• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Burden of Proof question.

Thurlor

Nutter
Local time
Tomorrow 12:01 AM
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
598
-->
Location
Victoria, Australia
Who has the BoP in regards to claiming some action is good for your health?

My understanding is that it would be the one making the claim.

Would an Appeal to Authority or an Appeal to Consensus constitute proof?
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:01 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,449
-->
Appeal to authority isn't fallacious when the authority in question is their academic credentials in the relevant field of study. I'm not saying doctors are infallible, far from it, but if the consensus among them is that something is good or bad for your heath they're far more likely to be right than anyone else.
 

washti

yo vengo para lo mío
Local time
Today 2:01 PM
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
788
-->
Burden is on combined continous resarch results from many labs over time. Not people. They are just carriers.
 

BurnedOut

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 6:31 PM
Joined
Apr 19, 2016
Messages
852
-->
Would an Appeal to Authority or an Appeal to Consensus constitute proof?
We regularly use them in providing some worth to our arguments. I suppose if the authority or consensus are well known enough, one is forced to actually use such a thing. Also, the sample size of the consensus and the authority's claims should be memorized quite well, not forgetting that ambiguity is more likely the result of large scale experiments rather than some concrete claim.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
When it comes to research if no authority exists no debate can be had. Go to the field you must have the basics. If you debate Plato it's not uncommon to go to an authority on Plato to give "context". You don't start as a blank slate.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
Who has the BoP in regards to claiming some action is good for your health?
BOP is a principle in a legal trial. The BOP is on the prosecution. If the prosecution can't make their case, the person walks free.

But if you are asking about your health, viruses don't care who has the BOP. So if the other person has the BOP and cannot prove their claim, or you have the BOP and cannot prove your claim, or the other person has the BOP and proves their claim, or you have the BOP and prove your claim, then:

the virus will do the same thing anyway.

Either way, the BOP doesn't protect you from anything.

Would an Appeal to Authority or an Appeal to Consensus constitute proof?
If Fauci says the vaccinated will instantly become trillionaires with a harem of 72 hot virgins as soon as they get the vaccine, do you think that will happen?

If a million people say the vaccinated will all become trillionaires with a harem of 72 hot virgins as soon as they get the vaccine, do you think that will happen?
 

byhisello99

Member
Local time
Today 7:01 AM
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
73
-->
Who has the BoP in regards to claiming some action is good for your health?

My understanding is that it would be the one making the claim.

Would an Appeal to Authority or an Appeal to Consensus constitute proof?
Einstein was asked what he thought about a letter signed by 80 leading physicists disputing his Theory of Relativity. He is supposed to have replied, "If I had been wrong, one would have been enough."
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today 2:01 AM
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
9,449
-->
If Fauci says the vaccinated will instantly become trillionaires with a harem of 72 hot virgins as soon as they get the vaccine, do you think that will happen?

If a million people say the vaccinated will all become trillionaires with a harem of 72 hot virgins as soon as they get the vaccine, do you think that will happen?
Probably not but I'd get vaccinated again just to be sure :D
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,030
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Health is multi dimensional concept.

Even walking backwards could be argued to be healthy for some people, and the burden of proof would be on those who find backwards walking wrong on your part.

Unless of course you choose to walk backwards for bad reasons, but even then you would start walking frontway would you?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
@scorpiomover
It's not just a legal term, it's a philosophical one. I agree the virus doesn't care though.

I loosely agree with Cog regarding appeals to authority. It is a fallacy in the formal logic sense - it does not constitute a valid deductive argument form. But most of the time people think that just means it's bad to appeal to authority altogether because experts can be wrong. But the claim is never that experts are always right, but that experts are more likely right than non-experts.
I appeal to experts for most of my beliefs. The level of commitment required to have an opinion comparable to experts is extremely high.

I agree with Scorpiomover - the virus doesn't care. It's not an academic question. People would probably be a lot more chill about who takes the vaccine and who doesn't if there wasn't a sense that all our fates are tied together one way or the other.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
@scorpiomover
It's not just a legal term, it's a philosophical one.
Then it's a term for sh*tty philosophers, as it doesn't prove anything.

