People who don't understand the burden of proof

[Hyena Dandy]

On Greenday's point...

Here's the thing. I think that, most likely, most of the players involved were in on the system. It'd be a bit silly to think otherwise. And Roger Goodell's job, as NFL commissioner, is to enforce the rules... But he has another job too.

He also has to keep the NFL going. If the entire Saints defensive squad were to be suspended/fired/etc... Then there would be, effectively, no Saints defense. Nobody would watch Saints games. It would lose money. He has to make money, and his punishments can only go as far as he would not lose money.

On a side note, I kinda enjoy the bounty scandal. I mean, yes, it's morally repugnant, but it really works with an in-joke I had with my friend Natty.

Specifically, the joke comes from when we'd play our Madden NFL game as the Saints, and the announcers had an audio clip which includes "Those defensive guys get paid to..." And we'd reply, "Not ours! They play for free!"

When the story broke, I called Natty and told him "They finally figured out why the Saints defense plays for free!"

That's a side note, but it's amusing.

[Mytical]

I have a slightly different take on things. If you are making a statement that is not an opinion, then yes..you have a burden to prove your side. Regardless if it is a positive, negative, or what. If you state something as 'fact', you have the burden to prove that fact. Regardless if it is a positive, or negative claim. Only if something is an Opinion which by its nature can not be proven, is there no burden of proof.

A defense attorney doesn't just sit on his tail and let the prosecutor have to prove guilt, they also go about proving innocence. Establishing an alibi, or reasonable doubt, or any number of other ways to prove their clients are innocent. In an argument one should prove their side as well. If I am listening to two people debate, and one can't prove their side..I look to the other..if they WON'T prove their side..then what is the point?

[Greenday]

Rather than quote both of you, I'm just going to respond. I'm sure more than those four players who are suspended were in on it. But the problem is, this guy said EVERY single defensive player who was on the team those years was in on it. Every single defensive player. That's a big accusation with NO proof. How are you supposed to argue against that statement? I mean, there's just no evidence that everyone was in on it. I'm sure they knew about it but that doesn't mean that they were all actively participating in the program.

[Mytical]

Well as I said, the person who makes the first statement about something that is not supposed to be an opinion has the first burden of proof. Right now it is an opinion..and arguing opinions is about as fertile as planting a pebble in the ground and waiting for a boulder to grow from it. I would say until your friend can provide proof, then it is not your burden to supply proof either. Because at this point, you are arguing opinions..which by default CAN'T be proven. Since he/she is stating it as FACT, its his/her burden.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks, Mytical, that's what I was trying to say - BOTH sides need to provide the why's. the person making the initial assertion needs to provide their proof first, and if the 2nd person disagrees, the burden of proof then moves to them.

GK - TCM has been around for thousands of years. I'd suggest it is 'innocent', and thus any claims to say it doesn't work then have the burden of proof to find it 'guilty' - no?? Now, just being around doesn't mean it works... however, it has been around because it had been 'researched' (for a given definition).

Once a claim has been backed up, it is now up to the other side to refute it... then back and forth and back and forth.

What I've found as a major issue in such debates is not only the burden of the proof, but also the difference between 'proof' and 'evidence'. Especially relevant evidence. Evidence is not proof! (certainly not in real science)

If a claim is made, then backed up, and then the 'evidence' supplied is then attacked, then that evidence needs to be 'proven' to be valid or not. In TCM (IMHO), BOTH sides of the debate have major flaws in the research. (The 'western' side's problem is that it a) doesn't understand how it works, and b) it's looking for western pathologies, and trying to map Chinese treatment protocols onto it - can't work!!!)

The models and theories of disease... yeah, that's always going to be an issue. I use those mostly as a 'guide' to treatment. Do I believe that there is a real external influence called 'Cold', or 'Damp' that can invade the 'Spleen'? Not per se... but it's a useful analogy, and so I work with it It came from a time long ago, and while it seems effective, it's worth using. There is some evidence from research for the existence of qi - obviously not a lot, and obviously not popular - but it is there!

Chinese herbs? That's seriously contentious. Yeah, there's a lot of bad stuff out there, especially when you take into account the Chinese (ie, integrity, etc). "Painful death" is a serious side-effect of some of the western medicines I've got!!! Context!

...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.

Hang on.... TCM covers about 4 different modalities (plus diagnostics) - acupuncture (and it's associated treatments), massage, exercise, and herbal medicine. The theories of why it works can't be considered a different thing altogether. As for Yin and Yang - there's a major problem in any attempt to prove them - and that is understanding. Really, they fall into the same category as God - can you prove it's existence??? No. For those that really get into and understand what's going on, that one's not going to happen. Qi has more going for it, but will suffer from similar research methodology issues. Oddly enough, the western scientific method doesn't actually suit all types of research! (this is not particular to TCM and it's like, but also in the humanities fields as well, such as psychology).

