5 ms·

> > No and no > present facts That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. In the former case, w

> > No and no > present facts That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. In the former case, we have only appeal to authority (some book says) and to personal belief, neither of which are facts. In the latter case, we have a proven medical fraud committed by a person with financial interest in rival treatments, said person having lost their medical license as a result of said fraud. Your serve.

karpierz 3y ago
> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. What? Why? If this were true, you could: 1. Take the claim you want to assert 2. Claim the negation of the claim is false (the "no"). 3. If anyone asks for facts, just say the burden of proof is on them to show the negation is true.
- CodeMage 3y ago
  You misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying, and you also seem to either misunderstand or simply not know about the burden of proof. For my part, I find the original "no and no" reply perfectly adequate for the smug "I'm only asking questions" assertion-in-disguise that prompted it. Life is too short to debate trolls.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    I agree that parent seems to be trolling, but I don't agree on your assessment about the burden-of-proof point. Where is the misunderstanding? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661671 (Other reply I made just now on the burden-of-proof thing)
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > I agree that parent seems to be trolling You seem like an actually reasonable person (and thanks for the support)....do you think it's possible that there might be more to what it is I'm doing than "trolling"? A way to think about it: do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls" (as opposed to realizing that they are correct, and may actually have an important point) might cause long term harm to a culture? Another way to think about it: mocking Trump supporters and religious fundamentalists is both easy and fun, and therefore popular - but how much value is there in it? Now, contrast this to finding questions that ~everyone will fail on, including highly educated and genuinely smart people. How much value might there be in this (keeping in mind the numerous seemingly intractable problems we have going on on this shitshow of a planet)? I'm asking you rather than the other guy because I think you can likely actually consider the question. An interesting followup question maybe: what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas. I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        > do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls" I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though. Please accept my continuation of the discussion as...well, just that, actually. > but how much value is there in it? Mere mocking certainly isn't valuable. I think it's more that people believe they are definitely correct and they mock those who they view as definitely wrong because there's nothing to debate, but a lot of people seem too trigger-happy to conclude that they are definitely right and the other person is definitely wrong, without considering nuance. Then the questions they will field in actual debate are already selected by bias to be at least somewhat aligned in their views. > what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas. I'm a proud person and I fancy myself a thinker; along these lines, I don't know if detest is quite the right word, but I don't view them positively in that aspect. I think I'd do fine (generally) not treating them differently because of that, but I do have strong feelings about critical thinking and its deficit in many people. I recognize that I'm not infallible either, yet I don't waver in typing this. I definitely have shown instances of being open-minded, but it's not like I know right now where I stand. Ha, I turned this into talking about me. > I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. Agree. > And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved. I wonder about that. I don't think there's necessarily an upper bound of critical thinking/understanding, but in its place there are gaps between every person where understanding can only be achieved by...understanding. It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap.
        mistermann 3y ago
        > I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though. I revealed my motive though: these two particular questions are guaranteed to invoke errors in normative cognition, and often especially in intelligent people. >> I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. > Agree. Well now I'm curious...any theories (wild and speculative is fine by me) on some candidate causes? > It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap. Which was more than we could say about actual planes, before a couple of weirdos got off their asses and actually built one. But it seems there's something about this problem that's different, almost like it doesn't allow itself to be analyzed, or even noticed. "Some day" humanity will reach the oft-discussed but never pursued world of widespread critical thinking seems to be the plan, without having even taken the first step towards it. Noteworthy: I am far from the first person who has noticed this phenomenon.
    - CodeMage 3y ago
