People who don't understand the burden of proof

[Greenday]

I'm part of a Jets fan group on facebook. Some idiot is complaining that it's unfair that only four players got suspended and wants to know why them over the rest of the defense. I responded, letting him know that Goodell (The NFL commissioner) stated that these four players were the biggest contributors to the bounty program (For those who don't know, the Saints for a few years had a program going rewarding players with money for injuring opponents).

This wasn't good enough for him. He says everyone is guilty of participating in the bounty system. I asked him for proof of this and he said it's what he's heard. I asked him to provide just one source that says every single defensive player participated in it and he wouldn't. He then tried to tell me that since I'm trying to prove them innocent, to provide proof of that. I told him that it's his job to prove guiltiness, not my job to prove innocence. That's how our judicial system works. He claims ESPN has said it but can't come up with an article that says such a thing.

If you are going to say someone is guilty of a crime, prove it. Innocent until proven guilty and off the wall hearsay isn't proof.

[SongsOfDragons]

Oh GOD I hate this too!! I've lost count of the complete moronic ignorami who plutz forwards such-and-such a theory then fuck around and do nothing but reiterate their argument when I ask them to cite their source!!

I don't argue to defeat the other side. I tend to argue dialectics - to reach a common ground. This requires the other side to actually be capable of listening, comprehending and understanding the varying positions before we move forwards. WHICH THEY DON'T. Argh it's so infuriating.

If you* can't cite a souce then SHUT THE DAMN HELL UP. You know nothing. :grrr:

-

* (generic you; ahh I wish we still had conjugation for that word XD)

[gremcint]

just respond with citation needed.

[Mytical]

Ok .. I just gotta..I will say I am sorry in advance...

Prove that I need proof!

Ok now that I have that out of my system. The burden of proof lies with the person who brings a subject up in my opinion. Once they have supplied why they think what they think, then the person responding is responsible for proof. And so on...

However..and you probably knew this was coming..what about personal experiences? Which are almost impossible to prove over the net. Do they not count? Of course all personal experiences have to be taken with a grain of salt. I mean I could say I met the pope in person and he said that I was the most honest man he's ever met..doesn't make it true . So .. yeah proof is important, just keep in mind there is a difference between opinion (which is impossible to prove and is subjective) and fact.

[DrFaroohk]

Sometimes the sources game gets tedious.

"Source: Dick Dicklestein, esteemed astrophysics professor."

"Bullcrap. Dick Dicklestein is a notoriously biased towards the liberal agenda. So says Tim Tommerson, famed astrophysicist EXTRAORDINARE."

Even the sources turns into a debate all by itself.

[SongsOfDragons]

Sometimes it's not about theory or law, but, well, you know, fact.

I once spent about three hours trying to get it through some thicko's head that ruby and sapphire were the same substance - corundum, or Aluminium Oxide - only with different inpurities that make them different colours.

Nope, not a clue. Didn't accept it.

It's not like something contentious, it's...known. It's simple. There's no alternate theories, surely. Even crystal healing acknowledges that the two are the same substance (at least mine does XD). I didn't even get started on quartzes and beryls. Nope, they're all magically different!!

I don't talk to this troglodyte any more. I hate the wilfully ignorant.

[Slytovhand]

I mean I could say I met the pope in person and he said that I was the most honest man he's ever met..doesn't make it true .

Of course it doesn't - I wouldn't trust what the pope says about anyone!

One thing on said topic, though, is what actually constitutes 'proof'.

I've been having this on-going argument on another forum (and on here in the past) about Traditional Chinese Medicine, and people claiming "there is no proof"... This is true! There isn't 'proof'.... however, they all fail to recognise one of the basics of research - 'lack of evidence is NOT proof against'. Also, the same people will say that TCM is "hokum" because western scientific research has proved it so... no, it hasn't! The research has said 'we did this, this is what we got (or didn't get, as the case often is)'. That's a completely different statement to "this doesn't work". All the research found, was, on this occasion, with these parameters, these are the results - it in no way means 'this does not work'... at best, the combined efforts of research on this particular subject, indicate probable circumstances...

Burden of proof? Sure, no doubt on the side of the 'for', but that doesn't automatically mean that the other side is 'right'. BOTH sides need to prove validity!!!

[Gravekeeper]

BOTH sides need to prove validity!!!

Thats not how this works. You're making the claim, the burden is on you. Simple as that. If you claim it works but have no proof and someone says it doesn't because there is no proof, those are not equally valid positions. Thats what this whole burden of proof thing is about.

Also, last I heard they discovered some of the herbs used in TCM caused horrific kidney failure and cancer. -.-

[lordlundar]

I told him that it's his job to prove guilt, not my job to prove innocence.

Fixed because it drives me batty.

[Nekojin]

Of course it doesn't - I wouldn't trust what the pope says about anyone!

One thing on said topic, though, is what actually constitutes 'proof'.

