The burden of proof

[Apos]

—Would you say that “You haven’t provided enough evidence to prove that to me” and “What you’re saying is wrong unless you prove otherwise” can be distinguished? —

Definately. The latter actually seems kind of stupid. Wrong to who? Who cares?

Do you at least acknowledge that it’s perfectly possible to pick holes in a claim without making a contrary claim?

—I haven’t seen a proof yet that alien contact is extraordinary, but I’ve seen plenty of claims to that effect.----

I think you are getting really confusing here. Proof that it’s extrordinary? What do you mean? In most cases, this is a very trivial matter: i.e. THAT it is extrordinary is a very ordinary claim.

I guess we’ve been missing something about what you were saying.

—So you have differences in your requirements for proof. Discuss.—

No: I am saying that the claim is not self-proving, and that what has been presented just doesn’t prove the issue.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Sparc *
One can obviously go ahead and claim that ETs swarm down on us in the hundreds every year. It’s a possibility that we can’t just dismiss. So is the possibility that bovines and equestrians actually speak and enjoy opera, although only when we are not looking.

Are you saying that bovine speech capabilties, something for which we have a lot of evidence against, is equivalent to alien contact, something for which we have insufficient evidence either way? I think they are very different situations and if you want to equate the two you have some work ahead of you.
We know a lot about cows, a species we have lived thousands of years with. We know very little about the entire universe, something we only became truly aware of relatively recently and whose depths we have yet to survey. We have however gathered enough evidence to determine that the universe is quite vast and in comparison to earth much older. Currently there is very little that we can say about life in the rest of the universe other than we haven’t found it …yet.

In both cases the lack of evidence is the refutation.

No there is plenty of evidence that cows are not capable of speech, or at least not human speech which I think you are implying. It is very easy to provide this evidence.
Yes, someone can make a dodge, and say something like it happens when you’re not looking. But if you have also prevented evidence as to why they were incapable then they would at least need to provide counter evidence.
If nobody has provided any evidence I can only fault both “debaters”.

As it stands P is just pissing in the wind and C happens to be stupid enough to stand downwind from his position.

Yes neither of the debaters has done much to provide a good debate in your example.

You claim it - you prove it. It’s the skeptical method; it avoids a lot of wasted time. Try debating someone that constantly reverses the burden of proof, you go balmy after a while, especially if they pretend to give you proof and each time you refute it based on the lack of veracity or that it is not falsifiable they say; “Well prove me wrong then…”

On the converse end, imagine a debate where one person supplies evidence and the other simply sits around and picks at it with no indentifiable counterarguments. Their constant needling, obviously belies some belief of their own, yet they don’t have the guts to state it and defend it. That’s not a debate to me, that’s just one person badgering the other. With the obvious luxury of not having to provide their own argument, they hold the upper hand. What knowledge is gained from a “debate” like this?
Imagine a debate where someon casually mentions the earth is round, someone responds “You stated it, you prove it. Obviously everyone knows the earth is flat, the burden of proof is on you”. Ridiculous,eh? You should have to prove that science is behind you and therefore the evidence is already on your side, before claiming that the burden of proof is on someone else.

Debate is about testing hypothesis – the one who states a hypothesis needs to be ready to argue it and bring some proof. If refuted s/he needs to be ready for rebuttal, the refutation and rebuttal might or might not need it’s own counter proof, or can just be an argument based on logic and common sense. It’s simple, symmetrical and very practical.

Please provide an example of a debate even remotely likely to happen on this board wherein a refutation or rebuttal might not need it’s own counterproof. At least, I would hope, where evidence is hard to obtain, you would provide that argument based on logic and commonsense you mentioned.

[Apos]

—That’s not a debate to me, that’s just one person badgering the other. With the obvious luxury of not having to provide their own argument, they hold the upper hand. What knowledge is gained from a “debate” like this? —

Well, it certainly seems good enough for the scientific method. Think of claims are pathways to the truth. We cannot simply apprehend truth directly: we need to set up claims that we hope will get us there. But anyone can advance claims: and some claims are false even though their conclusions are actually true.

Criticism helps separate good claims from bad: putting them through a crucible of fire, so to speak. The result is claims that have been probed and tested from every direction: a familiar territory or arguement and counterarguement.

—Their constant needling, obviously belies some belief of their own, yet they don’t have the guts to state it and defend it.—

I think this is a VERY misguided idea. Many people may agree with the conclusion of a claim: but still disagree with the reasoning. I certainly agree with certain political positions, but I am harshly critical of those who make sloppy arguements for them. The point is that, utterly regardless of one’s position or belief, one can still be skeptical of claims. Any I think healthy skepticism, especially of positions one believes to be true, is a good thing.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Feh, if this board became dedicated to disproving ridiculous tin-foil hat claims, we’d have no time for discussing Star Trek or people who leave their children in their cars.

