The Burden of Proof

[Vidi]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

For example: If you claim the sky is green, then its up to you to post a picture of a green sky.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things are not and people do not behave the way you say they are simply because you say so. Proof of your argument is required. Either through critical thinking or through the presentation of data.

Critical thinking is a type of thinking that questions assumptions

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hjmick]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

 

[onecut39]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

For example: If you claim the sky is green, then its up to you to post a picture of a green sky.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things are not and people do not behave the way you say they are simply because you say so. Proof of your argument is required. Either through critical thinking or through the presentation of data.

Critical thinking is a type of thinking that questions assumptions

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fortunately a political campaign is not a debate. You aren't really talking about debates, are you?

 

[saveliberty]

Doesn't seem to matter, the left usually just dismisses the source and counters with a liberal blog.

 

[auditor0007]

Doesn't seem to matter, the left usually just dismisses the source and counters with a liberal blog.

And that doesn't happen from those on the right? Edited.

 

[Vidi]

Doesn't seem to matter, the left usually just dismisses the source and counters with a liberal blog.

Ill dismiss the Blaze as quick as youll dismiss Huffington post. But you give me facts and figures and Ill debate them with you and respect you for at least attempting.

This new forum is a chance for us to reset the way we deal with each other. Ill play nice if you will.

Deal?

 

[Vidi]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

For example: If you claim the sky is green, then its up to you to post a picture of a green sky.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things are not and people do not behave the way you say they are simply because you say so. Proof of your argument is required. Either through critical thinking or through the presentation of data.

Critical thinking is a type of thinking that questions assumptions

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fortunately a political campaign is not a debate. You aren't really talking about debates, are you?

Im talking about how we make our arguments here in the Clean DEBATE forum. But youre just kinda splitting hairs arent you?

 

[Vidi]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

Perfect example.

This is a remark that has nothing to do with the original post, does not clarify its relation with either critcal thought, explaination or a link to data backing up the assertion.

 

[AquaAthena]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

Harry Reid did not make public his allegations, with any intention of shutting up. He and his party are interested in one thing, at any cost, and that is WINNING an election, by appealing to the uninfomed, the ignorant, and minorities, women and swing voters, of whom the latter are just as sick of politics as I am.

People are tired of ducking the mud....

 

[hjmick]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

Perfect example.

This is a remark that has nothing to do with the original post, does not clarify its relation with either critcal thought, explaination or a link to data backing up the assertion.

I believe you stated:

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

My reply was an example of someone who made a claim, yet provided no proof to it's validity.

 

[Vidi]

So Harry Reid should put up or shut up...

Perfect example.

This is a remark that has nothing to do with the original post, does not clarify its relation with either critcal thought, explaination or a link to data backing up the assertion.

I believe you stated:

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

My reply was an example of someone who made a claim, yet provided no proof to it's validity.

See? NOW youve made a valid argument. You needed to put that explaination into the original post in order to validate it.

The only thing I would add ( not required of course ) would be a link to an article about the accusation that Reid made, for those who may be unfamiliar with the story.

 

[Billo_Really]

Although Si Modo posted a wondeful post about debate which was made sticky, there seems to be some confusion here about something important. That something is called Burden of Proof.

If one were to make a certain claim, then it is up to that person to provide some sort of proof as to that claims validity.

For example: If you claim the sky is green, then its up to you to post a picture of a green sky.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things are not and people do not behave the way you say they are simply because you say so. Proof of your argument is required. Either through critical thinking or through the presentation of data.

Critical thinking is a type of thinking that questions assumptions

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're absolutely right. A person making a claim, is obligated to provide a corroborative citation to indicate the validity of the claim.

The problem arises from people who object to the initial claim, without providing any evidence to the contrary. In a formal debate (or in a court of law), once the initial claim is stated and a citation is provided, the burden of proof shifts to the objector of that claim, who must provide corroborative evidence to the contrary, in order to indicate their objection is not frivolous and has merit.

Many people fail at the latter.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's pretty simple:
Conservative: Obama's policies have cost jobs and recovery.
Lib: Prove it.
Conservative: Here are 2 articles
Lib: Fox? Rly? You can't trust them. WSJ? Rly? You can't trust them.
COnservative: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Lib: Sure. He's a link to the WhiteHouse.gov site that explains everything.

