# Libertarian: Newlywed Game Remark **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2000, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846 "2000-05-30T02:25:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/81 "2000-06-09T02:17:32Z")
Lib said > [@](#): > > Your suspicions notwithstanding, how do you think I got from Marxist Existentialist Atheist to Libertarian Objectivist Christian? My vote is you used the secret passage between the Lounge and the Conservatory. With any luck, you should be back on the main board in the near future. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/82 "2000-06-09T11:21:11Z")
**Johnny Angel** > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > how do you think I got from Marxist Existentialist Atheist to Libertarian Objectivist Christian? > > * * * > > You lost a bet? Nope. I found the positions argued to me, that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, that objective reality is a superior metaphysic to subjective perception, that before Abraham was, Jesus is, to be more compelling than the positions I held. So, I changed my mind. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Assuming you meant “veracity of memories” > > * * * > > No, I mean vivacity, in the sense used by Hume, “Impressions and ideas resemble each other in all other respects but force and vivacity.” I would add “immediacy” to Hume’s differentiae, because what is at issue in the debate over false memory is whether relative degrees of force and vivacity of ideas are relevant to determining to what degree those ideas came from impressions. That is, does the fact that you can vividly remember it, so that you can describe it in detail, lend credence to your account as evidence? Huh-uh. But then, I’m not fixated on the issue of false memory. Memory in the brain doesn’t work like memory in a computer. Brain memory is a loosely connected network of fuzzy associations rather than a sequence of two-state bits. Whether particular details of what I remember match up with what actually happened (e.g., the man said “Most definately up the butt, Bob,” as opposed to “That’d be up the butt, Bob”) ought not to be a consideration as to whether I saw what I remember seeing, which is why I disclaimed them up-front in the [original thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22386). The question isn’t whether my memory is completely accurate (no one’s is). The question is where my memory _came from_. Did it come from an alleged urban legend, somehow weaved into objective reality? Or did it come from seeing an episode of the Newlywed Game? Or did it come from something else? All that I have maintained all along (as you can see from reviewing the original thread) is that my memory did _not_ come from any urban legend, as I _did not ever hear the story from anyone else_. I had never heard the story until my fateful visit to Snopes; I had only _told_ the story. Therefore, my memory came from seeing at least something on television, which might have been, as I said in the original thread, something like an out-take or an SNL skit. I do not deny that the airing on TNG might never have happened. But I do deny that I was in any way influenced by a story told by someone else. One of the associations in my recall is being in the livingroom with my roommate (who also recalls the episode) and howling with laughter in front of a television set. It is not the vividness of the memory, but its context that is compelling. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > I have conceded (repeatedly) that my memory might be false, pending the presentation of any reasonable evidence contrary to what I remember, which reasonable evidence I have (repeatedly) enumerated. > > * * * > > You may have conceded the logical possibility of your memory being in error, but you have not conceded that the burden of proof lies with you in this case. Well, of _course_ not. If a man is charged with stealing (as I have been charged with propogating a false story), does not the burden of proof lie with his accuser? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Arguments are not evidence. > > * * * > > An argument is a set of two or more statements such that one of which is claimed to follow from the rest where are reguarded as providing evidence for the truth of that one. Huh? I’m using “argument” in the [common sense](http://www.m-w.com/) of “a reason given in proof or rebuttal”, as opposed to “evidence”, which is “something that furnishes proof”. You can offer your evidence _in_ your argument, but the simple offer of any arbitrary argument does not constitute evidence, as I have explained at length. For example, if you say, "I have tediously reviewed every single tape of TNG and found nothing even remotely like “Up The Butt, Bob,” then _that_ would be an argument that offers evidence. But an argument that merely offers a consideration different from the consideration it opposes does not constitute evidence of any kind. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > “False memories are of so-and-so nature” is not evidence. > > * * * > > But it is an argument based on evidence. I mean, next you’ll be saying evidence isn’t evidence. Gratuitous. