Comments on: How to Think Critically IV http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: thinker http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-59867 thinker Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:39:17 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-59867 Ebonmuse's two points remain intact: The only propositions to which we should give our assent are those that are falsifiable and for which the burden of proof has been met." But several posts dance around an issue that should be explained more: How MUCH proof satisfies the burden? In criminal law = beyond a resonable doubt. In much civil law = the lighter standard of preponderance of evidence (51%). In the court of public opinion, whether someone feels the burden has been met depends on whether they used the critical-thinking skills explained in these posts, especially #1, which I paraphrase as: When an issue is in dispute, and the outcome of following an alternative has a [reasonable] likelihood of causing a [significant] harmful consequence, then the burden of proof should be higher. Ebonmuse's two points remain intact: The only propositions to which we should give our assent are those that are falsifiable and for which the burden of proof has been met." But several posts dance around an issue that should be explained more: How MUCH proof satisfies the burden? In criminal law = beyond a resonable doubt. In much civil law = the lighter standard of preponderance of evidence (51%). In the court of public opinion, whether someone feels the burden has been met depends on whether they used the critical-thinking skills explained in these posts, especially #1, which I paraphrase as: When an issue is in dispute, and the outcome of following an alternative has a [reasonable] likelihood of causing a [significant] harmful consequence, then the burden of proof should be higher.

]]> By: Steve Bowen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47660 Steve Bowen Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:40:44 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47660 Andrew <blockquote>I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY.</blockquote> On the face of it, this <i>seems</i> reasonable; but it is just flat wrong. For example say you walk into my office and I say “Sorry, there’s nowhere to sit”. You can see a chair so say, “Yes there is”. You have made the positive claim and the burden of proof is on you. This is not a problem though because you have the chair and can further empirically prove your case by sitting on it. On the other hand, you and I walk into a Church. I say, “Sorry Andrew but there is no god here”. You say “Yes there is, He’s all around us”. You again have the burden of proof. I await the empirical evidence… Andrew
I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY.

On the face of it, this seems reasonable; but it is just flat wrong. For example say you walk into my office and I say “Sorry, there’s nowhere to sit”. You can see a chair so say, “Yes there is”. You have made the positive claim and the burden of proof is on you. This is not a problem though because you have the chair and can further empirically prove your case by sitting on it. On the other hand, you and I walk into a Church. I say, “Sorry Andrew but there is no god here”. You say “Yes there is, He’s all around us”. You again have the burden of proof. I await the empirical evidence…

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47640 OMGF Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:39:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47640 Andrew, Thinking about this more, I think I understand where the problem lies for you with the police example I put forth. Suppose that the judge also thinks you are guilty, or the jury members. You would go to jail unless you could prove your innocence, regardless of what the prosecutor says or does. Yet, this is not how our justice system works, is it? Andrew,
Thinking about this more, I think I understand where the problem lies for you with the police example I put forth. Suppose that the judge also thinks you are guilty, or the jury members. You would go to jail unless you could prove your innocence, regardless of what the prosecutor says or does. Yet, this is not how our justice system works, is it?

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47638 OMGF Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:21:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47638 There are well-known cases where people have been arrested falsely for very serious crimes, such as murder and rape. The police might have a reason, but luckily for us, we understand that the state owns the burden of proof. Your way of thinking leads us to have to accept that leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, and anything else that anyone can conjure up are acceptable beliefs unless we can disprove them. And, how does one disprove gods or other ideas that are completely beyond falsifiable? Sorry, but you are simply wrong, because rationality would not work under your scheme. You are also wrong about how the justice system works, and we are all better off for it. You don't have to convince the jury you are innocent, the prosecution has to convince the jury that you are guilty, because they are making the positive claim. There are well-known cases where people have been arrested falsely for very serious crimes, such as murder and rape. The police might have a reason, but luckily for us, we understand that the state owns the burden of proof. Your way of thinking leads us to have to accept that leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, and anything else that anyone can conjure up are acceptable beliefs unless we can disprove them. And, how does one disprove gods or other ideas that are completely beyond falsifiable? Sorry, but you are simply wrong, because rationality would not work under your scheme.

You are also wrong about how the justice system works, and we are all better off for it. You don't have to convince the jury you are innocent, the prosecution has to convince the jury that you are guilty, because they are making the positive claim.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47630 Andrew Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:49:45 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47630 <i>Yes, how would one convince another that unicorns don't exist? How would you convince a Muslim that Allah doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (that unicorns exist, that Allah exists, etc.)</i> That doesnt answer my question. <i>Let's try a different example. The police come to your door and say that you are guilty of murder. You wish to convince them that they are wrong and you have committed no murder. Is the burden of proof on you to do so? </i> Yes, if they are arresting me, they must have some reason for thinking I did it. Or do you think police arrest people at random? <i>they are justified in believing that you are guilty until you prove otherwise).</i> And they would be. Again if they arrested me, they must have some reason for thinking I'm guilty. It's my job to show them wrong. Particularly in high profile cases such as murder, the police will almost never arrest a suspect until they are certain they can prove it in court. Actually, its not even my job to convince the police, I have to convince the Jury, who(in theory at least) know nothing about the case and have no vested interest in the outcome of the trial. Yes, how would one convince another that unicorns don't exist? How would you convince a Muslim that Allah doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (that unicorns exist, that Allah exists, etc.)