I've been having this on-going argument on another forum (and on here in the past) about Traditional Chinese Medicine, and people claiming "there is no proof"... This is true! There isn't 'proof'.... however, they all fail to recognise one of the basics of research - 'lack of evidence is NOT proof against'. Also, the same people will say that TCM is "hokum" because western scientific research has proved it so... no, it hasn't! The research has said 'we did this, this is what we got (or didn't get, as the case often is)'. That's a completely different statement to "this doesn't work". All the research found, was, on this occasion, with these parameters, these are the results - it in no way means 'this does not work'... at best, the combined efforts of research on this particular subject, indicate probable circumstances...

Burden of proof? Sure, no doubt on the side of the 'for', but that doesn't automatically mean that the other side is 'right'. BOTH sides need to prove validity!!!

As Gravekeeper says - it's the positive assertion that requires proof. It's very difficult (and sometimes impossible) to prove a negative. We don't need to prove that Jackalopes or Goblins don't exist - someone who thinks that they do needs to prove that they do.

The same goes for TCM. Every study I've seen shows that it's no better than placebo (and I'm sure you're familiar with the Placebo Effect, yes?), and in some cases can be worse. If you want to claim that it's an effective treatment method, you need to pony up the evidence.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, the same people will say that TCM is "hokum" because western scientific research has proved it so... no, it hasn't! The research has said 'we did this, this is what we got (or didn't get, as the case often is)'. That's a completely different statement to "this doesn't work". All the research found, was, on this occasion, with these parameters, these are the results - it in no way means 'this does not work'... at best, the combined efforts of research on this particular subject, indicate probable circumstances...

Actually, speaking specifically of acupuncture, it is no more effective than a placebo; the acupuncture itself doesn't really do anything - it's all in your head. However, that doesn't mean that the placebo effect is without its uses.

There's a lot of research to back this up, but I don't have time to cite it this morning.

^-.-^

[Rageaholic]

That's why conspiracy theorists (like te 9/11 truthers) drive me bonkers. They can't back up their claims so they resort to adhomien.

Fundamentalist Christians are the same way.

[Slytovhand]

Thats not how this works. You're making the claim, the burden is on you. Simple as that. If you claim it works but have no proof and someone says it doesn't because there is no proof, those are not equally valid positions. Thats what this whole burden of proof thing is about.

There's a difference between saying that you disagree with a position, and saying that the opposing position is true and valid. In the case I suggest, yes, both positions need to provide the evidence. Which is quite different to "I believe TCM works" - "Ok, why?". Then, sure, the burden of proof is on the first person. However, if the 2nd person says "I say it doesn't", then they are taking a particular stance, and they then have a burden of proof to provide the evidence for that stance.

It's never ok to just say "I'm right, you need to accept it". Every claim needs to be backed up. (Of course, what constitutes 'evidence' and 'proof' is a completely different argument!)

Also, last I heard they discovered some of the herbs used in TCM caused horrific kidney failure and cancer. -.-

Yep! I have no doubts about that at all!!! (this, on it's own, is no actual indication that TCM doesn't work, only that some things have side-effects ) Btw, you're not using that as 'evidence' against TCM, are you??

As Gravekeeper says - it's the positive assertion that requires proof. It's very difficult (and sometimes impossible) to prove a negative.

To an extent, yes. But, take something like TCM... there's plenty of evidence it works... decades of research has been done, and plenty of 'proof' exists out there. (you seriously don't want me to go citing.... it's not hard to find, however - it might be hard to read, unless you're pretty good with Mandarin There is still lots of published stuff in English). Now, when that gets presented, the burden of proof moves back to those who make the assertion that it doesn't work (or, as you stated, that "it's no better than a placebo".. this is a claim that needs to be backed up).

Yes, it is very difficult to prove a negative, and that's why absolute statements should very rarely be made... (FTR, the way you phrased your last paragraph is one I like... others I have read say "we've proven TCM doesn't work"... which really gets my goat!!!)


@Andara - actually, that's not true... and, as I said above, there's a lot more research to back that up And, some of that is indicating neuro-physiological responses, releases of endorphins, etc as possibly being the 'real' cause (no, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Qi etc really exist... let's just stick with the physical).

@RH - What drives me nuts is how the 9/11 'believers' (ie, non-conspiracy theorists) do that much more so than the conspiracy theorists. Just calling something a 'conspiracy theory' in no way invalidates the argument - which is what usually happens! Lines of logic get completely overlooked (and ignored) in that argument, and appeals to emotion really get me going! (I spoke to one girl who said "Don't talk to me about they didn't do it - I watched as it happened"... ummm - so?) Especially when someone pulls the "our government wouldn't do that"... huh? WTF???

I actually find the 'truthers' aren't allowed to back up their claims. They provide science and evidence (sure, some of it is shoddy and ridiculous, but I'm talking about good stuff), and enhance it with logic - and those opposing it seem to have their brains shutdown when they 'counter'... and then resort to insults.

Perhaps we're on different forums etc...????

[Andara Bledin]

@Andara - actually, that's not true... and, as I said above, there's a lot more research to back that up And, some of that is indicating neuro-physiological responses, releases of endorphins, etc as possibly being the 'real' cause (no, I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Qi etc really exist... let's just stick with the physical).