Priorities, people!

[perspective]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Actually, that’s exactly it: When examining a question under scientifc auspices the null hypothesis is always assumed to be true. The object of experimentation is to disprove the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis cannot be disproven, it continues to be assumed true.

But if the null hypothesis’s null hypothesis cannot be disproven either, than no assumption can be made. Trying to base a debate in this fashion just boils down who made the assertion first.

Since we already are in possession of evidence concerning human-made crop circles, it is up to the proponent of the other hypothesis to offer the evidence for his statement.

Who is in possession of this evidence and what is it? You still have to provide it if you want to debate.
Who says what the null hypothesis is and why it is relevant?
What if my null hypothesis was “Elephants did it”, aliens would win out in this one, since elephants would leave large wakes of destroyed crops around their circles.

The claim of a large carnivorous predator in Southern California I would classify as unknown, unlikely, and extraordinary. The number of assumptions that it rests on – undiscovered habitat, the presence of prey, how the prey’s population would be affected by a large predator, etc., the rarity of discovery of new large predators in general – all work against this being a run-of-the-mill claim.

Well, there you go. You’ve provided some good reasoning as to why it is extraordinary. To me this boils down to, “we have a large amount of data about this finite area, something that large would have been hard to not notice because x,y,and z, even if it was reclusive.” This a great framework for a debate, even if the original poster had not provided it.

However, I don’t think that you’re earlier argument about the extraordinariness of aliens holds water. We don’t have adequate data at present to make a conclusion. In addition, we even have reasons to assume that it is worthwhile to keep looking for life elsewhere.

It’s a big leap between unknown and IPU with at least one distinction (unlikely) in between. This distinction, I think, is too often overlooked.

[pldennison]

perspective, consider the case of a criminal trial. In a trial, it is the responsibility of the prosecution, who claims that the defendant committed the crime in question, to prove his or her case. The defendant, simply by pleading “Not guilty” and going to trial, is stating that the prosecution’s claim is false. Yet the defense is not required by the law to say a single word.

Defense may question the prosecution’s witnesses, but is not required to. After the prosecution has presented its case, the defense may move for a summary judgement on the basis that the case has not been proven. If the summary judgement is not granted, the defense may bring witnesses of its own, but does not have to. In fact, if the prosecution has presented an extremely weak case, the defense is fully entitled to say nothing more than, “The defense rests.”

Does this bring the distinction into any clearer focus?

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Apos *
Do you at least acknowledge that it’s perfectly possible to pick holes in a claim without making a contrary claim?

Yes, I’ve seen it, and I’m happy when it happens. That is not what I’m addressing.

I think you are getting really confusing here. Proof that it’s extrordinary? What do you mean? In most cases, this is a very trivial matter: i.e. THAT it is extrordinary is a very ordinary claim.

The only time it is trivial is when the proponent admits their claim is extraordinary. Otherwise, why can’t anyone claim that anything they want is extraordinary? Proof must be provided.
I think the alien example is a great example of how this can go wrong. Would you not make a distinction between the unknown, the unlikely, and the extraordinary?

No: I am saying that the claim is not self-proving, and that what has been presented just doesn’t prove the issue.

So if you want to see that proof, you’ve got to communicate about what kind of proof you need.

Criticism helps separate good claims from bad: putting them through a crucible of fire, so to speak. The result is claims that have been probed and tested from every direction: a familiar territory or arguement and counterarguement.

Yes, with counterarguments, please. It’s much more interesting and educational. Mere naysaying can be offered with no insight or meaning added to a debate.

—Their constant needling, obviously belies some belief of their own, yet they don’t have the guts to state it and defend it.—

I think this is a VERY misguided idea. Many people may agree with the conclusion of a claim: but still disagree with the reasoning. I certainly agree with certain political positions, but I am harshly critical of those who make sloppy arguements for them. The point is that, utterly regardless of one’s position or belief, one can still be skeptical of claims. Any I think healthy skepticism, especially of positions one believes to be true, is a good thing.

Yes I can see that and appreciate that people can take that stance, but I also see unhealthy “skepticism” which is really unjustified viewpoints being played out in an uninsightful manner.

[Sparc]

perspective

Are you saying that bovine speech capabilties, something for which we have a lot of evidence against, is equivalent to alien contact, something for which we have insufficient evidence either way?

Yes I am and no we do not. In fact there has not been one single incident of contact of the third degree forwarded that stood the test of scrutiny, not one single UFO sighting that has not been explained by more mundane and probable events or phenomena, all our attempts at detecting some kind of activity in our immediate space around us has come up empty. That’s a few billion people’s eyes and ears and some billions of dollars worth of scientific instruments that all blatantly fail to see any Aliens, pretty same as with the cows and horses, who by all evidence fail miserably to speak.