      The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions. The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions". Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device. It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro". The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        > The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions. I absolutely love this comment, because it is literally and necessarily an opinion, but it explicitly claims that it is a fact. This is what I was anticipating when I said: "The effect these questions have on even the very best minds is amazing, I wonder what will happen here..." > The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions". This one's great too - let me guess, you believe that in "the non-question parts, reveals the true nature" it is solely the words themselves doing the "revealing", am I right? Or, would you prefer to maybe not discuss that topic in detail? :) > Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device. It is also true, and some might even say mean. > It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro". Yup, and this is what keeps your culture permanently locked into Maya: the world as dream (like above where you literally can't distinguish between the necessarily subjective and objective - and this is under asynchronous conditions, imagine how you'd perform in realtime). > The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot. lol, what does this even mean? By the way: Russell's Teapot is not a proof, but it certainly may appear as such to those afflicted by Normative Cognition.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion. If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion. If you look up the definition on Wikipedia, you may notice that your articulation of it here is slightly off. You may also not be able to notice it, which is what makes "reality" so tricky. > If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo And Mother Nature will reward you accordingly for the quality of your thinking/delusion/indoctrination. > If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored. Yep, you can literally do pretty much whatever you like, but don't whine when unintended consequences show up later ("Ooooooh no, climate change, why doesn't some do something!!!!!). Best of luck with guessing your way through life, humans!
vacuity 3y ago
The burden of proof is on the person who provides an answer. Whether that is "yes", "no", "yes in this case and no everywhere else", that is an answer that should be backed by some evidence and reasoning. If the questions and answers had been perfectly flipped, would you have said that the burden of proof is on those who say "no"?
mistermann 3y ago
> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? > In the former case, we have only appeal to authority (some book says) You are incorrect - we also have epistemology, logic, ontology, neuroscience/psychology/anthropology and various other fields which contain discoveries that are relevant to the psychological phenomenon (~"reality") you are currently experiencing. > and to personal belief, neither of which are facts. If you and your epistemology-ignorant and denying crew can treat your beliefs as facts (as is regularly done in these conversations), why can religious people not do the same? I mean come on man, double standards are bad, no? > In the latter case, we have a proven medical fraud committed by a person with financial interest in rival treatments, said person having lost their medical license as a result of said fraud. Which proves nothing. I am genuinely curious: do you believe that Wakefield being discovered to be a fraud PROVES there is ZERO causal association between vaccines and autism? Because there sure are a lot of people who believe that, including a lot of people right here on HN.
- XorNot 3y ago
  > Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? What if the number of pirates in the world is in fact linked to the increase in mean global temperature? Can you present any evidence it isn't?
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Parent and GP were talking about where the burden of proof lies. That's a matter of opinion, but one that should generally be considered settled on Hacker News. Apparently it isn't. Anyways, while parent made a somewhat snarky reply, yours isn't better. If parent was shown discussing "actual" points (for example, the vaccine question) with an absurdly high bar for proof from the other side, your reply would be relevant. As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything egregiously wrong about parent's reply about the vaccine question. Perhaps the evidence or reasoning is wrong, but you didn't address that.
  - 3y ago
xyzelement 3y ago
// That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. I used to think this way but lately recognize this isn't intellectually honest. Even w/o religion we have to acknowledge that our ability to perceive and understand is very limited compared to what must be the totality of truths in the universe. This seems obvious - eg if you believe in evolution, you recognize that you evolved to be fit in your environment (eat and avoid being eaten) - why would you expect this process to grant you machinery to understand fundamental universal truths? Once I recognized this limitation, I recognized the intellectual dishonestly of what I previously considered rigor: "I can't see/understand it so it doesn't exist" is as ridiculous an assertion as anything.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Insisting on fixing burden of proof according to reasonable and customary rules is how we bring information from honest and forthright discussion partners into scope where their thoughts can be fully considered and guard our time from unserious, dishonest, or ridiculous individuals who sap our time and will by insisting that unreasonable meritless ideas spun with a minimum of effort demand profound effort on our part to disprove what they never bothered to prove in the first place. If you tell me the moon is made of cheese my rebuttal isn't going to be to launch a manned mission I'm going to tightly flip it on you. This isn't intellectually dishonest. The fact for instance that our ability to understand the underlying reality if any may be limited doesn't mean that every proposition is equally valid. You entire life has been built on picking the most likely explanation for a set of inputs received. It's how your ancestors didn't get eaten by animals. If you are wandering around an orchard and find what looks like a smelly pile of dung do feel free not to put it in your mouth to find out if it's actually an apple.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    You clearly know your rhetoric, watch out for this though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
  - xyzelement 3y ago

karpierz 3y ago

> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. What? Why? If this were true, you could: 1. Take the claim you want to assert 2. Claim the negation of the claim is false (the "no"). 3. If anyone asks for facts, just say the burden of proof is on them to show the negation is true.