These same effects are observed with "sham" controls, as well, using the needles in non-meridian points. In one particular study dealing with knee pain, they used a non-traditional acupuncture with some type of electrical stimulation that in the sham punctures wouldn't be deep enough to be effective and is more likely than the needles themselves to be responsible for the effectiveness of the treatment.

Sure there are studies that say acupuncture is effective; I just don't trust them to be clean because I've yet to see any that weren't also subsequently torn apart for bad or biased methodology.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

There's a difference between saying that you disagree with a position, and saying that the opposing position is true and valid. In the case I suggest, yes, both positions need to provide the evidence.

The burden of proof remains on the person making the positive claim. Shifting it to someone critical of your claim is an appeal to ignorance. Claiming something is true because it has not yet been proven false is a logical fallacy.

Think of it like "innocent until proven guilty". You're claiming TCM is guilty, they're claiming its innocent. Its up to *you* to prove that it's guilty, not them to prove that its innocent. You can't argue that they're guilty because the other side can't prove they're innocent.

It's never ok to just say "I'm right, you need to accept it". Every claim needs to be backed up. (Of course, what constitutes 'evidence' and 'proof' is a completely different argument!)

While "I'm right, accept it" is a dickish way of putting it unless we are in fact talking about something obvious like "the sky is blue" not all claims are equal in burden or require it.

If you assert a positive claim, the burden is always on you. You cannot shift the burden to someone that disagrees. Thats a logical fallacy. However, the burden would be on both parties if, for example, they agreed on a outcome but not a mechanism.

Like if TCM was proven true without a shadow of a doubt, but you said "TCM works because of A" and they said "No, TCM works because of B" then sure, both of you are going to need to provide evidence as to why.

Yep! I have no doubts about that at all!!! (this, on it's own, is no actual indication that TCM doesn't work, only that some things have side-effects ) Btw, you're not using that as 'evidence' against TCM, are you??

"Painful Death" is a bit more than a "side effect". I'm just pointing out that there are certainly aspects to TCM that not only do not work, but do quite the opposite. The fact of the matter is TCM is unregulated and many of the substances used have never been tested for side effects or dangerous interactions. If you're even getting those substances at all, as many supplies of TCM are counterfeit since there's no regulation to speak of.

Aspects of TCM are certainly effective ( Exercise, massage, etc ) but those are the ones that are established as being tangible and effective. Other aspects, such as the models and theories of disease, are straight up pseudoscience. There is no scientific evidence or basis for qi/chi ( and it has been researched ). Chinese medicinal herbs are largely unknowns due to having many different names, though several have been found to be toxic or straight up poison. They're also responsible for near wiping out entire species singlehandedly and causing untold damage to the the ecosystem. Select other practices are also....yeah, pretty nutball.

So by and large, yeah, TCM ain't looking so hot. =p

I have never seen any research in support of anything except accupunture ( Which, as Andara noted, is suspected to function as a placebo. Seeing as it works whether you follow the meridian points or not. )

To an extent, yes. But, take something like TCM... there's plenty of evidence it works... decades of research has been done, and plenty of 'proof' exists out there.

...No, no there isn't. I've seen some evidence for accupuncture. But for TCM as a whole, do you have an actual, unbiased, peer reviewed experiment that used proper methodology you can cite? The entire basis for TCM ( essentially pre-scientific theories about energy fields ) has been proven false. There is no qi, no yin, no yang and no meridians. When you remove that, you're left with accupuncture, massage/exercise and herbology.

Research pegs accupuncture as a placebo that may be triggering the bodies own pain relief due to the fact the skin is being punctured. So yes, neurological responses. This certainly makes it theraputic and useful for aches and pains. Though that would be about it.

Massage and exercise are hardly unique to China.

Chinese herbology is unregulated, largely untested for dangerous side effects and drug interactions and destroying the eco system. Several tested herbs and substances have proven toxic if not straight up lethal and without regulation ( Not China's area of expertise >.> ) you don't even know if you're getting said substances to begin with.

While TCM certainly uses some herbs that have been proven through proper research to have medicinal properties ( ginseng for example ), thats hardly unique to Chinese medicine. Plus its pretty damn hard to ignore the fact that other herbs being used are straight up death.

As for my personal opinion, I'm suspicious of any medical approach that looked at a tiger and went "Ok yeah, that dick is going in my mouth". -.-

I actually find the 'truthers' aren't allowed to back up their claims. They provide science and evidence (sure, some of it is shoddy and ridiculous, but I'm talking about good stuff), and enhance it with logic - and those opposing it seem to have their brains shutdown when they 'counter'... and then resort to insults.

I've never seen any evidence for a conspiracy with 9/11. Incompetence? Oh fuck yes. But a conspiracy? No. I don't think that particular administration was that smart. ;p

The very term "truther" though is linked to being a conspiracy theorist nutjob. so best not to refer to yourself as that one in a debate.