Methinks you’re mixing up the possibility of Alien life somewhere in the Universe besides where we reside, in which case I would say that there is more reason to believe in it than not, on the other hand there is no clear evidence in any direction, so that’s just my belief – if the question is to be ‘Is there intelligent life somewhere off Earth?’ it is the case that any assertion in any direction will require some formidable proof since both positions are quite extraordinary. I would say that there is not really a debate to be held on that premise save on the possibility and in that case the position that it is impossible is the extraordinary one since exobiology findings in the last ten years seem to conclusively support the possibility of life on other planetary bodies.

Yes neither of the debaters has done much to provide a good debate in your example.

For the obvious reason that he needs not make any effort to support his rather obvious position that equestrians and bovines do not speak my con man doesn’t have to make a good point. Faced with the blabbering idiocy of my pro man he might as well walk away as he eventually does.

On the converse end, imagine a debate where one person supplies evidence and the other simply sits around and picks at it with no indentifiable counterarguments. Their constant needling, obviously belies some belief of their own, yet they don’t have the guts to state it and defend it.

That’s the position of the skeptic, which is always a very healthy one to have around in a debate. S/he is basically saying; “Nope, you have not convinced me and I will therefore stick to the conventional wisdom on the subject.” Now if this needling is not done with some refutation of the cites provided, then it is only weaseling. The simplest form of refutation needs no counter argument, but can for instance be showing that the cite is not reliable or just pointing to that the argument proves nothing since it contains logical fallacies.

Please provide an example of a debate even remotely likely to happen on this board wherein a refutation or rebuttal might not need it’s own counterproof.

”Earth Is Flat” This one has happened and as one would expect it was a troll…

“America Is Always Wrong” or “Europeans Are All Liberals” Both happen all the time and we do refute them for the sake of all the idiots that actually are stupid enough to think that this has any basis. In fact the positions are so obviously dimwitted that providing counter proof is a waste of time, effort and should not be needed.

“There Must Have Been Alien Visitations On earth” Needs no counter argument other than ‘cite please’ or ‘sod off’ since it is fairly obvious that it is not so that this must have happened.

“The Illuminati Have Brainwashed Us All” Uh…well, you want to try to come up with counter arguments? You’ll be in an infinite loop of idiocy within three exchanges.

Then there is a whole array of arguments that are simply rhetorical errors and logical fallacies where you don’t need to counter the argument at all but attack the form. “Since Sparc, perspective and several other posters are all mega losers, many posters on the SDMB must be losers” which is just plain logically false and a rhetoric guffaw to which I need take no stance other than; “That’s non sequitor and to boot the basis of the argument is not falsifiable so it all falls apart into that we do not know any of the things you propose to be correct.”

I still maintain that it’s the bringer of the argument that needs to provide proof for his point first and that the demanded level on this proof will be relational to how extraordinary the claim is. The better the proof the more the opposition will have to bring as counter argument.

Sparc

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
Feh, if this board became dedicated to disproving ridiculous tin-foil hat claims, we’d have no time for discussing Star Trek or people who leave their children in their cars.

Priorities, people!

Remember, DNFTT is still an available option.

[clairobscur]

Are you saying that bovine speech capabilties, something for which we have a lot of evidence against, is equivalent to alien contact, something for which we have insufficient evidence either way? I think they are very different situations and if you want to equate the two you have some work ahead of you.
We know a lot about cows, a species we have lived thousands of years with. We know very little about the entire universe, something we only became truly aware of relatively recently and whose depths we have yet to survey. We have however gathered enough evidence to determine that the universe is quite vast and in comparison to earth much older. Currently there is very little that we can say about life in the rest of the universe other than we haven’t found it …yet.

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. People are telling you that the person making the claim must provide evidences backing it, or else the claim can be dismissed offhand.
Actually, what you’re doing is precisely backing your claim with what appears to you as sufficient evidences (the universe is rather large, who don’t know much about it, etc…). So, you don’t seem to disagree with the general idea (the one making the claim must provide evidences).
So, the real issue you have isn’t this one. Rather the issues seem to be :
-What claims should be considered extraordinary exactly (you seem to agree that there actually are extraordinary claims, like the speking horses claims)?
-What statement are your evidences supporting exactly? In these case, your arguments support the idea that there could be ETs somewhere, that we can’t exclude this possibility (like : there could be some unknow insect living in southern California). But it doesn’t prove that there actually are ETs, let alone that they’re related in any way with crop circles (like : there are unknow insects living in California, they are dark brown, live under rocks and feed on rotten fruits). If you want to make that claim, you still must back it, even if you have previously established with certainty that there actually are ETs somewhere in the galaxy.
-How compelling your arguments are exactly? That could be a matter of opinion.
But anyway, once again, you don’t seem to disagree with the basic idea that the person who makes the claim must back it.

