3 ms·

>In such cases, it can be valuable to shift the burden of proof back to your opponent in order to get them to at least justify their line of questioning before

by ABCLAW 8y ago

>In such cases, it can be valuable to shift the burden of proof back to your opponent in order to get them to at least justify their line of questioning before answering those questions. This article skates around with this idea of 'shifting the burden of proof'. It does so to avoid actually discussing the fact that some people in discussions are not there in good faith. There's nothing to prove in a question, so how do you shift a burden of proof in respect of a line of questioning? The article attempts to equate questioning the motives or intentions behind a line of inquiry and the burden of proof. These are not the same thing. >whereas in civil cases the plaintiff might have a more lenient burden of proof, such as the standard of “preponderance of the evidence”, which is the requirement that more than half of the evidence that is presented will support your case. What the fuck? This isn't right.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> > whereas in civil cases the plaintiff might have a more lenient burden of proof, such as the standard of “preponderance of the evidence”, which is the requirement that more than half of the evidence that is presented will support your case. > What the fuck? This isn't right. It's very close to correct; preponderance of the evidence is the dominant civil standard of proof in the US, though it is more accurately summarized as requiring that the trier of fact (jury or judge, depending on whether it is a jury trial or not) must find your claim to be more likely true than not based on the evidence. (“More than half of the evidence” sort of implies that it's just volume of evidence at issue, which is potentially misleading.)
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  It's not close to correct. It is wrong. The article literally links to the correct test, but the author's language cobbles together of a few sub-links worth of half-digested material that the author doesn't understand to avoid plagiarizing the legal dictionary. There is no quantitative assessment of how much evidence supports one side or the other in the test at all. Ignoring how ironic it is to make a mistake of this type, it's particularly grating because adding more evidence to one side of a dispute doesn't necessarily add to how much we believe their position, yet most of the article's statements regarding proof are made with that assumption. He equates evidence with proof (or at least an element in approaching proof), but fails to address the connection between evidence, pre-existing belief and interpretation. This is why people talk past each other. This is why different news orgs can 'spin' the same facts in opposite directions. Ignoring that complexity leads to mistakes. This error is consistent and the top parent comment in this comments section notes a particularly glaring weakness in the non-bayesian approach.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
It isn’t right, indeed. The “standard of proof” and the “burden of proof” are different things. The burden of proof is about who must prove or what must be proven; whereas the standard of proof is about how thorough that proof needs to be before we make a determination. A lot of the controversy about stuff like “sealioning” or when to act on claims of irregular behavior is due to failing to distinguish burden of proof and standard of proof.

by ABCLAW 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> > whereas in civil cases the plaintiff might have a more lenient burden of proof, such as the standard of “preponderance of the evidence”, which is the requirement that more than half of the evidence that is presented will support your case. > What the fuck? This isn't right. It's very close to correct; preponderance of the evidence is the dominant civil standard of proof in the US, though it is more accurately summarized as requiring that the trier of fact (jury or judge, depending on whether it is a jury trial or not) must find your claim to be more likely true than not based on the evidence. (“More than half of the evidence” sort of implies that it's just volume of evidence at issue, which is potentially misleading.)

ABCLAW 8y ago
It's not close to correct. It is wrong. The article literally links to the correct test, but the author's language cobbles together of a few sub-links worth of half-digested material that the author doesn't understand to avoid plagiarizing the legal dictionary. There is no quantitative assessment of how much evidence supports one side or the other in the test at all. Ignoring how ironic it is to make a mistake of this type, it's particularly grating because adding more evidence to one side of a dispute doesn't necessarily add to how much we believe their position, yet most of the article's statements regarding proof are made with that assumption. He equates evidence with proof (or at least an element in approaching proof), but fails to address the connection between evidence, pre-existing belief and interpretation. This is why people talk past each other. This is why different news orgs can 'spin' the same facts in opposite directions. Ignoring that complexity leads to mistakes. This error is consistent and the top parent comment in this comments section notes a particularly glaring weakness in the non-bayesian approach.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

It isn’t right, indeed. The “standard of proof” and the “burden of proof” are different things. The burden of proof is about who must prove or what must be proven; whereas the standard of proof is about how thorough that proof needs to be before we make a determination. A lot of the controversy about stuff like “sealioning” or when to act on claims of irregular behavior is due to failing to distinguish burden of proof and standard of proof.