If you have the burden of proof for heliocentrism, but you are a moron, then I can claim heliocentrism is false.

I agree the virus doesn't care though.
Which is the point, that it doesn't change reality.

I loosely agree with Cog regarding appeals to authority. It is a fallacy in the formal logic sense - it does not constitute a valid deductive argument form. But most of the time people think that just means it's bad to appeal to authority altogether because experts can be wrong. But the claim is never that experts are always right, but that experts are more likely right than non-experts.
If you KNOW someone is usually far more likely to be right about something than you, then it certainly makes sense to be willing to trust their view about yours.

I had that experience with my driving instructor regarding driving. He'd say something about driving. I'd say that it contradicted the laws of physics. He'd say that he doesn't know anything about physics, but knows it is true. (Almost every time, he was right.

I have also had that experience many times with a certain friend, on most things. I'd trust her judgement over my own, on most things.

But she's not an expert or an authority. I know many experts/authorities who turned out to be dead wrong on many things.

For instance, I've had a lot of problems with doctors dismissing severe symptoms of friends and family and not taking them seriously enough.

Authority isn't a magic formula. I find that I have to judge it on a case-by-case and person-by-person basis.

I appeal to experts for most of my beliefs. The level of commitment required to have an opinion comparable to experts is extremely high.
Depends on what you consider someone who is an "expert". If they're an expert that is that reliable, then if you walk in with a perfect proof that it is, you are always proved wrong, no matter what it is. That's Feynman level.

I agree with Scorpiomover - the virus doesn't care. It's not an academic question. People would probably be a lot more chill about who takes the vaccine and who doesn't if there wasn't a sense that all our fates are tied together one way or the other.
Our fates are tied together, to some extent. We're on the same planet.

However, that also means that if you interpret the data incorrectly, what you do will also affect everyone else.

So if you've read the data right, and you believe that the vaccine is your best hope for humanity's survival, then you're doing the right thing for humanity.

But if you've read the data wrong, and you believe that the vaccine is your best hope for humanity's survival, then the opposite is true and then you're making humanity worse, and more unable to survive.

GIGO => Garbage In, Garbage Out.

So it's very important to make sure of what you can be sure about, and to make sure of what you are NOT sure about, and not to mix the two, which is what logic is all about.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today 10:31 PM
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,812
-->
BoP in philosophy is more about arguing over who has it as a way of resolving conflicting positions.

For example, if you make an extraordinary claim you require extraordinary evidence. This is a neat way of defaulting to a gentle dismissal of spooky conclusions until there's reason to believe them. This works for religious claims, conspiracy claims, supernatural claims, and especially scientific claims. Some of these claims might be correct, but until there's evidence for them then for most intents and purposes it's better to assume them wrong. This shifts the burden of proof onto the claim-maker. "Proof: is somewhat of a misnomer here, it's probably better to say "burden of evidence".

Agree authority isn't equal.

What do you call a doctor who graduated bottom of their class?

Doctor

Generally I don't rely on individual experts, rather, I'll copy-paste the conclusion from the most recent metastudy I can find.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
BoP in philosophy is more about arguing over who has it as a way of resolving conflicting positions.
Which conflicting positions have been resolved in philosophy? Did the BoP decide between Bentham's consequentialism and Kant's deontology?

The impression I get of philosophers, is that they continue to leave these questions open. So there is no resolution.

Moreover, the BoP is useless until everyone agrees who has the burden of proof, which means everyone is already moving past the conflict onto agreement.

For example, if you make an extraordinary claim you require extraordinary evidence. This is a neat way of defaulting to a gentle dismissal of spooky conclusions until there's reason to believe them. This works for religious claims, conspiracy claims, supernatural claims, and especially scientific claims.
But if the other person says "it's not extraordinary", then you have the BoP to prove that the claim is extraordinary. Until your opponent agrees that his claim is extraordinary, there's no need for extraordinary evidence.

