Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
The burden of proof - Who has it? * 1
    #24711260 -

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2106/putting%20the%20burden.pdf?sequence=1

An article that has made it's way around the net, you may have seen it.

They submit that the burden of proof (or burden of evidence) is on anybody making a claim. Not on the party making the "positive" claim or other distinction.

I like the idea. I don't like using a burden of proof claim in an argument. It's not helpful or informative.

The article distinguishes between truth finding and non-truth finding inquiry and makes the claim that in truth finding inquiry we do have an equal burden of proof for all claims. Science is an example of "truth finding" (poor word choice IMO). Something like the law is more interested in procedures, rights and punishment - not truth, and thus does not have an equal burden of proof.

The article also describes situations where we think there may be an asymmetrical burden of proof but in fact the burden of proof is equal for each side.

Personally, I can reconcile this with my belief system just fine. I deny Russell's Teapot because of evidence I have, not because it is assumed to be non-existent in lieu of evidence. I am also an atheist for the most part and I very much expect myself to be able to substantiate my belief with evidence. I don't default to it in lieu of evidence.

Give the article a read and let me know what you think about the burden of proof.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24711822 -

Screw natural selection!!! DieCommie FTW!!! :heart:


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24711881 -

Essentially differential burden of proof, allows people to say anything (non-truth-directed discourse), and if it is not contested, then it is considered true enough even if the statement were not "truth-directed"; and such statements may end up seemingly true though they may really only be intended as banter or drunk talk.

This is also functionally the basis for propaganda.

The unburdened delivery of bullshit stands as truth as long and no-one is able to counter what was said.
One may achieve this by:
a) vaguely or casually quoting dubious sources that are FaceBook, and hate propaganda), or by
b) removing the rights of others to protest (by blocking free speech - which TRUMP seems to want to achieve)

anyway I did not read the whole article but the topic is pertinent,
we do need a good way to flag when a thread is "truth-directed" and should be comfortable insisting that the presenter provide easily verifiable facts to support claims that may be contested in the pursuit of the truth of an idea.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24717042 -

Yep, also it makes for a more interesting and informative debate/discussion when all sides are supporting their claims with evidence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: falcon]
    #24717070 -

I think that if you make a claim about something, you should provide the reason/reasoning for that claim. If it is common knowledge of something that is easily searchable and verifiable then it's probably not necessary to cite everything you say. (This is if the claim is the topic of debate, and it's kinda hard to prove a negative anyways especially in an open system)

I don't think providing counter evidence to a claim should be discounted either, but that wouldn't necessarily occur until after the fact.

Edited by teknix (10/17/17 05:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: teknix]
    #24717228 -

Yeah, the burden is with anyone making a claim. But the rejection of an unsupported claim shouldn't necessarily be treated as a claim in it's own right(aside from the implicit claim that the claimant has yet to meet his/her burden of proof).

As a matter of practicality, in questions of existence, non-existence is traditionally treated as the null-hypothesis. Under the definition of atheism as any position which is not theistic, atheism is the default position.

I don't hold a belief that there is nothing in existence that could reasonably be described as a deity, but i see no good reason to believe any such thing does exist and that makes me an atheist, as i define the term. My atheism has no burden of proof.

But if we're speaking of a particular god model, yahweh for example, i'll make the claim that this god almost certainly doesn't exist and so i'll take on a burden, one which i believe i can easily meet

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Apples in Mono]
    #24717257 -

Isn't that agnosticism Apples?

Unless you conclude there isn't a god and keep an open mind to the possibility that there could be, then I don't think that is Atheism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Apples in Mono] * 1
    #24717363 -

Spinoza's god is pretty self evident in the leaves, the soil and our skin.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24718770 -

only if you poeticize in a spinozan fashion


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #24718797 -

I am God.


--------------------
As far as I assume to know...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: liquidlounge]
    #24718826 -

Yes, obviously the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

Why should you have to struggle to prove anything against an accusation? People constantly make false accusations, and when the burden of proof must be supplied by the accused it is as if the accuser has already won.

In my case, I do not mind having to prove that I am truthful over an accuser, I will gladly supply proof against any accusation, and if it is a situation where this can not be done then the reasonable doubt should be in favor of the accused not the accuser.


--------------------
I've noticed that when people are joking they're usually dead serious, and when they're serious, they're usually pretty funny.-Jim Morrison

'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.-Confucius —

When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”― John Lennon

This account as been hacked! It is still being messed with by an intruder.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Ibex-Trismegistus]
    #24718866 -

sure just say anything:
well at that point in fact you are accusing everyone else of being wrong, and you have just shot your own foot.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24720618 -

Philosophically one might say science is converting from one method which is somewhat effective to another method that is more effective and that truth has nothing to do with it from a practical perspective. This does tend to support the viewpoint of the paper but it doesn't to my mind discount the idea that the burden of proof being lopsided toward unpopular views is detrimental to something like debate... or law or science. Such methodology and expectation of discovering truth is what leads to useful results in the first place. The concept of a thing being true is what allows us to narrow down a range of action to those which hopefully produce good results most often.