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > “Bob Eubanks doesn’t remember it” is tenuous evidence that is countered by the evidence of my own memory. The presentation of Eubanks’ dirth of recall as a refutation of my memory is Neanderthal in its conception. As I had explained in some detail, there are any number of reasons why his own memory might be faulty; therefore, holding his memory up as a refutation of mine (and those who corroborate mine) is patently absurd. > > * * * > > You may find for your own part that it doesn’t make sense to weigh the testimony of Bob Eubanks over your own, or more broadly, against that of the many who report seeing the episode in question. I don’t expect to convince you otherwise. But I do want to say that the rest of us are well within reason to hold the former as a personalization fallacy, and the latter as an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Sorry, but these fallacies are _not mine_. Arguers against me call upon such resources as the authority of a gossip hack writing in TV Guide or the consensus of opinion by hyperskeptics at a buggy web-site. I have merely pointed out how those positions might have holes in them. I did not _make_ a fallacious argument, but merely explained why _theirs is_, e.g., Bob Eubanks’ memory cannot be held up as refutation to our own. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > (A few) people who say they never saw it claim post facto that neither did I. > > * * * > > Bob Eubanks could argue ipso facto that if he didn’t see it, you didn’t see it either. But if anybody else made that claim, I wouldn’t put much weight on it. And you ascribe infallability to Bob Eubanks’ memory because…? > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > What reasons might motivate them to disparage my memory are legion > > * * * > > Ad hominem. Nonsense. The motivations I listed are neither circumstantial, abusive, nor tu quoque, anymore than is your constant badgering about the nature and ubiquity of false memory. The ad hominem is the _initial_ circumstantial argument (“Lib means well, that is, he isn’t lying, per se, but he is refusing to admit that his memory has simply betrayed him.”) > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > You can speculate all you want about whether my memory is false. But that’s all you’re doing — speculating. > > * * * > > As opposed to what? Going out and doing something about it? We’re presenting arguments, and responding to counter-arguments. What else do you want? Precisely what I’ve asked for. Nothing. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/83 "2000-06-09T13:20:28Z")
One thing that is obvious in all this is that Bob Eubanks’ memory is clearly not reliable. An event - which we are now aware is not the event **Libertarian** recalls - similar to the UL at least _sort of_ occurred (although I can’t read the lips on the clip). If he forgot one occasion, I suppose he might have forgotten two. Who knows, the second one might have been a copycat. > [@](#): > > Your suspicions notwithstanding, how do you think I got from Marxist Existentialist Atheist to Libertarian Objectivist Christian? I hope that when the **Ninja Quakers** turn up, they’ll have some insights. picmr ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/84 "2000-06-09T13:57:03Z")
I was just looking for an unused postage stamp so I could send your nomination for beatification to the Vatican when I noticed that there were a couple _small_ things that we need to clear up. If reviewing every single tape of TNG and finding nothing even remotely like “Up The Butt, Bob,” would be an argument that offers evidence, then why would someone consider Bob Eubanks’ memory equivalent to yours? In a sense, he did review all the tapes. (O, yeh, the clip does seem to show that he was in fact in error. But without that.) You are right that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, and I know that you feel that you are the accused, but I can’t help feeling that this argument has been stood on its head. If Alex accuses Bob of lying, and Wink then claims that Alex is lying, doesn’t the burden of proof still lie with Alex, rather than with Wink? You were treated unfairly, but you seem to enjoy it too much. A little more circumspection would make our job a lot easier. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/85 "2000-06-09T15:44:06Z")
**Father** Y’all’s job? [scratching head…] The reason why Mr. X inspecting every tape searching for “Up The Butt” is different from Mr. Eubank’s recollection is that Mr. X is reviewing the very source of the memory, that is, the show itself, for certain particulars, whereas Mr. Eubanks is recalling from his own memory, for more vague particulars, the same as I. His recollection and mine offset. But Mr. X’s exhaustive review of _the record itself_ would preclude my recollection (and Eubanks’). Eubanks’ metaphorical review of all the tapes (in the sense that he attended each taping) is not equivalent to an actual review of all of them for the express purpose of finding a particular item. For example, there might be a bug in some code I wrote last week. If a user reported the bug, though I attended the writing of every line of code, it would be necessary for me to revisit the source code itself and comb through it. As to the Alex, Bob, and Wink question, my original accusation was that Snopes was in error about its original assertion that the episode never happened. I offered my own eye-witness testimony as evidence along with several arguments to counter the arguments offered by Snopes. I accused them of being wrong, offering as evidence that I had seen the episode myself, and the additional evidence that so had my roommate, and so had my fiancee, and so had the sister of my friend, placing her call immediately upon recovering from her laughing fit. I called no one, but told the first person I did see, and many more people after that. While _hearing_ the story is somewhat idly amusing, I know of no one who has keeled over into the floor helplessly prostrate and trying to breathe, other than those of us who saw the show when it happened. The combined elements of surprise, situation, facial expressions, and audience reaction are all missing in any retelling. As to my seeming to enjoy this, I don’t know what you mean. **picmr** I wonder whether Eubanks has ever been on SNL. Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/86 "2000-06-09T17:40:05Z")
Libertarian said: > [@](#): > > **If a man is charged with stealing (as I have been charged with propogating a false story), does not the burden of proof lie with his accuser?** But that’s not the case here. Snopes and the skeptics are not the “accusers.” Initially, claims were made by many people to have seen an episode of the NWG where a Black woman said “the butt.” Snopes et al questioned these claims based on large disparities between stories (“in da butt” vs “dat would be da butt,” are only minor discrepancies, but a greater amount of detail did vary), discrepancies of when the incident took place, and Bob Eubanks own lack of memory. It was a reasonable assumptiom that Bob would remember the incident. So, a claim was made, and the claim was questioned, based on enough contradictory stories, the host’s own failure to recall and lack of any supporting evidence for the claim. Reasonable doubt of the claim exists, so burden of proof lies with the claimant. Libertarian claims to have seen, with others, the episode and never to have heard the story from anyone else. This is not evidence, but an assertion. Many others had claimed the same thing, so Lib adding in another eye-witness account provides no new information to the claim and the burden of proof is still on those who claim to have seen it. “The episode never happened” is not so much a “claim” as a conclusion based on lack of support for the claim the episode did happen. Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence, so it really would have been better to say “there is no evidence that this happened” than “It never happened.” That being said, anyone whod did say “Libertarian is lying” does incur the burden of proof. There are many different possibilities, and to assert that Lib was deliberately lying is a claim that would need to be supported with evidence. But saying “The incident never happened” is not the same thing as saying "Libertarian lied when he said he saw it. pinqy ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/87 "2000-06-09T20:12:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence, so it really would have been better to say “there is no evidence that this happened” than “It never happened.” Or, better yet, “the evidence of your testimony does not, in my mind, outweigh the evidence of Eubanks’ testimony.” As to claims, had I known those many years ago that anyone would suspect me of psychosis when I told them I saw a TV show, I would have made at least a perfunctory record. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2000, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/88 "2000-06-09T23:40:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Or, better yet, “the evidence of your testimony does not, in my mind, outweigh the evidence of Eubanks’ testimony.” Please don’t put words in Pinqy’s mouth. What’s in his mind might be different from what’s in your’s. And no one on this board, newbies or whackos, suspects you of psychosis. God knows there are posters who are. But you are definitely not one. No dramatization there, is there? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2000, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/89 "2000-06-10T03:01:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Of course, lack of evidence is not evidence, so it really would have been better to say “there is no evidence that this happened” than “It never happened.” > > Or, better yet, “the evidence of your testimony does not, in my mind, outweigh the evidence of Eubanks’ testimony.” > > As to claims, had I known those many years ago that anyone would suspect me of psychosis when I told them I saw a TV show, I would have made at least a perfunctory record. > \*\* Ok, one more time, and I’ll use small words so you’ll be sure to understand: 1. **Initial Claim** : Multiple people told this story in varying forms. The consistant statements were Black couple, nonstandard English, and the word “butt.” 2. **Skeptical Questioning** : Story sounded doubtful, based on conflicting versions (what the husband said), conflicting years, Bob Eubanks own testimony, which was presumed to be true (reasonable to assume he would remember), and lack of any tape. At this point, burden of proof is on the claimants due not just to Bob’s refutation, but also do to the conflicts. 1. **Your Testimony** Nothing new, just one more claim to have seen the episode, just like hundreds of other people claimed to have. No additional supporting evidence. What is a reasonable person to conclude? The claimants have no support and stories vary among them. Additionally I have heard people who initially claimed to hear it themselves recant and admit they only heard it from someone else. The pattern also fits many UL’s which have been proven to be false (though this is not evidence in and of itself, it does add doubt). The person who could reasonably be expected to remember, since he was allegedly there in person, claims it didn’t. No tape could be presented as conclusive evidence. Conclusion: no reason to believe that it ever occurred, and your additional testimony added nothing new. Now, how do you interpret this as me saying Bob Eubanks’ testimony carries more weight than yours? As for the new clip: It does cast doubt on Bob Eubanks’ memory. I assumed he would have remembered this answer. But this clip differs greatly from any of the stories spread, and you additionally claim that this is not the one you recall seeing. Now, I obviously can’t rely on Bob Eubanks’ refutation anymore, but on the other hand, 2 such answers? It seems unlikely, so still, there is no compelling reason to now believe that your particular version happened. No new evidence to support your recount has been added. As for why you say you saw it, there are any number of explanations, ranging from you actually did see it to you’re outright lying. There’s really no information for me to say, so I have no opinion. pinqy (ps, thanks sam) ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2000, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/90 "2000-06-10T14:00:39Z")