Some of these claims might be correct, but until there's evidence for them then for most intents and purposes it's better to assume them wrong. This shifts the burden of proof onto the claim-maker. "Proof: is somewhat of a misnomer here, it's probably better to say "burden of evidence".
The "burden" here doesn't prove anything, because it relies upon the agreement of the other person, to agree that the burden is on him, and/or that the claim is extraordinary, and to also agree that his evidence is not extraordinary.

The BoP is a device of rhetoric that would justify why each person is entitled to not change their views until they are given evidence that would be acceptable to them.

That would be perfectly acceptable to me, except that's not how it is used at all.

If the other person accepts that the evidence is valid proof, then they've changed their position. The BoP is totally unnecessary.

If the other person says that the evidence is not valid proof, then they don't think there's valid evidence to change their position.The BoP is totally unnecessary.

The BoP is only useful when the other person says that the evidence is not valid proof, and thus they don't need to agree with you, and you say that the BoP is still on them, so they have to prove you are wrong, or must accept your arguments, even though they still think that your arguments are not sufficient evidence.

It thus tends to be used to persuade people to accept conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence.

Agree authority isn't equal.

What do you call a doctor who graduated bottom of their class?

Doctor
What do you call Dr. Josef Mengele?

Doctor

Titles are often meaningless.

I learned that when I was in university. The resident expert in statistics was called "Mr", not "Dr" or "Prof", and that was what was on his door, because he didn't have a doctorate.

But he was employed as a senior lecturer at the university, because he was still far, far better at statistics than all of the rest of the faculty who were all doctors and professors.

Likewise, you'd rather take the word of an EMT than someone who graduated from medical school 40 years ago and never practised medicine since then.

So just because someone isn't called "Dr", doesn't mean he knows nearly as much as someone who isn't.

Generally I don't rely on individual experts, rather, I'll copy-paste the conclusion from the most recent metastudy I can find.
I like to read about new discoveries more than old ones, because I already have a lot of knowledge about older discoveries, but not nearly as much knowledge about new ones.

But when evaluating what is true, I prefer to look at ALL the data.

Some of the most reliable information that we have, comes from hundreds of years ago, and some, thousands of years ago.

Some of the more recent studies have not had the time to be properly reviewed yet. Some of it is really poor quality, and is so bad that you wonder how it was every allowed to be published in the first place.

The things that we still believe from thousands of years ago, has had thousands of years to be peer-reviewed.

So in science, the older something is that has not been rejected yet, the stronger the proofs that are behind it.

That's evolution as applied to science.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
The "burden" here doesn't prove anything, because it relies upon the agreement of the other person, to agree that the burden is on him, and/or that the claim is extraordinary, and to also agree that his evidence is not extraordinary.

I am not required to accept what you say: the essence of the burden of proof.

you say elves live on the moon in a secret bunker. well, I don't have to accept that.

you said something is true then you must prove it not me, you can't make me prove your claim, and otherwise is mind control/coercion.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
plenty of evidence for medical stuff
I made the claim I supply the evidence
the burden is mine

the sad reality is that giving the evidence does not mean it will be automatically accepted.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
The "burden" here doesn't prove anything, because it relies upon the agreement of the other person, to agree that the burden is on him, and/or that the claim is extraordinary, and to also agree that his evidence is not extraordinary.

I am not required to accept what you say: the essence of the burden of proof.

you say elves live on the moon in a secret bunker. well, I don't have to accept that.
If the burden of proof is on you, do you have to accept that elves live on the Moon?


you said something is true then you must prove it not me, you can't make me prove your claim, and otherwise is mind control/coercion.
But you have the burden of proof. The BOP says you must accept what I say, and do what I say, no matter what.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
But you have the burden of proof. The BOP says you must accept what I say, and do what I say, no matter what.

You are wrong. The BoP is opposite to this. If a claim is made it is on the claim maker to convince others that the claim is true. The claim that elves live on the moon is a claim. The BoP is on the claim maker to convince others the claim is true.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
But you have the burden of proof. The BOP says you must accept what I say, and do what I say, no matter what.