@Andara - since when was it a necessity to use only meridians to treat something? Or, for that matter, to go 'deep'? Tui Na - Chinese massage (like shiatsu) - doesn't need to pierce the skin. And, when I was learning point location, one area to look for was off meridian to find 'sensitive' points (feels/reacts differently to other local areas).

I'll say - the burden is always on the FIRST person who makes a claim. In those recent arguments I've had, someone has said something slightly on topic (eg, "where can I find a TCM person?", and others have said 'TCM is hokum' (their word). AT THIS STAGE the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim of hokum-ness.


9/11 - I've seen/read evidence to suggest people in authority lied. I've heard/read evidence from external (to the US gov't) sources saying that the official version is inaccurate, or just straight out wrong. This is what leads to a 'conspiracy theory'.

[Nekojin]

No, Slytovhand, you still don't get it.

If I declare that there are no unicorns, no pixies, and no vampires, am I required to prove the claim? Of course not - the idea of forcing me to prove the negative is ludicrous. The burden of proof always starts on the side making an affirmative claim.

I claim that there's no such place as Detroit. I can make that claim without proof; if there's genuinely no such place, how would I prove its lack? But the moment someone contradicts me, and says, "Yes, there is too such a place as Detroit," they have to pony up the proof. Here's a map that shows its location relative to other cities. Here's photographs, including a city limits sign. Here's someone who lives there. Simple enough if the claim is valid.

TCM has been around for thousands of years. I'd suggest it is 'innocent', and thus any claims to say it doesn't work then have the burden of proof to find it 'guilty' - no??

No. This is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

[Slytovhand]

Nekojin - you still don't get it!

Yes, I am required to pony up (unicorn up?? ;p) the proof... but you need to put in some evidence yourself! If I show you, say, a photograph, or show you some fossilised remains that seem to show a pixie, then you are required to refute somehow... BOTH sides need to provide evidence! You don't get to just say "That's not a pixie in that photo" and leave it at that... and, I'm sure you'd agree, just saying that is not evidence! (nor, would I add, would then be saying "It can't be a pixie in that photograph, because pixie's don't exist"... circular reasoning - yes??) (FTR, that's exactly what science has done in such circumstances in the past... Cottingley Fairy photos, for example

Your base claim of 'X does NOT exist' underpins a serious flaw in thinking - the idea of absolutes. As I expressed earlier, the claim of 'does not', as against 'has not been found' are 2 quite different statements and it would be ludicrous to suggest that not only our science, but also our knowledge of the history of even a small fraction of Earth's history can be commented on with any certainty is.... 'hokum' (FTR, that's appeal to ignorance )

I do, however, agree - if someone makes the claim of 'there are unicorns', then yes, they have a burden of proof upon them to provide the evidence. Once that evidence is provided, your turn....


I think you're misinterpreting, or mis-representing the place of TCM. There is no 'appeal to tradition' in this case. TCM is considered effective by those who use it, not because it's been around for a long time, but because during that long time, treatments and diagnostics were 'researched', altered, tested, changed, researched again, etc etc etc.. the idea of the meridians and points didn't just magically appear one day, and people were forced to adopt and accept it. It developed over hundreds of years - papers were written about it, theories devised (and either supported, or rejected) over that long period of time. It is, in fact, based on a 'science' (though not, before I get flamed, one that the western scientists are going to accept is methodologically sound...). There were, and are, thousands of texts to back this up (new and old).

[Gravekeeper]

Now, just being around doesn't mean it works... however, it has been around because it had been 'researched' (for a given definition).

Still waiting on that reputable peer reviewed study ;p

Evidence is not proof! (certainly not in real science)

......Okay seriously, you are not grasping any of this. This isn't nebulous. This is the established method.

If you make a positive claim, the burden of proof is yours. Period. The burden of proof must be fulled by providing positive evidence and negating any opposing evidence. Shifting the burden of proof onto the opposing position is a logical fallacy. No matter how much you wish otherwise.

This is especially true when speaking scientifically. Scientifically, the burden of proof is entirely on you and it is immense. In order to claim TCM as being true and effective, it is up to you to provide not just evidence, but evidence that has been discovered through controlled conditions in clinical experimentation and stood up to peer review. Period. There is no other acceptable scientific method to fullfill the burden of proof.

There is some evidence from research for the existence of qi - obviously not a lot, and obviously not popular - but it is there!

Prove it. Its up to you to provide clinical evidence. Not me. The burden is entirely on you in making that claim. Prove it.

Chinese herbs? That's seriously contentious. Yeah, there's a lot of bad stuff out there, especially when you take into account the Chinese (ie, integrity, etc). "Painful death" is a serious side-effect of some of the western medicines I've got!!! Context!