[aramis]

perspective,

When someone makes an initial claim (cows can talk!), he provides his own implied justification for the requirement that the original, positive claimant has the burden of proof. Obviously, the person making the claim already sees that it needs proving or he wouldn’t make it in the first place. Certainly, I can make a similar claim (cows can’t talk!) and be pretty confident of never being refuted but that would be pointless. I know it, you know it, and so does everyone else. The very act of making an initial statement of a thesis (outside an of educational situation) implies that one knows in advance that the statement is not self-evident and so the listener’s request (demand) for evidence is entirely justified.

Furthermore, the person making the positive claim takes on the burden of proof simply because all things being equal, he has the easier job of it. Show me videotape of a spacecraft hovering over a cornfield making a crop circle and I’ll give it serious consideration. Show me one dead bigfoot, or even better a live one, and you’ve got me convinced. We on the other side can argue forever and never hope to convince everyone that there are no bigfoot (bigfeet?). Once again, the burden of evidence must lie with the original claimant. I don’t mean to imply that I say there are no bigfeet or that UFO’s don’t do at least some crop circles. I consider those hypotheses as conceivable, just very very unlikely to be true. On the crop circle issue, the UFO theory has about as much value as the leprechaun theory – conceivable, but anyone who actually believes in it is very likely badly mistaken.

At this point, you’re probably thinking “leprechauns, this guy’s making fun of me”. Consider the similarities though. Disregarding the pot of gold nonsense, both theories represent a group of intelligent, probably humanoid creatures that has spent a large amount of time on Earth, interacting only slightly with humans. Is it indeed possible that there could be another intelligent species sharing our world without our being fully cognizant of it? If nine-foot tall beasts can manage it, two-foot tall intelligent creatures probably can too.

There’s another aspect to this that you should consider as well. You seem to make the assumption that the listener will always take the opposing viewpoint. It’s entirely possible though that the listener will simply say something like “I’ve never heard about that, tell me more.” At this point the listener still has no obligation to accept the statement as an accurate representation of the real world, even though he doesn’t explicitly disagree with it. Once again though, it is incumbent on the original claimant to follow up with evidence and a cogent argument in favor of his original statement. If he fails to do so, the listener is perfectly justified in concluding that the speaker is incorrect.

When stated in the abstract, the imposition of a burden of proof may seem superficially unfair, but really, it’s a simple principle that describes something we all do every day. We make judgments about which theses to accept as givens, which can be accepted provisionally, and which are obvious nonsense and whole spectrum of positions in-between. Did you even for a moment consider accepting pldennison’s statement that there was a dragon in his office as true? I hardly think so. It was an extraordinary claim, and you never once considered asking him for evidence. I’m making a positive assertion here about your behavior but I think I’m on solid ground. If I’m mistaken, let me know.

In the end, these arguments come down to trying to figure out what the world is about and what we should do about it. They’re not just empty intellectual exercises that have no relevance to the real world. Each one of the issues that’s been talked about here forms the basis of a decision that will have to be made by somebody at some point in time (when a farmer sees somebody trampling his crops, should he get out the shotgun and risk starting an interplanetary war by shooting into the air?) When real-world consequences rest on your knowledge of a situation, you should try to get the best information possible about it. The scientific method, and the assignment of burden of evidence, are the best tools we’ve found yet to do that.

[Triskadecamus]

Perspective

Where does this burden come from?

It comes from the purpose of the person originally proposing the matter in question. Why do you post your proposed set of data? Do you do so simply because you believe them? No. You do so because you wish someone else to believe them.

To accomplish that aim, you must include in your recitation of the matter enough verifiable fact to make your audience consider your point of view worth listening to. At that point, who your audience is becomes an important factor. At a bar, late in the evening, the burden of proof is light. The claim can be outrageous, but the collective credulity of the audience is probably sufficient to let it pass as stated without evidence of any sort. No one will remember it in the morning, though.

Post on this forum, and the point is likely to be examined for factual content, even more than for it’s purported significance. A flawed argument in support of a widely held point of view will be disputed, and the flaws exposed. The opinion will never even be brought up. So why is the burden on the one who proposes the opinion? Because he is the one who wishes the idea to be considered, and perhaps believed.

He wants it to happen, he has to make it happen. Here, that takes well formulated logical premises, based on verifiable facts, and conclusions drawn entirely on those facts by valid logical implication. At the bar, buying another round will win you some support, no matter what the argument is.

If you just think that there really is a dragon in Phil’s office, then he is done with his argument, with a simple assertion. To make me believe it, he has a lot more work to do. And since I have taken the trouble of offering a few reasonable objections to his claim, so far, it looks like he is loosing the argument, to me.