Pinqy said: > [@](#): > > As for the new clip: It does cast doubt on Bob Eubanks’ memory. I assumed he would have remembered this answer. But this clip differs greatly from any of the stories spread That’s exactly it – you’ve answered your own question. There was a brief discussion of this a week or so ago over at snopes (I just saw it, didn’t participate). This answer was one of many funny ones that Eubanks heard. He had no reason to remember it at the time. By the time the different story of the black person and “That’d be the butt, Bob” took off, it was a _different story_. He was apparently right that the story, as told, hadn’t happened (sorry, Lib). While maybe we can think he should have associated it with the incident on this tape, the fact is that the one on the tape is significantly different from the UL story version (as has already been discussed in detail before Lib found the thread). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/91 "2000-06-10T17:13:44Z")
**SamClem** > [@](#): > > Please don’t put words in Pinqy’s mouth. Not to worry. I would never do that. What I would do, and did do, however, is offer as a contrast some other set of words that are superior. > [@](#): > > What’s in his mind might be different from what’s in your’s. That much is certain. > [@](#): > > And no one on this board, newbies or whackos, suspects you of psychosis. God knows there are posters who are. But you are definitely not one. No dramatization there, is there? I, too, am a Melancholy; therefore, I, too, tend to overdramatize. Nevertheless, there are degrees of psychosis. There are those who believe that I am disjoined from reality at least to the degree that I harbor not just one but _manifold_ false memories: of seeing the episode itself, of being with my roommate when he saw it, of relating it to others, of never hearing it from anyone else until my fateful visit to Snopes. Were I _that_ inept at recall, you might reasonably be given to wonder how I find my way back here to post. Yes, I know that false memory exists as a phenomenon. Yes, I know that I am as culpable as anyone to fall prey to a false memory. But the multi-tenacled set of false memories ascribed to me, if justly ascribed, would indicate a serious breach with reality on my part. For example, you (an hypothetical you) might recall a particular episode of making love to your wife. Sure, you might have modified a few details through the mechanism of false memory. But were I to proclaim that not only do you recall the episode incorrectly, but in fact the episode never happened simply because I myself didn’t see you make love to her, and because I have heard tall tales from other people before about love making, and because your story sounds so much like other stories about making love, and because there is a web site on the internet where your story has been officially classified as an urban legend, then I would not blame you if you were at least peeved. **pinqy** > [@](#): > > Ok, one more time, and I’ll use small words so you’ll be sure to understand: Well, it is clear from that alone that your debating skills are vastly superior to my own, and that engaging in debate with you would be as futile as resisting the Borg. I therefore leave the rest of your argument unannotated, lest I smear it all up with my moronic pedantry. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2000, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/92 "2000-06-10T22:55:12Z")
**Libertarian** wrote: > [@](#): > > I changed my mind. I believe you. > [@](#): > > But then, I’m not fixated on the issue of false memory… The question is where my memory came from. Did it come from an alleged urban legend, somehow weaved into objective reality? Or did it come from seeing an episode of the Newlywed Game? Or did it come from something else? _False memory_ is precisely what’s at issue in this case. The fact that the phenomenon of _false memory_ exists give us reason to doubt your testimony. The fact that you don’t believe your memory was influenced by the urban legend is no disproof of _false memory_, because such an impression on your part is consistent with it. Notice, however, that I’m not counting it as proof either. Denial is no evidence that the thing being denied is true. > [@](#): > > If a man is charged with stealing (as I have been charged with propogating a false story), does not the burden of proof lie with his accuser? You are confusing a legal principle that the burden of proof is automatically put on the accuser in a court of law, no matter where the logical burden of proof would actually lie, with the general principle of _burden of proof_. > [@](#): > > I’m using “argument” in the common sense of “a reason given in proof or rebuttal”, as opposed to “evidence”, which is “something that furnishes proof”. An argument consists of premises and a conclusion which the premises are supposed to support. This is consistent with the `common sense’ of the term. > [@](#): > > Gratuitous. Bless you. > [@](#): > > I did not make a fallacious argument, but merely explained why theirs is, e.g., Bob Eubanks’ memory cannot be held up as refutation to our own. You had premises which you posited in support of conclusions, you therefore made arguments. Your conclusions did not follow from your premises. Thus, you made _fallacious arguments_. > [@](#): > > And you ascribe infallability to Bob Eubanks’ memory because…? I don’t. I merely pointed out that if anybody can make an argument that if he didn’t see it, it didn’t happen – _ipso facto_ – would be Bob Eubanks. Whether or not he is right is a different issue. > [@](#): > > The motivations I listed are neither circumstantial, abusive, nor tu quoque, anymore than is your constant badgering about the nature and ubiquity of false memory. Discussing the arguer rather than the argument is _ad hominem_. That is, unless you hold that these motives you ascribe to the arguers do not constitute evidence that they are wrong. In which case, this issue is merely _besides the point_. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > You can speculate all you want about whether my memory is false. But that’s all you’re doing — speculating. > > > > As opposed to what? Going out and doing something about it? We’re presenting arguments, and responding to counter-arguments. What else do you want? > > Precisely what I’ve asked for. Nothing. Yet, you complain about getting it. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2000, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/93 "2000-06-11T00:18:19Z")
Lib said > [@](#): > > pinqy > > ## quote: > > Ok, one more time, and I’ll use small words so you’ll be sure to understand: > > * * * > > Well, it is clear from that alone that your debating skills are vastly superior to my own, and that engaging in debate with you would be as futile as resisting the Borg. I therefore leave the rest of your argument unannotated, lest I smear it all up with my moronic pedantry. While I am sure you have a busy life, as do we all, that’s a cop-out. Your pedantry is first-class 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2000, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/94 "2000-06-11T11:45:13Z")
**SamClem** If, in the course of a debate, I began my argument with you thus, “You’re an idiot who comprehends only small words,” would you truly be foolish enough to rejoin me? **Johnny Angel** > [@](#): > > False memory is precisely what’s at issue in this case. As far as you’re concerned, it obviously is. However, my own concern is whether the event I saw on television that day was in fact an airing of TNG (or TNNG), not whether I saw the event on television that day. > [@](#): > > The fact that the phenomenon of false memory exists [gives] us reason to doubt your testimony. Then surely the fact that the phenomenon of logical fallacies exists gives us reason to doubt your argument. > [@](#): > > The fact that you don’t believe your memory was influenced by the urban legend is no disproof of false memory, because such an impression on your part is consistent with it. Notice, however, that I’m not counting it as proof either. Denial is no evidence that the thing being denied is true. Irrelevant. I have not attempted to disprove false memory. In fact, I have repeatedly affirmed the existence of false memory. > [@](#): > > You are confusing a legal principle that the burden of proof is automatically put on the accuser in a court of law, no matter where the logical burden of proof would actually lie, with the general principle of burden of proof. Obfuscatory. But you seem to clear it up a bit with your next remark. > [@](#): > > An argument consists of premises and a conclusion which the premises are supposed to support. This is consistent with the `common sense’ of the term. That is a (loose and abridged) description of a particular kind of argument in logic. Apparently, we simply misunderstood each other. > [@](#): > > You had premises which you posited in support of conclusions, you therefore made arguments. Your conclusions did not follow from your premises. Thus, you made fallacious arguments. Gratuitous assertion, thus fallacious. > [@](#): > > I merely pointed out that if anybody can make an argument that if he didn’t see it, it didn’t happen – ipso facto – would be Bob Eubanks. Whether or not he is right is a different issue. But the same is true of _everybody_ who saw it, not just Eubanks: the contestants on the show, the studio audience, the offstage staff, and all us little people out there in TV land. Eubanks’ status as host does not convey any particular magic upon him with respect to episode recall. In fact, it can be argued that my memory is more vivid than his precisely _because_ I have ever seen only a few episodes of the show, making a particular one stand out more to me; whereas a particular show might be lost to Eubanks in a general blur of hundreds of shows. You’ll get nowhere with pitting our memories against each other. > [@](#): > > Discussing the arguer rather than the argument is ad hominem. That is, unless you hold that these motives you ascribe to the arguers do not constitute evidence that they are wrong. In which case, this issue is merely [beside] the point. [sigh…] An argument is ad hominem if, and only if, it is (1) _abusive_, i.e., attacks the character of the person, or (2) _circumstantial_, i.e., alleging a conflict of interest, or (3) _tu quoque_, i.e., holding the person to the standard of what he is saying. You cite the very existence of false memory as reason to doubt what I remember. I merely cited the existence of jealousy, existentialism, and malassociation as additional reasons to doubt what I remember. You selected the tree, and began to pick its cherries. I simply picked some cherries from it that you don’t like. > [@](#): > > Yet, you complain about getting it. Ad hominem. Tu quoque. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2000, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/95 "2000-06-11T20:39:30Z")
**Libertarian** wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The fact that the phenomenon of false memory exists gives us reason to doubt your testimony. > > Then surely the fact that the phenomenon of logical fallacies exists gives us reason to doubt your argument. [/quote] _False analogy_. But you knew that. > [@](#): > > I have not attempted to disprove false memory. In fact, I have repeatedly affirmed the existence of false memory. Let me be explicit about what I think you’re claiming: 1. You recall seeing the incident, as described in the original thread, and you remember it in some detail. 2. You had not heard the story from anyone else, nor had you read it before you saw it on Snopes. 3. Therefore, it could not have been a false memory confabulated from hearing the story. The case against you boils down to this: 1. Premise 1 begs the question, because it is only true if the conclusion is true, which is only true if this premise is true. 2. Premise 2 is of uncertain truth value because you would not necessarily have remembered hearing the story. (The issue of _false memory_ is buried here, and we can get explicit if you want). 3. Bob Eubanks would necessarily have seen every episode. 4. Therefore, Bob Eubanks would be in the best position to know. 5. Bob Eubanks does not recall seeing the incident. 6. Therefore, Bob Eubanks’ testimony contradicts yours. You counter: 1. 6 may be irrelevant, because it may not have been The Newlywed Game that you saw. 2. 7 is specious because his having seen all the episodes firsthand would not necessarily mean that he could recall any given one, or even every striking one. 3. 9 is of dubious value as evidence because it is the conclusion of a potentially unsound argument (by 10 or by 11). Oh, and to: 1. A videotape of what you identify as the incident has not surfaced. You reply: 1. So, what? You have been clarifying your position, and as I see it, this is where you currently stand: 1. You do not deny that your memories are fallable, or that _false memories_ occur or that they could occur to you. 2. You do not believe that your memory of this incident was confabulated from accounts you had heard or read of it. 3. You believe it is more likely that you saw something that may not have been the Newlywed Game, but which left you in the long term with the memory that it was. If this is where you stand at this point, I can see where the issue of _false memory_ would be irrelevant, and to the extent that you concede point 15, it is. In fact, I’m chasing rabbit trails here, because what I’m really interested in is the position you took on what you called _hyperskepticism_, and your use of this case as an example of it. Your clarified position does not stand as a case against skepticism, and approaches the subject skeptically in a different direction. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You are confusing a legal principle that the burden of proof is automatically put on the accuser in a court of law, no matter where the logical burden of proof would actually lie, with the general principle of burden of proof. > > Obfuscatory. I merely pointed out that the legal use of the term _burden of proof_ is a _special case_ and should not be conflated with the general sense. > [@](#): > > Gratuitous assertion, thus fallacious. A fallacy is an error in which the conclusion of an argument does not follow from the premises, such that if the premises are true the conclusion would have to be true. A _gratuitous assertion_, whatever it is you’re referring to, is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for a fallacy. > [@](#): > > You’ll get nowhere with pitting our memories against each other. At the moment, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I was agreeing with you that anyone who argued, “I didn’t see it, therefore it didn’t happen, _ipso facto_,” was wrong, except that I allowed an exception in the case of Bob Eubanks. Notice, I’m not asserting that Bob Eubanks’ claim has to be right. I’m only saying that he does have grounds for an _ipso facto_ claim. > [@](#): > > An argument is ad hominem if, and only if, it is (1) abusive, i.e., attacks the character of the person, or (2) circumstantial, i.e., alleging a conflict of interest, or (3) tu quoque, i.e., holding the person to the standard of what he is saying. These are three classic categories of _ad hominem_ often cited, but I’d be very suprised if anyone ever told you that all _ad hominem_ fallacies fell into these three categories. For one thing, this list does not include the other commonly cited _poisoning the well_. Secondly, to assume that all _ad hominem_ must fall into these four categories commits the _either/or_ fallacy – assuming fewer possibilities than there are. Thirdly, you do in fact commit one of your own categories of _ad hominem_. By discussing the motives of the arguers, you are attacking their character. > [@](#): > > You cite the very existence of false memory as reason to doubt what I remember. No, I cite it as a candidate for the _inference to the best explanation_. > [@](#): > > Ad hominem. Tu quoque. I responded to rhetoric with rhetoric. Or, am I confused? Perhaps your charges of _ad hominem_ and _tu quoque_ referred to your own words which started this little exchange: > [@](#): > > You can speculate all you want about whether my memory is false. But that’s all you’re doing — speculating. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2000, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/96 "2000-06-11T22:21:39Z")
**Johnny Angel** I would like to say that it has been a pleasure debating you. You are respectful and civil. > [@](#): > > False analogy. But you knew that. I’m afraid not. It is a perfect analogy. Let X be a phenomenon that exists. Let Y be that which is derived from X. The fact that X exists gives us reason to doubt your Y, i.e. “The fact that the phenomenon of false memory exists gives us reason to doubt your testimony” is analogous to “… the fact that the phenomenon of logical fallacies exists gives us reason to doubt your argument.” > [@](#): > > Let me be explicit about what I think you’re claiming: > > 1. You recall seeing the incident, as described in the original thread, and you remember it in some detail. > 2. You had not heard the story from anyone else, nor had you read it before you saw it on Snopes. > 3. Therefore, it could not have been a false memory confabulated from hearing the story. Well, that’s overly complicating a simple implication. All that’s necessary is 2 and 3. I never heard the story, therefore, I could not have any sort of memory derived from the story — unless, that is, a memory can be planted by some extra-sensory means, such as telepathy or some other osmosis. > [@](#): > > The case against you boils down to this: > > 1. Premise 1 begs the question, because it is only true if > the conclusion is true, which is only true if this premise is true. Well, what you’re calling “Premise 1” is more precisely called an axiom. I believe you have accepted as true that I _recall_ seeing the episode, whether or not you believe I really did. Isn’t that correct? Numbers 2 and 3 are not premises either (as they are derived from nothing), but are propositions. And the whole thing is not a syllogism, but is an implication. > [@](#): > > 1. Premise 2 is of uncertain truth value because you would not necessarily have remembered hearing the story. (The issue of false memory is buried here, and we can get explicit if you want). What you call “Premise 2” is merely an assertion which you hold dubious. Basically, you seem to be saying that I am offering an implication of the infamous type False A implies True B, which is a true, but quite useless, implication. (e.g. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, then Creationists are probably right. Yes, but so what?) > [@](#): > > 1. Bob Eubanks would necessarily have seen every episode. 7) Therefore, Bob Eubanks would be in the best position to know. Well, as you note below, “Bob Eubanks would necessarily have seen every episode [from which he was not absent]” can as easily imply that “Bob Eubanks would be in the _worst_ position to know [actually, to recall]”. > [@](#): > > 1. Bob Eubanks does not recall seeing the incident. Ah, you’ve talked to Bob? If not, I presume you hold the memory of a gossip columnist to be impugnable, or at least more trustworthy than mine. > [@](#): > > 1. Therefore, Bob Eubanks’ testimony contradicts yours. Well, that’s a rather anticlimactic conclusion. There is no need to go through all that, since Eubanks’ testimony contradicts mine prima facie. > [@](#): > > 1. 6 may be irrelevant, because it may not have been The Newlywed Game that you saw. Right. > [@](#): > > 1. 7 is specious because his having seen all the episodes firsthand would not necessarily mean that he could recall any given one, or even every striking one. Of course. > [@](#): > > 1. 9 is of dubious value as evidence because it is the conclusion of a potentially unsound argument (by 10 or by 11). This is where you lose me. Number 9 is clearly true. My testimony (A) is in fact the opposite of Eubanks’ testimony (Not A). > [@](#): > > Oh, and to: > > 1. A videotape of what you identify as the incident has not surfaced. > > You reply: > > 1. So, what? Neither has credible evidence of a $10,000 reward surfaced, but those who disbelieve me believe it’s there. Neither has any vidoetape surfaced of Eubanks denying the episode, but those who disbelieve me believe he does deny it. So, yeah. So what? > [@](#): > > 1. You do not deny that your memories are fallable, or that false memories occur or that they could occur to you. Well, of course not. > [@](#): > > 1. You do not believe that your memory of this incident was confabulated from accounts you had heard or read of it. It is difficult to believe something so improbable. Had I heard the story from someone, my immediate reaction would have been, “Hey, I _saw_ that episode with my roommate!” I recall only one such reaction — the day I stumbled onto the Snopes site. > [@](#): > > 1. You believe it is more likely that you saw something that may not have been the Newlywed Game, but which left you in the long term with the memory that it was. Well, not exactly. I believe it is _equally_ likely, not _more_ likely. > [@](#): > > If this is where you stand at this point, I can see where the issue of false memory would be irrelevant, and to the extent that you concede point 15, it is. God bless you. > [@](#): > > In fact, I’m chasing rabbit trails here, because what I’m really interested in is the position you took on what you called hyperskepticism, and your use of this case as an example of it. Your clarified position does not stand as a case against skepticism, and approaches the subject skeptically in a different direction. Um, okay. The position I take on hyperskepticism is that it has the same weakness as hyperfaith. They are obverse faces of the same thing, namely, gullability. * * * It looks like the rest of our round-and-round is amounting to little more than a pissing contest (is not! is so! is not! is so!), so I guess we may as well drop it. Again, thanks for some interesting discussion. I might be out of the loop for a bit next week, but I’ll try to drop in. For what it’s worth, you’ve earned my respect, despite that we might not see eye to eye. At least you haven’t called me stupid or delusional. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2000, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/97 "2000-06-11T22:48:15Z")
The only thing left to decide is–which of you will Wallace Shawn play in the movie? And remember, it’s never too early to start taking that **iocaine powder** to build up your resistance. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2000, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/98 "2000-06-12T01:33:59Z")
**Libertarian** wrote: > [@](#): > > “The fact that the phenomenon of false memory exists gives us reason to doubt your testimony” is analogous to “… the fact that the phenomenon of logical fallacies exists gives us reason to doubt your argument.” Let me reformulate, then. The fact that the phenomenon of false memory exists gives a viable alternate explanation. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s overly complicating a simple implication. > > All that’s necessary is 2 and 3. While the argument is not as explicit as it could be, I feel that it would be remiss to leave out that detail. > [@](#): > > Well, what you’re calling “Premise 1” is more precisely called an axiom. I believe you have accepted as true that I recall seeing the episode, whether or not you believe I really did. Isn’t that correct? It’s true that I’m not questioning the premise, but I wouldn’t call it an _axiom_. An _axiom_ is more like a premise which goes unquestioned because questioning it would be too _radical_ – too close to the roots of our beliefs. In any case, the term I like for accepting a premise for the sake of argument is _biting the bullet_. > [@](#): > > Numbers 2 and 3 are not premises either (as they are derived from nothing), but are propositions. Premises are statements with fixed truth values, which may or may not be directly stated, from which a conclusion is claimed to follow. Propositions are explicit statements with fixed truth values. > [@](#): > > And the whole thing is not a syllogism, but is an implication. Any implication can be formulated as syllogism, and doing so reveals the structure of the logic it uses. > [@](#): > > What you call “Premise 2” is merely an assertion which you hold dubious. It’s a statement from which a conclusion is claimed to follow. That makes it a premise. If the argument is valid, it can still be _unsound_ if the premises are not true. > [@](#): > > Ah, you’ve talked to Bob? If not, I presume you hold the memory of a gossip columnist to be impugnable, or at least more trustworthy than mine. Let’s call that 11b. 11b) It has not been established to your satisfaction that Bob Eubanks cannot recall the incident. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s a rather anticlimactic conclusion. There is no need to go through all that, since Eubanks’ testimony contradicts mine prima facie. Actually, I think I should have been even more explicit: 9b) Therefore, you were wrong. (by 4, 5 or by 6-9) > [@](#): > > This is where you lose me. Number 9 is clearly true. My testimony (A) is in fact the opposite of Eubanks’ testimony (Not A). You claim two reasons why the premises of 9 (or, more precisely now 9b) are not true, or at least not such that the conclusion follows from them. That makes the argument unsound. > [@](#): > > At least you haven’t called me stupid or delusional. Well, I assert at least that any extent to which you may be stupid or delusional is beside the point. There is a certain approach to these issues whereby the skeptic in effect attempts to shame the believer into shutting up. I don’t like this approach because first of all, the believer can’t be counted on to shut up, and secondly because the skeptic has something important to say which does not reduce to “believers are dumbasses” but will not be listened to if the believer thinks he’s being called a dumbass. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2000, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/99 "2000-06-12T02:46:10Z")
It occurs to me that the existence of the videotape we’ve been discussing actually hurts Lib’s position. One thing he kept saying in the originaly thread was that nobody would bother to tape _The Newlywed Game_, and that’s one reason he couldn’t back up his claim. But now we see that not only was it taped, but put onto the Web. So why has the supposed “other” one that Lib saw not been treated similarly? ---
**Author:** ![pinqy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a3d4f5/32.png) [@pinqy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinqy)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2000, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846/100 "2000-06-12T18:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > The only thing left to decide is–which of you will Wallace Shawn play in the movie? And remember, it’s never too early to start taking that **iocaine powder** to build up your resistance. 😃 > \*\* But, Sam, after Lib grossly misinterpreted my points and I replied with a (I thought recognizable) quote from TPB, he chose to take it as an insult and not actually adress the refinement of my points. pin"no one has a sense of humor"qy [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarian-newlywed-game-remark/20846.md?page=6)