The mistake that can be made is the idea that because something works better than a control it follows that the postulate is true. The key here is that truth is important only in so far as it is able to lead us to better outcomes, meaning to say it's the "search for truth" rather than truth itself that is important. A good mind can see the difference and thus avoid the bias of paradigms.

But rather than simply accepting a level of efficacy and seeking to improve it when possible we also typically jump from one belief to another, and another and another. We give up one belief only to embrace another because it requires less energy operate in this manner. Questioning such dogma regarding human nature is fine, but there is a burden there which must be accepted when facing such paradigms. Is it possible that some paradigms are impossible to move beyond? That's not for me to say but it does relate to where we wish to apply our limited time and resources, meaning to suggest there's a difference between being lazy and expedient.

Beyond that one might suggest the paper is a bit of a strawman in that it provides specific examples and then suggests that all possible examples should have an equal distribution of burden of proof. Two opposing beliefs may benefit from such a practice but when a belief is presented that doesn't make sense it's ones job to rebuff the argument, not provide evidence to support a contrasting belief.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love     truth awareness peace I am      I feel      I do     I love  I speak    I see    I know

why there is reality and patterned, law-like consistency at all, rather than noise or non-reality is not a question physics answers. It's a question physics presupposes an answer to in order to provide other answers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Rahz]
    #24721084 -

So are you saying that the social contract is a natural extension of objectivity?


--------------------
Thank you for your Time...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Rahz]
    #24721195 -

I would have thought the burden of proof is on whom ever makes a claim, be it in scientific or mystic context.

As in there is a high probability that the Sun will always rise in the East.
We believe such things as the Sun rising in the East to be true because that's how it's been as long as we've known.
However, certainty isn't the goal of inductive reasoning, it's inferring a high probability that it is true. 

So the point being, the aim of having a burden of proof would be to use reasoning to generalise repeatedly observed phenomena into a probable conclusion.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24721343 -

sudly said:
Spinoza's god is pretty self evident in the leaves, the soil and our skin.


I think you misunderstand Spinoza. His conception of God is very much at odds with viewpoints you've expressed in other threads.

The following quotations can be found on his wikipedia article.

"as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"

Spinoza's view of God actually has more in common with branches of Hinduism like Vedanta and his view of ethics is similar to stoic philosophy but many modern atheists mistakenly assume that because he equated God with nature he shared their materialist assumptions.

In other words,  Spinoza did not believe that first there was matter and then consciousness "evolved" from it through some process of natural selection as you have claimed. Instead Spinoza saw God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such. This is much closer to the Biblical view that "life was in God" from the beginning, rather than modern materialism. Organisms may change over time, becoming more complex but the life giving essence is eternal and not a product of that evolution. It's an aspect of Spinoza's God.

" According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. "

I'd argue this has far more in common with certain religious views than modern materialism. His ethics and idea of the right way to live are also very similar to points of view found in Orthodox Christianity

"Everything that has and will happen is a part of a long chain of cause and effect which, at a metaphysical level, humans are unable to change. No amount of prayer or ritual will sway God."

This is also similar to some ideas found in Buddhism and some denominations of Christianity, which teach predestination.

"Spinoza believed that the proper stance to take towards God is not one of reverence or religious awe, but instead one of objective study and reason, since taking the religious stance would leave one open to the possibility of error and superstition."

Spinoza rejected what he saw as the superstitious and overly sentimental approaches to God generally taken by religion. But he did not reject spirituality or the underlying metaphysics of all religion.

"His concept of three types of knowledge—opinion, reason, intuition—and his assertion that intuitive knowledge provides the greatest satisfaction of mind, lead to his proposition that the more we are conscious of ourselves and Nature/Universe, the more perfect and blessed we are (in reality) and that only intuitive knowledge is eternal."

As you can see, his view that the proper aim of human life is perfection and blessedness, as well as the idea that there is an aspect of our minds which is or can become eternal, are both points held in common with Christianity.


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Edited by Peyote Road (10/19/17 10:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road] * 1
    #24722851 -

Objective is the truth...so the burdeon is always on a speaker to tell the truth there of..


--------------------
Thank you for your Time...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24722952 -

Where in gods name does metaphysics in the colloquial sense come into this?

