4 ms·

> The fundamental problem is a lack of jobs, because there is no market mechanism by which the private sector will create sufficient jobs to hire everybody who

by zamfi 6y ago

> The fundamental problem is a lack of jobs, because there is no market mechanism by which the private sector will create sufficient jobs to hire everybody who wants work. This is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

lordnacho 6y ago
Actually it's phrased as a negative. Isn't it up to the positive side to come up with the evidence? Alternatively, pick it apart and expose it as a positive claim and ask for evidence.
- zamfi 6y ago
  How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, no? This is true regardless of how extraordinary the claim is. I find your claim that “markets cannot provide full employment” not at all obvious, regardless of phrasing, and am asking for evidence. Your response suggests you don’t have any. By this logic, if I say something like “there was no moon landing”, I could demand that you offer evidence to the contrary instead of offering any of my own.
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    > How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof. It's a principle that the person who presents a positive case is the one who needs to come up with the evidence. I can say "there's no god" without evidence, it's the guy who says the God of the Bible is real who has to explain what he means. > I find your claim... Note the reply chain, I didn't claim anything. > By this logic, if I say something like “there was no moon landing”, I could demand that you offer evidence to the contrary instead of offering any of my own. The contrary would be that there was a moon landing, and indeed the person who claims it happened would be required to come up with the evidence. Luckily there's a lot of it.
    - zamfi 6y ago
      Sorry, did indeed get you confused with the parent poster! > It's a principle that the person who presents a positive case is the one who needs to come up with the evidence Great, a nice positive claim — where’s your evidence for it?
      - lordnacho 6y ago
        Heh, funnily enough you can't prove a principle. But you can find people who support it with reasonable sounding arguments. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-negative-claimant-have-a-burden-of-proof https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-ne... It boils down to negative claims being quite sweeping, eg "there's no life on other planets" would be on the face of it quite hard to show.
        zamfi 6y ago
        Come on, friend — the very first accepted response there is: > I would say that generally, the burden of proof falls on whomever is making a claim, regardless of the positive or negative nature of that claim. If your intent was to convince me that I’m right, you are doing a wonderful job. :) I might add: your selective quoting of this link also throws some doubt on your claim in another thread that we can solve all of confirmation bias through the educational system...glass houses, stones, etc. - we all preferentially seek out evidence that supports our prior beliefs, and we do it throughout our lives. It takes crazy, sustained effort to avoid, not just a lesson in separating fact from fiction!
        lordnacho 6y ago
        There's a lot more to if if you read it. He says the fact that we tend to place the burden on the positive side is because it's essentially impossible to prove the negative, for a lot of cases. If every claim and it's negative need to be proven, how do you think we proceed? Add in that you can formulate the negative without using standard polarity flippers like "not" and "never". We have to start somewhere, and generally the guy who says "God exists" is the guy who has to make the case. The one who says "There's no god" might need to explain what he means, but he doesn't need to go get a bunch of evidence. I doubt that you disagree with that example. The question of which is the positive claim arises because it's possible with some fancy footwork to act like you're not saying "God Exists". This is what needed to be picked apart, or not, in the case of the economic argument at the top of the thread. > I might add: your selective quoting I didn't quote anything, I referenced the entirety. Part of the point of that is so we avoid picking out a headline and then claim to be finished. But the fact remains, in school we don't spend much time thinking about all those critical thinking skills. If we at least tried it, kids would be better at it. Much like physical training, it's something that should be brought to our attention in school but needs to be maintained.
ubercow13 6y ago
Doesn't really seem extraordinary, it seems self evident, otherwise why is unemployment a problem at all?
- zamfi 6y ago
  Self-evident that the market can't provide enough jobs for everyone? The labor market in nearly every country -- certainly every wealthy one -- is highly regulated, so it's hard to know how one could even have experience with this, let alone claim it to be self-evident. Unless your claim is (unlike the parent poster, perhaps) that the US's highly-regulated labor market doesn't provide enough jobs...which I would agree with...but we'd probably disagree on the cause!