So, the burden of proof is part of the burden assumed voluntarily by the person trying to convince anyone of anything. Who you want to convince changes the magnitude of that burden more than what you claim. To convince folks that agree with you already takes little more than yet another assertion. To convince the posters here requires references to publicly available information, compiled by disinterested or impartial sources to at least the essential facts you report. After that, you have to be logical, and avoid unwarranted assumptions. If you want to convince the National Association for the Advancement of Science, it will take empirical evidence provided by repeated implementation of independently designed experiments. Those results will be verified by others, including some that feel your opinion of the import of those results is incorrect.

That’s just for claims that have no prior proof. If you want to get extraordinary, the ante goes up.

But if you just want to convince the guy’s down at the bar, you can get by with less. Most nights.

Tris

“It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid.” ~ Albert Einstein ~
“You should see the place where Einstein used to drink!” ~ Triskadecamus ~

[erislover]

I think it is useful to combat extraordinary claims even if they are presented without a hint of evidence of reasoning to back them up. If anything, it serves you to ensure that you haven’t made some mistake in reasoning somewhere which allowed you to reject this thing in the first place.

Why would anyone claim something they could not prove? Well, for example, to try and demonstrate that even though it seems as though it was possible, it turns out that the opposite was necessary (logically).

I cannot prove that the squre root of two is rational. But I can claim it. From this claim comes a very real demonstration of the opposite case (given the law of the excluded middle). Admittedly, I am not sure how I could apply this to things like turning water into gasoline. But at least the possibility of a broader scope exists.

[erislover]

Well, for example, how about the old artificial intelligence debate? When prompted, most people cannot even say what intelligence really is at its core that we can test things besides humans for it scientifically. Nevertheless, this extraordinary claim has been the subject of much speculation and fevered debate.

I would assert that AI is possible. Now, given such a claim, I of course cannot prove it by demonstration else it wouldn’t be possible it would simply be. I also cannot define intelligence specifically enough for someone to measure it empirically.

Nevertheless, I find this extraordinary claim to be one worthy of investigation by whatever means we have.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Sparc *
Yes I am and no we do not. In fact there has not been one single incident of contact of the third degree forwarded that stood the test of scrutiny, not one single UFO sighting that has not been explained by more mundane and probable events or phenomena,

Oh really? What a beautiful example of overgeneralization based upon common knowledge. Do you even know how many UFO sightings there have been? Is there an exhaustive list somewhere that addresses and explains every single UFO sighting ever made in every country around the world? Would you care to cite this claim. Oh wait I forget, you don’t have to. :rolleyes:

I would be willing to bet that while, none of them have been credible enough to cause the news sensation that alien life would entail, there are probably those which are still not sufficiently explained. In other words they remain UFO’s even though we may not have reason to suspect that they are extraterrestrial ones.

It’s really an amazing claim when you think about it Sparc. I’d genuinely like to know how much time you’ve spent looking for unexplained UFO sightings.There is a difference between saying “we have determined the terrestrial origins of the sighting” and “this sighting does not conclusively prove to be of extraterrestrial origin”.

An easier argument would be to say," We have investigated many UFO sightings and found terrestrial origins for them." But even UFOologists will probably grant you that.

What do you say fellow debaters? Sparc has made a claim, does he have to back it up?

all our attempts at detecting some kind of activity in our immediate space around us has come up empty.

And in relation to the known size of the universe, how big is our sample?

if the question is to be ‘Is there intelligent life somewhere off Earth?’ it is the case that any assertion in any direction will require some formidable proof since both positions are quite extraordinary.

Well then, if claims either way are extraordinary, then would either side have a burden of proof other than the one that posted first?

For the obvious reason that he needs not make any effort to support his rather obvious position that equestrians and bovines do not speak my con man doesn’t have to make a good point.

Well if it’s really that obvious, he doesn’t have to post at all.

The simplest form of refutation needs no counter argument, but can for instance be showing that the cite is not reliable or just pointing to that the argument proves nothing since it contains logical fallacies.

These are actually both positions that require evidence. Your sources are not reliable because x. Your argument contains fallacies because y.
Saying “they’re a bunch of UFO quacks” is not a proof, saying ,“they’ve made six highly publicized claims that have all been falsified”, is.

“There Must Have Been Alien Visitations On earth” Needs no counter argument other than ‘cite please’ or ‘sod off’ since it is fairly obvious that it is not so that this must have happened.

Well even if someone cites Erich von Däniken, would that help? Maybe if we’re lucky someone will have actually read him and provide some excellent critique with cites that proves him wrong. More than likely though even if it does happen it will preceded by comments like “von Däniken is so full of crap. I’m going to waste space and insult this person’s intelligence instead of making an interesting and informative argument”

“The Illuminati Have Brainwashed Us All” Uh…well, you want to try to come up with counter arguments? You’ll be in an infinite loop of idiocy within three exchanges.

shrug…DNFTT

Then there is a whole array of arguments that are simply rhetorical errors and logical fallacies where you don’t need to counter the argument at all but attack the form.