CodeMage 3y ago
You misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying, and you also seem to either misunderstand or simply not know about the burden of proof. For my part, I find the original "no and no" reply perfectly adequate for the smug "I'm only asking questions" assertion-in-disguise that prompted it. Life is too short to debate trolls.
- vacuity 3y ago
  I agree that parent seems to be trolling, but I don't agree on your assessment about the burden-of-proof point. Where is the misunderstanding? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661671 (Other reply I made just now on the burden-of-proof thing)
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I agree that parent seems to be trolling You seem like an actually reasonable person (and thanks for the support)....do you think it's possible that there might be more to what it is I'm doing than "trolling"? A way to think about it: do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls" (as opposed to realizing that they are correct, and may actually have an important point) might cause long term harm to a culture? Another way to think about it: mocking Trump supporters and religious fundamentalists is both easy and fun, and therefore popular - but how much value is there in it? Now, contrast this to finding questions that ~everyone will fail on, including highly educated and genuinely smart people. How much value might there be in this (keeping in mind the numerous seemingly intractable problems we have going on on this shitshow of a planet)? I'm asking you rather than the other guy because I think you can likely actually consider the question. An interesting followup question maybe: what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas. I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      > do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls" I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though. Please accept my continuation of the discussion as...well, just that, actually. > but how much value is there in it? Mere mocking certainly isn't valuable. I think it's more that people believe they are definitely correct and they mock those who they view as definitely wrong because there's nothing to debate, but a lot of people seem too trigger-happy to conclude that they are definitely right and the other person is definitely wrong, without considering nuance. Then the questions they will field in actual debate are already selected by bias to be at least somewhat aligned in their views. > what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas. I'm a proud person and I fancy myself a thinker; along these lines, I don't know if detest is quite the right word, but I don't view them positively in that aspect. I think I'd do fine (generally) not treating them differently because of that, but I do have strong feelings about critical thinking and its deficit in many people. I recognize that I'm not infallible either, yet I don't waver in typing this. I definitely have shown instances of being open-minded, but it's not like I know right now where I stand. Ha, I turned this into talking about me. > I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. Agree. > And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved. I wonder about that. I don't think there's necessarily an upper bound of critical thinking/understanding, but in its place there are gaps between every person where understanding can only be achieved by...understanding. It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        > I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though. I revealed my motive though: these two particular questions are guaranteed to invoke errors in normative cognition, and often especially in intelligent people. >> I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. > Agree. Well now I'm curious...any theories (wild and speculative is fine by me) on some candidate causes? > It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap. Which was more than we could say about actual planes, before a couple of weirdos got off their asses and actually built one. But it seems there's something about this problem that's different, almost like it doesn't allow itself to be analyzed, or even noticed. "Some day" humanity will reach the oft-discussed but never pursued world of widespread critical thinking seems to be the plan, without having even taken the first step towards it. Noteworthy: I am far from the first person who has noticed this phenomenon.
  - CodeMage 3y ago
    The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions. The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions". Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device. It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro". The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions. I absolutely love this comment, because it is literally and necessarily an opinion, but it explicitly claims that it is a fact. This is what I was anticipating when I said: "The effect these questions have on even the very best minds is amazing, I wonder what will happen here..." > The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions". This one's great too - let me guess, you believe that in "the non-question parts, reveals the true nature" it is solely the words themselves doing the "revealing", am I right? Or, would you prefer to maybe not discuss that topic in detail? :) > Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device. It is also true, and some might even say mean. > It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro". Yup, and this is what keeps your culture permanently locked into Maya: the world as dream (like above where you literally can't distinguish between the necessarily subjective and objective - and this is under asynchronous conditions, imagine how you'd perform in realtime). > The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot. lol, what does this even mean? By the way: Russell's Teapot is not a proof, but it certainly may appear as such to those afflicted by Normative Cognition.
michaelmrose 3y ago
In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion. If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion. If you look up the definition on Wikipedia, you may notice that your articulation of it here is slightly off. You may also not be able to notice it, which is what makes "reality" so tricky. > If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo And Mother Nature will reward you accordingly for the quality of your thinking/delusion/indoctrination. > If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored. Yep, you can literally do pretty much whatever you like, but don't whine when unintended consequences show up later ("Ooooooh no, climate change, why doesn't some do something!!!!!). Best of luck with guessing your way through life, humans!

