The Burden of Proof

[RDK]

Firstly, that set of posts was primarily dealing with a pure logic prospective, in other words MATH. I did a little burb on science at the end, but my PRIMARY commentary was on logic.


Secondly, as far as science goes, you only cannot prove things or disprove it when you talk about it in the practical sense (namely, what science is built to examine). In the technical logical sense, you're proving and disproving things all the time.


Science is primarily concerned with commentary on:

A. Positive Universal Statements.

B. Negative existential statements.


A is "for all", and B is "x does not exist",


In the framework of science, it's for all practical senses impossible to prove that something applies universally, and it's equally impossible to prove something does not exist.


However, you can prove another statement, the positive existential statement, the positive existential statement is the "facts" that you refer to, those are the observations, they are proven all the time because the observance of one proves the existential statement.



In the same sense, it is impossible to practically disprove that something exists (the main issue here being that the positive universal statements are impossible to prove).


However, you can disprove universal statements, that happens all the time. The process is called "rejecting the null hypothesis" (I know that you know what this is, but just explaining what it is from a technical logical prospective).




So, I know that this will come up very rarely, but it's important to have the technical background clear because it does come up, and realistically having the terminology right helps in those situations.



Really, how much more effort does it take to say, "negative existential statements are impossible to prove" then "negatives are impossible to prove"? Just type the extra two words.

I know what you were trying to say now. It seemed like you were saying something else altogether, but I just went back and read a few posts before the one I responded to and we're essentially saying the same thing; the convo with Crash is what threw me off.

What they were talking about is the wide practical aspect of it, not the abstract, logical aspect that applies to individual existential statements like the ones in your example. That's where the misunderstanding lies.

Is everybody clear on this now? I don't know how many times this comes up in the Debate Hall and we go through the same arguments over and over, lol...

 

[adumbrodeus]

I know what you were trying to say now. It seemed like you were saying something else altogether, but I just went back and read a few posts before the one I responded to and we're essentially saying the same thing; the convo with Crash is what threw me off.

What they were talking about is the wide practical aspect of it, not the abstract, logical aspect that applies to individual existential statements like the ones in your example. That's where the misunderstanding lies.

Is everybody clear on this now? I don't know how many times this comes up in the Debate Hall and we go through the same arguments over and over, lol...

Cool, I figured you'd get it with a little backreading.


But as I said on my second post I'd be willing to create a logic primer for a sticky (probably better for the proving grounds then the debate hall proper).

 

[RDK]

Cool, I figured you'd get it with a little backreading.


But as I said on my second post I'd be willing to create a logic primer for a sticky (probably better for the proving grounds then the debate hall proper).

I'd cosign something like that; it seems like we get a lot of people coming in here with no formal logic / debating background. It'd be nice to have a little write-up that the PGers can read before coming in here.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'd cosign something like that; it seems like we get a lot of people coming in here with no formal logic / debating background. It'd be nice to have a little write-up that the PGers can read before coming in here.

Yeah, I agree that this is a good idea. RDK, your guide on how to post would be helpful in the PG as well, considering most of the people we accept already know how to post.
____________________________

Back on topic, my feelings on this subject are pretty much summed up by what Aesir said much earlier on: if you make a claim, you have to prove it (i.e. the burden of proof is on the claimer). So... does anyone disagree?

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's actually a basic rule for science as well. To quote wikipedia:



It's a scientific concept as well as a philosophical one.
____________________________

To be honest, I don't see how such an assertion would be necessary in any debate, let alone one about the burden of proof.

To falsification, yes, but again, nothing has disproven the null hypothesis that reality exists.


Regardless, I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about debate.


Scientific debates about whether or not reality exists are fundamentally pointless because by definition, no evidence is admissible.


For other debates (non-existential and/or religious) if we don't use that preconception, then all debates are reduced to "does reality exist", because challenging the existence of reality is an auto out for any side losing in a debate, and since that's impossible to prove...



You get my point, from a practical prospective, debating any topic other then whether reality exists (and it's cousin, is it possible to have reliable observation) is impossible unless we consider then "held".



As far as this particular discussion, it becomes impossible to illustrate burden of proof without considering at least math "held".

I'd cosign something like that; it seems like we get a lot of people coming in here with no formal logic / debating background. It'd be nice to have a little write-up that the PGers can read before coming in here.

Ok, I guess I can make one, we'd just need the mods to agree to sticky it.

Back one topic, my feelings on this subject are pretty much summed up by what Aesir said much earlier on: if you make a claim, you have to prove it (i.e. the burden of proof is on the claimer). So... does anyone disagree?

Sort of.


The burden of proof is on the claimer if the statement is a positive existential or universal statement OR a negative existential or universal statment.


So what does that leave?

Claim that any of the above aren't proven.


In other words, if I claim, "black cats exist" OR "black cats do not exist", I have the burden of proof. However, if I say, "there is no proof that black cats exist" OR "there is no proof black cats do not exist" I do not have the burden of proof.


By the same token if I say, "all sheep follow dogs" or "all sheep do not follow dogs" I have the burden of proof, but if I say that there is no proof of either, I do NOT have the burden of proof.




The point is that for a claim to have the burden of proof it must be claiming some concrete status on an existential or universal statement. Otherwise, no, it's actually technically a reply to a claim, even if there is no claimant.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sort of.


The burden of proof is on the claimer if the statement is a positive existential or universal statement OR a negative existential or universal statment.


So what does that leave?

Claim that any of the above aren't proven.


In other words, if I claim, "black cats exist" OR "black cats do not exist", I have the burden of proof. However, if I say, "there is no proof that black cats exist" OR "there is no proof black cats do not exist" I do not have the burden of proof.


By the same token if I say, "all sheep follow dogs" or "all sheep do not follow dogs" I have the burden of proof, but if I say that there is no proof of either, I do NOT have the burden of proof.




The point is that for a claim to have the burden of proof it must be claiming some concrete status on an existential or universal statement. Otherwise, no, it's actually technically a reply to a claim, even if there is no claimant.

Agreed. That's a better way of putting it then what I said.

 

[blazedaces]

I was sort of wondering how someone was going to rap all this up and somehow get back to the topic at hand...

I concur with adumbrodeus' assessment...

-blazed (yeah... I also feel like I added nothing concrete with this post, so shoot me...)