Yes of course but this attack must be backed by evidence of bad form, not a repetition of it. “You’re such an idiot,why do you keep posting non sequiturs” is insufficient. “Calling someone a loser does not negate their views on x” is sufficient. Saying that someone has made a non sequitor is a claim and is also subject to proof.

[/QUOTE]
I still maintain that it’s the bringer of the argument that needs to provide proof for his point first and that the demanded level on this proof will be relational to how extraordinary the claim is.
[/QUOTE]
oh good then you will, provide the level of proof I demanded above.

[perspective]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
But anyway, once again, you don’t seem to disagree with the basic idea that the person who makes the claim must back it.

No I don’t excuse anyone from providing evidence. I’m saying that one person providing evidence at the demands of whoever questions for any reason, does not constitute a debate.

*Originally posted by aramis *
When someone makes an initial claim (cows can talk!), he provides his own implied justification for the requirement that the original, positive claimant has the burden of proof. Obviously, the person making the claim already sees that it needs proving or he wouldn’t make it in the first place.

Ok, but what are the standards for proof? Whatever anyone demands? Can I demand that you prove that we have an overpopulation problem by posting all the names and locations of everyone on the planet? Isn’t there an unjustified skepticism, or unreasonable demands for proof? How are we supposed to know when this happens?

Disregarding the pot of gold nonsense, both theories represent a group of intelligent, probably humanoid creatures that has spent a large amount of time on Earth, interacting only slightly with humans.

Aliens that make crop circles might be any shape or size and could have shown up very recently. Crop circles, to my knowledge, are a recent phonomenom, and the contact necessary to produce them could be quite rare. You’ve got a ways to go on you leprechuan/alien analogy.

It’s entirely possible though that the listener will simply say something like “I’ve never heard about that, tell me more.”

I’ve acknowledged and welcomed this technique, that is not what I’m addressing.

We make judgments about which theses to accept as givens, which can be accepted provisionally, and which are obvious nonsense and whole spectrum of positions in-between. Did you even for a moment consider accepting pldennison’s statement that there was a dragon in his office as true? I hardly think so. It was an extraordinary claim, and you never once considered asking him for evidence. I’m making a positive assertion here about your behavior but I think I’m on solid ground. If I’m mistaken, let me know.

Well actually, I surmised that the most likely explanation for his(?) post was that he was imitating a troll to make a point. He was making an assertion which was not only extraordinary but unfalsifiable. That is why the fire breathing dragon was invisible.

If I’d really believed that he truly thought that there was fire breathing dragon was in his office, I would have reccomended seeking professional help rather than arguing a point with him.

Yes I do make judgemement calls on assertions based upon my experiences. But when the claim is really extraordinary and unprovable, I know better than to waste my time.If the claim is simply extraordinary, I usually just watch the debate unfold. If I am truly curious, I will ask politely for an explanation. But I do this with the understanding that it is not an attempt at refutation. Rather it is an attempt at clarification. Now if in the course of clarification, I find something that I think is refutable than I will attempt to do so. But if I wish to assert that someone is drawing a false conclusion, I must demonstrate that my refutation is relevant.This requires an understanding of the evidence that is present for and against the assertion.
Poster A:“The earth is round because chocolate tastes good”
Poster B:" The taste of chocolate is a matter of personal preference. Some people don’t like chocolate therefore by your assumptions the earth is only partly round"
Poster A: “Gosh I guess you’re right. The earth must be partly round.”

The refutation of someone’s evidence may have nothing to do with the truth of their assertions. Occasionally there is a good place for someone to pop in and ask for clarification or point out a looked over fact. But sitting around demanding evidence to meet one’s prejudices (false or not) is not participating in a debate.

[Sparc]

perspective

Do you even know how many UFO sightings there have been? Is there an exhaustive list somewhere that addresses and explains every single UFO sighting ever made in every country around the world? Would you care to cite this claim. Oh wait I forget, you don’t have to.

Well, technically speaking out of the order how a debate flows, you should provide me with evidence of your initial claim so that I could either refute it or accept it, but since this debate is about proof I’ll accommodate you and provide you with the null hypothesis on UFOs:

Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book

From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was terminated Dec. 17, 1969. Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified. […]
[ol]* No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;

• There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as “unidentified” represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
  *** There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as “unidentified” were extraterrestrial vehicles.**[/ol]emphasis added

For the sake of order I should note that the even if the report already discards 701 unidentified sightings they have also subsequently been explained.

Some ufologists claim that six sightings remain unexplainable, but these have been debunked as well by amongst other Robert Sheaffer editor of The UFO Skeptic’s Page and who in 1998 published the most definite run through of UFO sightings to date in UFO Sightings – The Evidence. For more online reading you can visit astronomer Tim Printy who provides several listings debunking famous and not so famous ones.