If a claim is made it is on the claim maker to convince others that the claim is true. The claim that elves live on the moon is a claim. The BoP is on the claim maker to convince others the claim is true.
Not if you have the burden of proof.

E.G. if you claim that the Earth orbits the Sun, and I claim the Sun orbits the Earth, then in the time of Ptolemy and Aristotle, you have the BOP. In the time of Newton, I have the BOP.

Who has the BOP again? Depends on where the claim is being made, when the claim is being made and who is listening to the claim being made.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
The problem of alternative facts is that both people make claims. so BoP is null and void. Fake news can be both mainstream AND conspiratorial nutjobs.

#ThePostmodernAge

#Truth_does_not_exist

#KenWilberStages
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
2,090
-->
The problem of alternative facts is that both people make claims. so BoP is null and void.
You're making a claim. You said that means you have the BOP. Prove it or accept that your claim is false.

Fake news can be both mainstream AND conspiratorial nutjobs.
You're making a claim. You said that means you have the BOP. Prove it or accept that your claim is false.

#ThePostmodernAge

#Truth_does_not_exist

#KenWilberStages
You claim that there is a BOP. Thus the Burden of Proof is on you. Prove it or accept that the BOP doesn't exist.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today 6:01 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,543
-->
Location
crib
why don’t we trust science any more? | DW Documentary

 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,030
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Who has the BoP in regards to claiming some action is good for your health?

My understanding is that it would be the one making the claim.

Would an Appeal to Authority or an Appeal to Consensus constitute proof?
Statistically you can always tell.

If you have enough many data points eventually the proof is in data.

Eventually people get healthy and better and that is the right way for majority from statistics. The few who stick out from data or not included in data don't count.

However if something is proven to be right its right.

Trouble is when I went to the doctor with runny nose she told me to not come in and just drink tea.

I refused that as option told her to write me up as I could not at the time handle food with runny nose.

Turns out I was correct. I felt much worse later and was sick for much longer.

It was definitely not a runny nose. IT was MUCH worse. Tea with honey and lemon was not the solution to this.

Trouble is for many patients it could very easily be the solution.
Ergo maybe out of 100 people 99 would do well with tea and bit of rest.

Trouble in medicine is not all situations work of off formula for all people.

The health experts are not just experts because they know when to prescribe tea, but also when its not enough.

Even my grandmother would tell me what the doctor said. However most people don't like doctors who act like grandmothers. It feels like they aren't doing their job doing anything spectacular.

In health lots of things can seem similar or identical. Lots of patients also seem to complain the same way about same problems.

Lots of people also tend to say the same stereotypical things like wanting prescriptions from TV to help them when doctors can solve problems.

Unfortunately health is health. No matter what the patient does or doctor does you only get better if you get better.

The bottom line is BoP for vaccine for example is in the numbers.
But some vaccines have already proven to be bad and health risk.
Doctors and experts did not know this.
They had to learn on patients who had to suffer the consequences.

Unfortunately health also depends on what one calls healthy.
A dentist might tell you that you have good teeth and if you go to another dentist he will tell you that he needs to fix your teeth that you have cavities.

Both are good dentist and had same information.
Its just one of them already knows enough to fix something.
The other does not.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today 1:01 PM
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,030
-->
Location
Between concrete walls
Also experts are always right and can handle BoP easily.
Whereas patients even if they are right have 0 expertieze.
So if people demand experts to prove that now recalled vaccines are dangerous to health the expert would always no question prove to the patient that he she is safe with the vaccine.
Its only after the vaccine gets recalled because enough people get enough symptoms that experts have new information.

So its perfectly feasible that after few decades pfizer people will start cropping up with side effects due to vaccine.
But no person who is not expert can ever prove anything no matter how hard they try.
A doctor would sell you anything and you would have to take it as medicine no matter how much you know, because every doctor knows simply much more than you will ever do.
 
Top Bottom