients. I have consulted at them as a neurologists for 30 years. I can't recall a single psychotic claiming to be atheistic, but an overwhemling number claiming to be Christian, to be Christ, to hear Christ, see Christ, see the Virgin, or to have religious components to their delusions.

Scientists, according to the National Science Foundation, in the USA are 90% Atheists/agnostics with the remaining 10% divided into non specific deists, pantheists, and only a single digit percent of Christians.(1-5%) I am pulling this out of memory banks over a year old but I think they are close.

It shows that even in society the person with the atheistic rational brain is likely to be in very rational logical pursuits, philosophy, science, computer science and the like. Theists make up the broad spectrum of the workforce. Most function quite well, but are not in the most highly logical critically demanding professions for the most part. Criminals at the other end of the scale are almost always of some religious persuasion Christian or Muslim. Atheists are so rare in prison that many prisons have none at all.

Therefore, is the person whose brain has been programmed to believe irrational myths and illogical superstitions able to always shift from the magic universe back into th matter and energy universe easily. I propose that very religious people who spend most of their time in religious thinking, may have difficulty re-adjusting to the hard logic of the matter-energy universe.

A side issue is the Christian attitude toward Atheists. 49% by one poll in Seattle showed that they regarded Atheists as necessarily immoral. So can a falsely accused person who is identified in some way as an atheist get a fair trial from a largely Christian jury?

Amrgin

ybnormal

Theists make up the broad spectrum of the workforce. Most function quite well, but are not in the most highly logical critically demanding professions for the most part.

Sorry, couldn't help but think of GW, The Leader Of The Free World, whose ichy trigger finger is on The Button.

Good post...

Starboy

Based on your statistics it would appear that the question is mostly hypothetical.

Starboy

Kassiana

Wow, Rim...so all I have to say is "there is no non-supernatural" and I don't have to prove my claims? GREAT!

Sorry. Bey claimed he knew there was no supernatural. Sounds to me like a strong atheist claim that there is, indeed, no supernatural and he has proven it (like the statement, "No, there are no Gods."). Even if a claim is worded negatively, someone can be held to it...otherwise I can get away with claiming anything I like as long as I phrase it as a negative. I don't buy your argument here.

Thank you for politely talking to me the last time, Bey. If you have no desire to back up the claim you made, then I think we're done talking unless you're interested in just socializing.

GunnerJ

Seebs: rest assured I'm just mopping up the stragglers here, I'll hit the big game later today.

Kass, it's really hard to keep a civil tone in a discussion when your counterpart seems to be bent on willfully suspending all critical thought. You're either doing that here, or are very sadly ignorant, which, to be fair, is really not your fault.

I can reply to this by using the rules of English grammar. I'm not sure if you're a native English speaker, but I image that the rule works as well in many other lanuages. Basically, if a sentance is constructed with two negatives, they are redundant: saying "It's not nobody" implies that it is somebody, a double negative.

I don't have the time to walk you through every negative qualifier in the English language, but I really never expected to have to tell you that "non" as a prefix is one of them.

From here, I leave it to your education to "do the math," so to speak, on your statement. After you're done, tell me whether you still think "there is no non-supernatural" is a negative claim.

Edit: Interestingly, if you deconstruct the phrase "There is no non-supernatural" it becomes equivelent to the phrase "Everything is supernatural," or "There is no natural, only supernatural," which is one of the more absurd claims I can imagine, given that the very term "supernatural" lacks meaning accept in relation to the term "natural."

How you interpret statements is your own business. In any case, a negative statement has no burden of proof. That does not imply an absolute degree of certainty, it implies that until there is evidence of a supernatural event, as an example, we can logically assume that it won't occur. How "strongly" one choses to put this is irrelevent.

I hope you'll reconsider this shoddy line of reasoning once you've fully absorbed the grammar lesson I've given you.

Further, it should be noted that the concept of the burden of proof isn't a shield against any claim one doesn't like, it's simply a way of seeing who goes first when two opposing claims are presented. Once a positive claim has some support for it, the ball is in the negative claimant's court, so to speak.