Hence the null hypothesis is that there have been no sightings that could not be explained by other phenomena. For me to get involved in a debate on UFOs I would therefore expect anyone that claims there is reason to believe in them to come up with some new proof before I bring any proof. Considering that the claim in view of the current evidence is rather fantastic, I would also expect the proof to be of the same level.

Well then, if claims either way are extraordinary, then would either side have a burden of proof other than the one that posted first?

This is a question of order and sanity. If I say “There is definitely no life in the universe, except on earth.” Shouldn’t I then back my claim with some evidence so that you have something to debate against rather than a facile claim? Until I do you might just be debating a troll, or a crackpot in a tinfoil hat. Even if I am genuine and sane the risk is just that we end up with “no there isn’t/yes there is” level of debate, or that you waste your time compiling evidence only to be met with; “Oh well I thought so, but now that you say it… it was just a thought.” Of course the null hypothesis in that debate is that there is the possibility of life off Earth and even the probability of life off Earth, but we still have no conclusive evidence.

Well if it’s really that obvious, he doesn’t have to post at all.

Exactly, until a claim is backed with some proof there is in fact no real reason to post. An OP should contain either invitation to state position in matters that are of opinion, with the opinion of the OP stated and some argument that supports this opinion. An OP debating a factual position should contain evidence of the thesis forwarded.

“Calling someone a loser does not negate their views on x”

If that is the correct reply to the sample argument being refuted it is not made in non sequitor, but is an ad hominem.

Saying that someone has made a non sequitor is a claim and is also subject to proof.

No. It is subject to no proof other than pointing it out. The statement in refutation is proof enough in its own illogical self. Look, if I make a claim where I say that A gives B hence C, what other than pointing out that this is non sequitor do you need to do? Arguing against me at that point is being lured into either following a red herring, or letting me erect a strawman.

oh good then you will, provide the level of proof I demanded above.

As I said, you maid the claim first and had the debate really been about UFOs I wouldn’t have engaged you in debate until you show me some argument that refutes the null hypothesis. While I’m at it I should request that you give us an argument that solidly supports your rather fantastic claim that the burden of proof in debate is reversed or shared. The conventional wisdom we have from the study of rhetoric says that the burden of proof resides with the bringer of the argument and so far I haven’t seen any solid argument from your side that refutes this null hypothesis. All that being said…

But sitting around demanding evidence to meet one’s prejudices (false or not) is not participating in a debate.

I have a vague suspicion that you are really debating against poor rhetoric and not where the burden of proof resides, in which case I agree. Knuckleheaded responses on the level of ‘I don’t believe you anyway’ or ‘that is such a typical conservative argument and soooo wrong’ are indeed quite frustrating and have no place in serious debate.

I think so because right here you agree with us:

If the claim is simply extraordinary, I usually just watch the debate unfold. If I am truly curious, I will ask politely for an explanation. But I do this with the understanding that it is not an attempt at refutation. Rather it is an attempt at clarification.

With the caveat that you prefer a polite and passive initial debating stile, that is exactly the same thing as either not engaging, or asking for proof before you engage.

Sparc

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Sparc *
Well, technically speaking out of the order how a debate flows, you should provide me with evidence of your initial claim so that I could either refute it or accept it, but since this debate is about proof I’ll accommodate you and provide you with the null hypothesis on UFOs:

Thank you for accomodating me, but what was my initial claim? I questioned the assertion that UFO’s were extraordinary.

For the sake of order I should note that the even if the report already discards 701 unidentified sightings they have also subsequently been explained.

It’s nice of you to reassure me of that, but you didn’t cite it.
Your further cites are relevant and informative. Thank you. However, they are insufficient to advance your broad claim.

Hence the null hypothesis is that there have been no sightings that could not be explained by other phenomena.

This different from your initial claim. Saying that they could be explained is different from saying that they were.

Since the USAF project, the investigation has apparently been left up to private organizations. These generally have a stated bias pro or con. The fact that the debunkers have kept up their case, while probably underfunded speaks well for them. But I wonder if they have the time to investigate all of the claims.

What you have shown is that there have been a large number of misplaced sightings or hoaxes. But what is the causal relationship between UFO hoaxes and the possibility of alien contact? I fail to see any. Do you think that aliens would base their decision on whether or not to visit earth based on whether or not people are taking pictures of pie plates in their backyard?

Instead I see a case against people presenting UFO evidence. If only because even if there were real evidence, it would get swallowed up the deluge of fake or misinterpreted evidence. So if I come forward with some blurry photo, you can say," I don’t know what that blur is, but I’ve seen so many blurry photos get assigned terrestrial origins, I’m not going to believe you." You have made this conclusion not because alien contact is extraordinary, or even because you know what is in the photograph, but because human misunderstanding or chicanery is ordinary.