Western medicine tends to avoid medication that kills the patient. Thats kind of what the extensive scientific clinical trials and regulation are for.

Hang on.... TCM covers about 4 different modalities (plus diagnostics) - acupuncture (and it's associated treatments), massage, exercise, and herbal medicine.

Which I did indeed break up in my previous post.

Really, they fall into the same category as God - can you prove it's existence??? No.

That is totally irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you here. Period. No matter what you say or what you argue or what you think. You are making a positive claim. A scientific one at that. The burden of proof is completely, totally and utterly on you.

Prove it.

Oddly enough, the western scientific method doesn't actually suit all types of research! (this is not particular to TCM and it's like, but also in the humanities fields as well, such as psychology).

Scientific method is not "western". Its just scientific method. If you want to blame a specific region of the world for its origin, blame the Middle East. =p

I'll say - the burden is always on the FIRST person who makes a claim. In those recent arguments I've had, someone has said something slightly on topic (eg, "where can I find a TCM person?", and others have said 'TCM is hokum' (their word). AT THIS STAGE the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim of hokum-ness.

Wrong. Again, you are not grasping any of this. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. Not the first claim. The positive claim. You are making the positive claim. This is especially true of scientific matters.

Shifting the burden of proof to the person disagreeing with your positive claim is a logical fallacy. No matter how much you argue here, you are completely wrong about how this works.

I think you're misinterpreting, or mis-representing the place of TCM. There is no 'appeal to tradition' in this case.

It is text book appeal to tradition. Another logical fallacy.

You can argue till you're blue in the face about all of this, Sly, but you are wrong and the burden of proof is entirely yours and yours alone. No matter how much you wish otherwise.

[Andara Bledin]

You know, I think I'd be a little less suspicious of TCM if it weren't for the fact that most of what's imported into the west is contaminated, fabricated, and in some cases illegally procured western pharmaceuticals repackaged as TCM.

Article about contaminated and illegal TCM imports to the UK.
Article about contaminated and illegal TCM in New Zealand.
Another article about adulterated TCM concoctions (using western pharmaceuticals because the herbs don't actually work), along with information on the joke that is clinical research in China on pretty much anything TCM.

So there, several examples of how TCM is not safe nor working as advertised. Where's your citations to back up your position?

^-.-^

[bara]

Watch Mythbusters.

They do a great job with the 'burden of proof', and stick fairly close to the scientific method of research.

[AdminAssistant]

Except the fact that their data sets are way too small and their methods too lax for the results to be "scientific."

ETA: As far as TCM goes, there are entire species that would not be endangered/extinct if Asians would just use Viagra for their boner needs instead of sunbear bile or rhino horn. So there's that.

[wolfie]

A defense attorney doesn't just sit on his tail and let the prosecutor have to prove guilt, they also go about proving innocence. Establishing an alibi, or reasonable doubt, or any number of other ways to prove their clients are innocent. In an argument one should prove their side as well. If I am listening to two people debate, and one can't prove their side..I look to the other..if they WON'T prove their side..then what is the point?

Nekojin - you still don't get it!

Yes, I am required to pony up (unicorn up?? ;p) the proof... but you need to put in some evidence yourself! If I show you, say, a photograph, or show you some fossilised remains that seem to show a pixie, then you are required to refute somehow... BOTH sides need to provide evidence! You don't get to just say "That's not a pixie in that photo" and leave it at that... and, I'm sure you'd agree, just saying that is not evidence! (nor, would I add, would then be saying "It can't be a pixie in that photograph, because pixie's don't exist"... circular reasoning - yes??) (FTR, that's exactly what science has done in such circumstances in the past... Cottingley Fairy photos, for example

The way I see it, these are related. The defense attorney isn't trying to prove innocence (negative assertion) - they're reacting to the prosecutor's presentation of why certain evidence is proof of guilt (positive assertion), and showing why the evidence in question doesn't prove guilt. Calling out inconsistencies in the argument to prove a positive assertion, in order to show that the "proof" is invalid, is not the same as proving the negative assertion.

For example, suspect is accused of a hit-and-run in Seattle. Prosecutor presents footage from security camera at defendant's employer showing left front fender undamaged when they left work at 5 PM Friday, and damaged in a manner consistent with having hit the victim when they go in to work at 9 AM Monday. Victim was hit at 7 PM Saturday. Defense attorney presents a speeding ticket issued to defendant (pulled over by police, not mailed as a result of an automated speed camera) in Miami (driving a rental car) on Saturday at 4 PM Seattle time (7 PM Miami time).