Bump head smiley.

 

[Vidi]

And seen from the other side of the aisle


Liberal: Obama's policies have created 4.5 jobs and begun the recovery.
Conservative: Prove it.
Liberal: Here are 2 articles
Conservative: HuffPo? Rly? You can't trust them. NYT? Rly? You can't trust them.
Liberal: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Conservative: ....

 

[Billo_Really]

And seen from the other side of the aisle


Liberal: Obama's policies have created 4.5 jobs and begun the recovery.
Conservative: Prove it.
Liberal: Here are 2 articles
Conservative: HuffPo? Rly? You can't trust them. NYT? Rly? You can't trust them.
Liberal: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Conservative: ....

This is exactly what I was getting at. The truth or falsehood of an assertion, is not based soley on the website from which it came.

You would need to provide evidence that would justify "not trusting" HuffPo and NYT.
Your own personal preference towards a particular website is not corroborative evidence. Providing an article refuting what was said in the initial article, is.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's pretty simple:
Conservative: Obama's policies have cost jobs and recovery.
Lib: Prove it.
Conservative: Here are 2 articles
Lib: Fox? Rly? You can't trust them. WSJ? Rly? You can't trust them.
COnservative: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Lib: Sure. He's a link to the WhiteHouse.gov site that explains everything.

Bump head smiley.

If I was the liberal in that argument, I'd be providing evidence from the CBO, economist websites, etc. It would be a better argument providing evidence from people who's job it is to know these things. The CBO is a good source, because both sides use them.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is a good thread!

Kudo's to Vidi...

 

[Intense]

Just a thought here. The CDZ is about civil debate and discussion. True when assertions are made, it is constructive to back them up, but not necessary. It is good form to Link the Sources that structure your argument, when your argument is rooted in something you read. That is not the case with constructive argument based in reason, not dealing with specific occurrences or articles, is it? OP's start the Threads, they don't own them, the Site does. Site Rules apply.

We are asked here to Post with Courtesy, towards Each Other. No Digg's, No Name Calling, No Flames. Try to keep it positive. Say what you need to say with Civil Discourse and Respect for the Other Posters here. This Forum is not about censoring the message, it is more about developing form in how it is portrayed. In many ways we are all doing well here. It is nice to see posters more focused on message, than all of the distractions, side tracks, derails, and hijackings we commonly see elsewhere.

 

[Vidi]

Just a thought here. The CDZ is about civil debate and discussion. True when assertions are made, it is constructive to back them up, but not necessary. It is good form to Link the Sources that structure your argument, when your argument is rooted in something you read. That is not the case with constructive argument based in reason, not dealing with specific occurrences or articles, is it? OP's start the Threads, they don't own them, the Site does. Site Rules apply.

We are asked here to Post with Courtesy, towards Each Other. No Digg's, No Name Calling, No Flames. Try to keep it positive. Say what you need to say with Civil Discourse and Respect for the Other Posters here. This Forum is not about censoring the message, it is more about developing form in how it is portrayed. In many ways we are all doing well here. It is nice to see posters more focused on message, than all of the distractions, side tracks, derails, and hijackings we commonly see elsewhere.

I see what youre saying and agree to a point.

In my opinion, civil discourse is compromised by blanket clearly biased statements.

As far as "the distractions" go, which is in my opinion another subject entirely, theyre seeping in as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

And seen from the other side of the aisle


Liberal: Obama's policies have created 4.5 jobs and begun the recovery.
Conservative: Prove it.
Liberal: Here are 2 articles
Conservative: HuffPo? Rly? You can't trust them. NYT? Rly? You can't trust them.
Liberal: OK, can you prove that isn't the case?
Conservative: ....

No. That's not it at all. That's projection.

It's actually:
Lib: Obama's policies have created 4.5M job.
COnservative: Prove it
Lib: Here's the CBO's analysis.
Conservative: The CBO bases its analysis on an assumption that every X number of dollars spent results in Y number of jobs. There is no empirical proof, just an assumption of somethng that is unproven.
Lib: There's no proving anything with you people.

If I was the liberal in that argument, I'd be providing evidence from the CBO, economist websites, etc. It would be a better argument providing evidence from people who's job it is to know these things. The CBO is a good source, because both sides use them

Damn, did I call it or what?