vacuity 3y ago

The burden of proof is on the person who provides an answer. Whether that is "yes", "no", "yes in this case and no everywhere else", that is an answer that should be backed by some evidence and reasoning. If the questions and answers had been perfectly flipped, would you have said that the burden of proof is on those who say "no"?

mistermann 3y ago

> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? > In the former case, we have only appeal to authority (some book says) You are incorrect - we also have epistemology, logic, ontology, neuroscience/psychology/anthropology and various other fields which contain discoveries that are relevant to the psychological phenomenon (~"reality") you are currently experiencing. > and to personal belief, neither of which are facts. If you and your epistemology-ignorant and denying crew can treat your beliefs as facts (as is regularly done in these conversations), why can religious people not do the same? I mean come on man, double standards are bad, no? > In the latter case, we have a proven medical fraud committed by a person with financial interest in rival treatments, said person having lost their medical license as a result of said fraud. Which proves nothing. I am genuinely curious: do you believe that Wakefield being discovered to be a fraud PROVES there is ZERO causal association between vaccines and autism? Because there sure are a lot of people who believe that, including a lot of people right here on HN.

XorNot 3y ago
> Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? What if the number of pirates in the world is in fact linked to the increase in mean global temperature? Can you present any evidence it isn't?
- vacuity 3y ago
  Parent and GP were talking about where the burden of proof lies. That's a matter of opinion, but one that should generally be considered settled on Hacker News. Apparently it isn't. Anyways, while parent made a somewhat snarky reply, yours isn't better. If parent was shown discussing "actual" points (for example, the vaccine question) with an absurdly high bar for proof from the other side, your reply would be relevant. As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything egregiously wrong about parent's reply about the vaccine question. Perhaps the evidence or reasoning is wrong, but you didn't address that.
- 3y ago

xyzelement 3y ago

// That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. I used to think this way but lately recognize this isn't intellectually honest. Even w/o religion we have to acknowledge that our ability to perceive and understand is very limited compared to what must be the totality of truths in the universe. This seems obvious - eg if you believe in evolution, you recognize that you evolved to be fit in your environment (eat and avoid being eaten) - why would you expect this process to grant you machinery to understand fundamental universal truths? Once I recognized this limitation, I recognized the intellectual dishonestly of what I previously considered rigor: "I can't see/understand it so it doesn't exist" is as ridiculous an assertion as anything.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Insisting on fixing burden of proof according to reasonable and customary rules is how we bring information from honest and forthright discussion partners into scope where their thoughts can be fully considered and guard our time from unserious, dishonest, or ridiculous individuals who sap our time and will by insisting that unreasonable meritless ideas spun with a minimum of effort demand profound effort on our part to disprove what they never bothered to prove in the first place. If you tell me the moon is made of cheese my rebuttal isn't going to be to launch a manned mission I'm going to tightly flip it on you. This isn't intellectually dishonest. The fact for instance that our ability to understand the underlying reality if any may be limited doesn't mean that every proposition is equally valid. You entire life has been built on picking the most likely explanation for a set of inputs received. It's how your ancestors didn't get eaten by animals. If you are wandering around an orchard and find what looks like a smelly pile of dung do feel free not to put it in your mouth to find out if it's actually an apple.
- mistermann 3y ago
  You clearly know your rhetoric, watch out for this though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics
- xyzelement 3y ago