An OP should contain either invitation to state position in matters that are of opinion, with the opinion of the OP stated and some argument that supports this opinion. An OP debating a factual position should contain evidence of the thesis forwarded.

Something that has been overlooked is that assertions of fact can first be made outside of the OP. Suppose it’s a death penalty debate. This a debate which can be made entirely on emotional grounds. However, some people base their opinions on it’s efficacy or lack thereof. So if the burden of proof is always on the person who dares to reference a fact first, what is the motivation to do so? Suddenly everyone who opposes you starts attacking your evidence, yet they have no motivation to bring facts to the table to back up their unstated assertions. So instead of an even handed but non factual debate, we have a one sided possibly factual debate.A much preffered option to me is that both sides seek to advance their cases through facts where necessary and are expected to bring a valid coherent argument to refute the other.

If that is the correct reply to the sample argument being refuted it is not made in non sequitor, but is an ad hominem.

An ad hominem can be a non sequitur.

It is subject to no proof other than pointing it out. The statement in refutation is proof enough in its own illogical self. Look, if I make a claim where I say that A gives B hence C, what other than pointing out that this is non sequitor do you need to do?

You need to point out why it is a non sequitur.

While I’m at it I should request that you give us an argument that solidly supports your rather fantastic claim that the burden of proof in debate is reversed or shared. The conventional wisdom we have from the study of rhetoric says that the burden of proof resides with the bringer of the argument and so far I haven’t seen any solid argument from your side that refutes this null hypothesis.

Do you have reason to believe I have not been trying to produce this proof through reasoned argument all along?
And as far as the “bringer of the argument” I think this is misleading since the “battle lines” have been drawn in many arguments already. Nine times out of ten, there are competing viewpoints being weighed against each other. Who posts first, can simply be a child’s game.

[Apos]

—An ad hominem can be a non sequitur.—

Ad hominem IS a form of non sequitur.

[Sparc]

[re. The UFO debate] However, they are insufficient to advance your broad claim.

OK, if you feel that way. As I said earlier I think that the debate at hand is not quite about this issue so I think that I would rather just leave it as it stands. If you feel that this is a debatable issue, then I suggest you debate it. Since I believe the null hypothesis to be that there is no proof of UFO visitations I shall however only join that debate should there be new evidence or good arguments to support a change of the null hypothesis. I could obviously join it to shoot fish in a barrel as well…

Suppose it’s a death penalty debate. This a debate which can be made entirely on emotional grounds.[…] A much preffered option to me is that both sides seek to advance their cases through facts where necessary and are expected to bring a valid coherent argument to refute the other.

I don’t understand why you are arguing against when you agree for. This is the exact point of proof… no proof from the asserting party equals no debate since there is no fact to refute. Debate on emotional grounds is maybe entertaining as a screaming match, but hardly an intellectual challenge and not very satisfying.

An ad hominem can be a non sequitur.

It’s been pointed out that an ad hominem always is. In your example the non-sequitor wasn’t the problem though… the irrelevant attack on the person was. Keep you rhetoric fallacies separate even when they are related! It helps you argumentation.

You need to point out why it is a non sequitur.

No you do not. The only thing you need to do is to say; “That is non-sequitor.” If you are in a good mood you can add; “…since it is not so that if A gives B, C is a given,” with A, B and C being replaced with whatever hogwash the non-sequitor contained. Again though, you need not clarify in any other way than to point out that it is an argument that does not hold up since the conclusion does not follow from the premise. That’s why we have specific words for the errors of rhetoric, they shortcut the need towards lengthy diatribe.

And as far as the “bringer of the argument” I think this is misleading since the “battle lines” have been drawn in many arguments already. Nine times out of ten, there are competing viewpoints being weighed against each other. Who posts first, can simply be a child’s game.

Well no, there are never just pro and con, there are multiple shades in between. Claims and counterclaims can be overall or detailed. Personally I’m not much for debate where “the battle lines are drawn.” I like some controversy, some debatable issues and some revolutionary hypothesis that requires hardcore counterarguments. ‘God exists/God doesn’t exist’ type debates or ‘Abortion immoral or not?’ make me tired just at the thought of them. ‘The ontological proof of God makes theism a scientifically valid position’ is however quite stimulating to follow, and ‘Proof of self awareness in prenatal embryos makes abortion murder?’ would catch me as well.

On issues that matter to me personally for opinion reasons I will only take part as to safeguard that idiocy and ignorance does not prevail and serve as the basis for position and argument, but I will neither attempt to convince a pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian to be neutral nor will I try to convert a devout Muslim or Jew to atheism… that’s hopeless from the start.

All that makes it ironic that I am still debating this…

Sparc