That doesnt answer my question.

Let's try a different example. The police come to your door and say that you are guilty of murder. You wish to convince them that they are wrong and you have committed no murder. Is the burden of proof on you to do so?

Yes, if they are arresting me, they must have some reason for thinking I did it. Or do you think police arrest people at random?

they are justified in believing that you are guilty until you prove otherwise).

And they would be. Again if they arrested me, they must have some reason for thinking I'm guilty. It's my job to show them wrong. Particularly in high profile cases such as murder, the police will almost never arrest a suspect until they are certain they can prove it in court.

Actually, its not even my job to convince the police, I have to convince the Jury, who(in theory at least) know nothing about the case and have no vested interest in the outcome of the trial.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47627 OMGF Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:26:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47627 Andrew, Yes, how would one convince another that unicorns don't exist? How would you convince a Muslim that Allah doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (that unicorns exist, that Allah exists, etc.) Let's try a different example. The police come to your door and say that you are guilty of murder. You wish to convince them that they are wrong and you have committed no murder. Is the burden of proof on you to do so? According to what you've written you'd be guilty until proven innocent (or at least, they are justified in believing that you are guilty until you prove otherwise). This is why logic, rationality, and our justice system don't work this way. Andrew,
Yes, how would one convince another that unicorns don't exist? How would you convince a Muslim that Allah doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim (that unicorns exist, that Allah exists, etc.)

Let's try a different example. The police come to your door and say that you are guilty of murder. You wish to convince them that they are wrong and you have committed no murder. Is the burden of proof on you to do so? According to what you've written you'd be guilty until proven innocent (or at least, they are justified in believing that you are guilty until you prove otherwise). This is why logic, rationality, and our justice system don't work this way.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47625 Andrew Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:44:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47625 Yes, although I would imagine most people probably wouldnt care if somebody else believes in unicorns at all. Let me ask you this: How else would convince somebody unicorns dont exist? Or for a more mundane example, that the US wasnt involved in 9/11? Yes, although I would imagine most people probably wouldnt care if somebody else believes in unicorns at all.

Let me ask you this: How else would convince somebody unicorns dont exist? Or for a more mundane example, that the US wasnt involved in 9/11?

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47622 OMGF Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:12:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47622 <blockquote>I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY.</blockquote> So, if you tell me that unicorns exist and I decide to try and convince you otherwise, the burden of proof is on me? And, it's perfectly rational for you to continue to believe in unicorns until I can disprove them? Really?

I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY.

So, if you tell me that unicorns exist and I decide to try and convince you otherwise, the burden of proof is on me? And, it's perfectly rational for you to continue to believe in unicorns until I can disprove them? Really?

]]> By: Andrew http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47614 Andrew Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:22:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-47614 I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY. An athiest who couldnt care less what other people believe has no burdon of proof, the person trying to convert him does. However an athiest who trys to 'de-convert' people(yes, it happens I'v personally seen it), had BETTER show some proof, at least if he wants to succeed I have to disagree here: the burdon of proof isnt on the 'positive' claim, but on THE PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY. An athiest who couldnt care less what other people believe has no burdon of proof, the person trying to convert him does. However an athiest who trys to 'de-convert' people(yes, it happens I'v personally seen it), had BETTER show some proof, at least if he wants to succeed

]]> By: Tomas S http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29289 Tomas S Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:29:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29289 Yes, it's a completely defective analogy. A sighted person could take two disks differing only by color and hand them both to a blind man. The blind man could then ask another sighted person which one is blue. Even if a blind person can't visualise color (who knows), he can very easily believe it exists since he can witness sighted people using color to affect things which he can check empiricaly. I have no idea what it's like to be a dog on a scent trail, but I can be sure they exist. I am familiar with the idea that being born again is like receiving a new spiritual sense (believing is seeing), having believed it myself. What good is it, though, if this sense doesn't let you know anything remotly verifiable, and how can a person possibly know that Satan didn't create the world and Jesus is the Father of Lies? Yes, it's a completely defective analogy.

A sighted person could take two disks differing only by color and hand them both to a blind man. The blind man could then ask another sighted person which one is blue. Even if a blind person can't visualise color (who knows), he can very easily believe it exists since he can witness sighted people using color to affect things which he can check empiricaly.

I have no idea what it's like to be a dog on a scent trail, but I can be sure they exist.

I am familiar with the idea that being born again is like receiving a new spiritual sense (believing is seeing), having believed it myself. What good is it, though, if this sense doesn't let you know anything remotly verifiable, and how can a person possibly know that Satan didn't create the world and Jesus is the Father of Lies?