The prosecutor was trying to infer that since the defendant's car was the vehicle involved, the defendant was driving. The speeding ticket presented by the defense attorney is directed at disproving the value of any evidence related to the defendant's car being involved - even if the prosecution can prove that it was his car, the defense is showing that the link between owner and car is invalid - a (presumably) reputable person (the Miami police officer) has placed the defendant in a time/location pair from which it would have been impossible for him to have been driving his car in Seattle at the time the victim was hit.

[Nekojin]

Nekojin - you still don't get it!

Yes, I am required to pony up (unicorn up?? ;p) the proof... but you need to put in some evidence yourself! If I show you, say, a photograph, or show you some fossilised remains that seem to show a pixie, then you are required to refute somehow... BOTH sides need to provide evidence! You don't get to just say "That's not a pixie in that photo" and leave it at that... and, I'm sure you'd agree, just saying that is not evidence! (nor, would I add, would then be saying "It can't be a pixie in that photograph, because pixie's don't exist"... circular reasoning - yes??) (FTR, that's exactly what science has done in such circumstances in the past... Cottingley Fairy photos, for example

And this is where you're not getting it. You had to put up evidence first. Even your example illustrates this. Claiming that a fairy exists required that someone show evidence of one.

Your base claim of 'X does NOT exist' underpins a serious flaw in thinking - the idea of absolutes. As I expressed earlier, the claim of 'does not', as against 'has not been found' are 2 quite different statements and it would be ludicrous to suggest that not only our science, but also our knowledge of the history of even a small fraction of Earth's history can be commented on with any certainty is.... 'hokum' (FTR, that's appeal to ignorance )

No, the argument that you're using is an Appeal to Ignorance. Saying, "We don't know it exists because no proof of its lack of existence has ever been found," is the very definition of Appeal to Ignorance. Here's a page to help you with that.

I do, however, agree - if someone makes the claim of 'there are unicorns', then yes, they have a burden of proof upon them to provide the evidence. Once that evidence is provided, your turn....

Sure. But the one claiming the existence of X has to start the ball rolling.

I think you're misinterpreting, or mis-representing the place of TCM. There is no 'appeal to tradition' in this case.

Reread your previous post. "It's been used for hundreds of years, so it must be good," is, again, the very definition of an Appeal to Tradition. I'll quote it again, so that you get the connection:

GK - TCM has been around for thousands of years. I'd suggest it is 'innocent', and thus any claims to say it doesn't work then have the burden of proof to find it 'guilty' - no??

You're Appealing to Tradition, assuming that because it's been used for all this time, it must be effective, or it wouldn't be used. While that's a rational train of thought, humans aren't rational beings, and superstition is very powerful.

TCM is considered effective by those who use it, not because it's been around for a long time, but because during that long time, treatments and diagnostics were 'researched', altered, tested, changed, researched again, etc etc etc.. the idea of the meridians and points didn't just magically appear one day, and people were forced to adopt and accept it. It developed over hundreds of years - papers were written about it, theories devised (and either supported, or rejected) over that long period of time. It is, in fact, based on a 'science' (though not, before I get flamed, one that the western scientists are going to accept is methodologically sound...). There were, and are, thousands of texts to back this up (new and old).

You are, again, assuming that because the belief in TCM still exists, that people must have used these processes, when you don't actually know whether they did or not. If you actually look at the Chinese culture, you'll see that there's a tremendous value given to tradition (doing things the way we've always done them, because we've always done them that way) and authority (I'm older/more powerful than you, therefore I know more). The scientific method explicitly involves questioning authority and tradition.

TCM doesn't get a pass because it's old - you don't get to shift the burden just because it's been in use for a long time. There are thousands of examples of "medical" techniques that were in use for hundreds of years, because people believed that they worked. Leeches*, anyone? Trepanning**? The list goes on and on... Cracked has even posted an article about them.

* Note that the use of leeches is actually making a medical comeback, but not for the reasons that they were used before - the anticoagulant in leech saliva has uses in flushing a wound. Having the leech suck the blood has no medical value.
** Also still in use, but not for the many, many reasons that it once was.

[Mytical]

Here we have a classic example (in this very thread) of the "Your not listening." "No your not listening" opinion argument, in which neither side seems willing to supply proof, but put it to the other person. Which to me, at least until proven otherwise, means that there is no proof, and right now it is a matter of opinion. Doesn't matter if there IS proof, as long as both sides continue in this manner..the argument is moot. Right now it is an argument of opinion..which is as useful as waiting for the ocean to dry up.

[Gravekeeper]

Here we have a classic example (in this very thread) of the "Your not listening." "No your not listening" opinion argument, in which neither side seems willing to supply proof, but put it to the other person.

No, its not an argument of opinion. The burden of proof is not some mystical nebulous thing you can argue over the exact shape and definition of. It is clearly defined. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim: Sly.

Who is currently using logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and support his position. >.>