Pretty sure Spinoza said/suggested nature was in itself an eternal thing, but not necessarily that the two attributes of substance were, those being extension and thought. 
Quote:
Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. From this substance, however, follow an infinite number of attributes (the intellect perceiving an abstract concept or essence) and modes (things actually existing which follow from attributes and modes). He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"), but readers often disregard his neutral monism. During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God – which is why he was accused of atheism. For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism


Quote:
Abstract: Baruch Spinoza argues against the doctrine of free will. He argues that physical activity of our bodies is equivalent to the activity of our minds. The mind is more or less active (or contemplative) in accordance with the body's activity or sensing.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) argues for the unity of Nature and God. Since God is the same thing as Nature, in effect, the mind and the body are two aspects of the same thing. He believes that all that exists is one substance and the mental and the physical are different attributes of that substance.

Spinoza defines substance as that which exists in itself and is conceived in terms of itself. Substance, then, is the cause of itself. Spinoza assumes causality is the same thing as logical implication.

  • In proposition VII of the Ethics, Spinoza writes, “Substance cannot be produced by anything eternal, it must therefore, be its own cause—than is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence belongs to its nature. (Spinoza, Ethics, in The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza trans. R.H.M. Elwes (New York: Dover, 1955), 48.)

  • Substance is conceivable in the sense that it can be thought without contradiction.

  • To know what is thinkable-without-contradiction is also to know what exists.

  • There are an infinite number of attributes of substance; these attributes constitute the essence of substance. (Ethics, Proposition 56)

  • Even so, human beings are only aware of two attributes of substance: extension (essential to matter) and thought (essential to mind).


http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/spinoza.shtml




Quote:
FranniePilgrim said:
- We are not "One" though we are all here.
- Our thoughts do not manifest reality.

These two statements become increasingly important with the "Oneness" thing being spread all over.

"Oneness" is the grossest, most twisted and pathetic implementation of egoistic concerns to ever "bless" this planet.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: sudly]
    #24723065 -

I don't know what you mean by metphysics in the colloquial, my point is that Spinoza's philosophy was vastly different from the point of view of folks like Richard Dawkins and yourself.

Quote:
Pretty sure Spinoza said/suggested nature was in itself an eternal thing, but not necessarily that the two attributes of substance were, those being extension and thought


I already refuted this point of view:

"as to the view of certain people that I identify God with Nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken"

Why would Spinoza say that if he was a materialist? In Spinoza's view thought and extension are attributes of nature. In other words our mind is not something that evolved from dead matter by chance through a process of random mutation, but is an attribute of nature itself. Mind and matter are just modes of his one substance.

How could Spinoza say that intuitive knowledge is eternal if this were not the case? How can any kind of knowledge be eternal from your point of view?


--------------------
The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The burden of proof - Who has it? [Re: Peyote Road]
    #24723108 -

The view that nature just is, and that we are a part of, and not from it?

And in that same wiki page it says,
Quote:
He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"), but readers often disregard his neutral monism (This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things). During his time, this statement was seen as literally equating the existing world with God – which is why he was accused of atheism. For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).


Here it seems to differ in saying Spinoza sees nature as god, and vice versa.
So then if extension and thought are attributes of nature, how do you conclude the mind is not? Again you have nothing to attribute to the origin of mind, and if it's not evolution then what is it? Because if it's god, then in a Spinozan sense it's nature, and evolution is a part of that.

Knowledge isn't eternal though it can be passed on through the generations, I would suggest you go sit in a graveyard for a while and ponder your views a bit. I'll be walking through one later on today.

I will digress though, I like the idea behind Spinoza's god, as do I like the idea behind Darwin's origin of species, however these ideas have been worked upon in the coming centuries and my agreements are not exact with the originals because there is more to it than that.

As for intuitive knowledge I think some may be held within DNA itself, for the requirement of sustenance and the necessity of reproduction for the longevity of a species.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Edited by sudly (10/19/17 10:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Burden of Proof
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Sclorch 8,171 81 01/16/03 07:22 PM
by Sclorch
* Burden of Proof OrgoneConclusion 846 13 03/05/08 10:59 PM
by backfromthedead
* I want proof..
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Walter1496211 5,595 97 10/19/07 01:26 PM
by Icelander
* Scientific Proof of God daimyo 2,776 18 03/11/06 06:01 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* aliens don't exist, I have proof
( 1 2 3 all )		 chodamunky 12,756 58 09/26/02 06:53 AM
by In(di)go
* Fade Proof and Resistant chodamunky 659 6 03/26/03 09:30 PM
by Sclorch
* Finally! Proof of Gods Existence!!
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Mad_Buhdda_Abuser 8,274 87 03/03/10 06:27 PM
by Evolution
* Love Truth and Collapsing Structure gettinjiggywithit 1,208 7 03/15/05 01:18 PM
by gettinjiggywithit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,535 topic views. 1 members, 76 guests and 30 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.