]]> By: Jim Baerg http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29287 Jim Baerg Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:01:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29287 <blockquote>I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.</blockquote> A blind person can talk to people who claim to have this sense that he doesn't. He can set things up a certain way in a room, then bring them in & ask them to say where those things are without feeling around. In this way he can confirm that they have some way of sensing things that really exist that he does not. He can confirm the existence of some of the things sighted people talk about by the use of the senses he does have. Humans have determined the existence of radiation we cannot see directly by their effects on things we can detect with the senses we have. Read about the discoveries of X-rays, radio, neutrinos etc. The blind person can in principle build instruments to detect light & eventually determine that what sighted people call red & blue correspond to types of light that his instruments can distinguish. I think your analogy between the non-Christian & the blind man is defective.

I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.

A blind person can talk to people who claim to have this sense that he doesn't. He can set things up a certain way in a room, then bring them in & ask them to say where those things are without feeling around. In this way he can confirm that they have some way of sensing things that really exist that he does not. He can confirm the existence of some of the things sighted people talk about by the use of the senses he does have.

Humans have determined the existence of radiation we cannot see directly by their effects on things we can detect with the senses we have. Read about the discoveries of X-rays, radio, neutrinos etc.

The blind person can in principle build instruments to detect light & eventually determine that what sighted people call red & blue correspond to types of light that his instruments can distinguish.

I think your analogy between the non-Christian & the blind man is defective.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29267 OMGF Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:48:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/how-to-think-critically-iv.html#comment-29267 talamini, <blockquote>Here's my position, which I think is true Christian doctrine: The truth about God is obscured. It's covered up, and can't be seen by empirical evidence. To people who have faith, it gets uncovered (this 'uncovering' is the greek word 'apocalypse'). This faith is faith in Jesus - But the uncovering uncovers all sorts of other spiritual truths - So it's not like the uncovering is useless because it only uncovers what you already believe through your faith.</blockquote> The obvious question here is: what about former Xians? Certainly, those who have had faith in Jesus would have had all this revealed, so how do you explain those who leave their faith behind? <blockquote>I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.</blockquote> If you wish to assert that god exists, the burden of proof <b>is</b> on you to back it up, especially if you wish for anyone else to take you seriously. Otherwise, we should all believe in every god that has ever been posited. <blockquote>My position is utterly unscientific, since it posits an essential epistemological difference between Christians and non-Christians.</blockquote> If this difference is at all measureable, then it is something that can be scientifically investigated. Unfortunately for you, no study has ever revealed such a difference. </blockquote>Of course, in making such a claim, I find the burden of proof is on me: To prove this claim, I would have to show that there exists such a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. However, this is an interesting kind of claim, because part of the claim is that I cannot under any circumstances prove it to you.</blockquote> Ah, but we do have ex-Xians here (myself included) who can be used to verify your claim that Xians who have faith in god are somehow different and able to see the truth of god. Owing to the high numbers of atheists on this board who are former Xians who have said (in other threads) that there is no difference and there is no truth to god, I find your claims sorely lacking both in evidence and in credibility. Further, if you can't prove this claim to us, then you'll understand when we don't believe your claim has any validity. I do wonder what proof you think that you have that you are correct. Personal experience perhaps? How can you prove that this was actual contact with god? talamini,

Here's my position, which I think is true Christian doctrine: The truth about God is obscured. It's covered up, and can't be seen by empirical evidence. To people who have faith, it gets uncovered (this 'uncovering' is the greek word 'apocalypse'). This faith is faith in Jesus - But the uncovering uncovers all sorts of other spiritual truths - So it's not like the uncovering is useless because it only uncovers what you already believe through your faith.

The obvious question here is: what about former Xians? Certainly, those who have had faith in Jesus would have had all this revealed, so how do you explain those who leave their faith behind?

I can say it's like you're a person who's been blind from birth, and you're telling me that there's no such thing as the color red, or telling me that the burden of proof is on me to prove the existence of the color blue.

If you wish to assert that god exists, the burden of proof is on you to back it up, especially if you wish for anyone else to take you seriously. Otherwise, we should all believe in every god that has ever been posited.

My position is utterly unscientific, since it posits an essential epistemological difference between Christians and non-Christians.

If this difference is at all measureable, then it is something that can be scientifically investigated. Unfortunately for you, no study has ever revealed such a difference.
Of course, in making such a claim, I find the burden of proof is on me: To prove this claim, I would have to show that there exists such a difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. However, this is an interesting kind of claim, because part of the claim is that I cannot under any circumstances prove it to you.
Ah, but we do have ex-Xians here (myself included) who can be used to verify your claim that Xians who have faith in god are somehow different and able to see the truth of god. Owing to the high numbers of atheists on this board who are former Xians who have said (in other threads) that there is no difference and there is no truth to god, I find your claims sorely lacking both in evidence and in credibility. Further, if you can't prove this claim to us, then you'll understand when we don't believe your claim has any validity. I do wonder what proof you think that you have that you are correct. Personal experience perhaps? How can you prove that this was actual contact with god?

]]>