by zamfi 6y ago

lordnacho 6y ago

Actually it's phrased as a negative. Isn't it up to the positive side to come up with the evidence? Alternatively, pick it apart and expose it as a positive claim and ask for evidence.

zamfi 6y ago
How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, no? This is true regardless of how extraordinary the claim is. I find your claim that “markets cannot provide full employment” not at all obvious, regardless of phrasing, and am asking for evidence. Your response suggests you don’t have any. By this logic, if I say something like “there was no moon landing”, I could demand that you offer evidence to the contrary instead of offering any of my own.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  > How it’s phrased is irrelevant to who bears the burden of proof. It's a principle that the person who presents a positive case is the one who needs to come up with the evidence. I can say "there's no god" without evidence, it's the guy who says the God of the Bible is real who has to explain what he means. > I find your claim... Note the reply chain, I didn't claim anything. > By this logic, if I say something like “there was no moon landing”, I could demand that you offer evidence to the contrary instead of offering any of my own. The contrary would be that there was a moon landing, and indeed the person who claims it happened would be required to come up with the evidence. Luckily there's a lot of it.
  - zamfi 6y ago
    Sorry, did indeed get you confused with the parent poster! > It's a principle that the person who presents a positive case is the one who needs to come up with the evidence Great, a nice positive claim — where’s your evidence for it?
    - lordnacho 6y ago
      Heh, funnily enough you can't prove a principle. But you can find people who support it with reasonable sounding arguments. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-negative-claimant-have-a-burden-of-proof https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-ne... It boils down to negative claims being quite sweeping, eg "there's no life on other planets" would be on the face of it quite hard to show.
      - zamfi 6y ago
        Come on, friend — the very first accepted response there is: > I would say that generally, the burden of proof falls on whomever is making a claim, regardless of the positive or negative nature of that claim. If your intent was to convince me that I’m right, you are doing a wonderful job. :) I might add: your selective quoting of this link also throws some doubt on your claim in another thread that we can solve all of confirmation bias through the educational system...glass houses, stones, etc. - we all preferentially seek out evidence that supports our prior beliefs, and we do it throughout our lives. It takes crazy, sustained effort to avoid, not just a lesson in separating fact from fiction!
        lordnacho 6y ago
        There's a lot more to if if you read it. He says the fact that we tend to place the burden on the positive side is because it's essentially impossible to prove the negative, for a lot of cases. If every claim and it's negative need to be proven, how do you think we proceed? Add in that you can formulate the negative without using standard polarity flippers like "not" and "never". We have to start somewhere, and generally the guy who says "God exists" is the guy who has to make the case. The one who says "There's no god" might need to explain what he means, but he doesn't need to go get a bunch of evidence. I doubt that you disagree with that example. The question of which is the positive claim arises because it's possible with some fancy footwork to act like you're not saying "God Exists". This is what needed to be picked apart, or not, in the case of the economic argument at the top of the thread. > I might add: your selective quoting I didn't quote anything, I referenced the entirety. Part of the point of that is so we avoid picking out a headline and then claim to be finished. But the fact remains, in school we don't spend much time thinking about all those critical thinking skills. If we at least tried it, kids would be better at it. Much like physical training, it's something that should be brought to our attention in school but needs to be maintained.

ubercow13 6y ago

Doesn't really seem extraordinary, it seems self evident, otherwise why is unemployment a problem at all?

zamfi 6y ago
Self-evident that the market can't provide enough jobs for everyone? The labor market in nearly every country -- certainly every wealthy one -- is highly regulated, so it's hard to know how one could even have experience with this, let alone claim it to be self-evident. Unless your claim is (unlike the parent poster, perhaps) that the US's highly-regulated labor market doesn't provide enough jobs...which I would agree with...but we'd probably disagree on the cause!