Preface: I have no formal training in the art of logic and debate. I think I have a pretty excellent working knowledge of how to debate something but I don't know any of the formal rules or ideas behind it. Arguing with people is something I've long since gotten tired of. Now, I present to you my thoughts and impressions with the intent of getting your feedback. If you have a formal knowledge of all this, then I especially look forward to your feedback. I'm essentially asking you guys to teach me if what I'm thinking makes sense or if I'm just making it up.

So I was thinking about the concept of the burden of proof. I've never heard anyone really discussing what it means before, so my only experience is with people claiming that other people have the burden in a given discussion. It seems, from those discussions, that on whom the burden falls is something of an intuitive "common sense." When asked a related question, a friend of mine said, "Honestly it comes down to who is claiming the more ridiculous thing."

Now, that makes a little sense, but it seems ridiculous itself. How do you judge which claim is sillier? Wouldn't both people think the other person's claim is more ridiculous than their own, in most cases?

According to Wikipedia (kill me), the burden falls on anyone who is making a claim. If you make Claim A, and I say, "I don't think Claim A is true," then you have the burden. But if I respond with, "I believe that Claim A is false," then I've made a new Claim, and the burden shifts to me. There is a difference between disbelieving in a claim, and believing in the falsehood of the claim. I think many of you can appreciate this difference.

The difference comes from this (again, from Wikipedia): in a case where there are two possibilities, and no evidence has been put forth to believe in one or the other, one cannot logically favor one or the other, and must therefore suspend belief in both. A so-called default position. It is claims against this default position that hold the burden of proof. The example from Wikipedia is that of a gumball machine: is the number of gumballs even or odd? Until I have a reason to think one way or another, I can refuse to choose a logical position. If you claim that it's even, and I challenge that claim, then you have to put forth evidence. But if you say it's even, and I challenge by claiming instead that it's odd, then I have to put forth evidence.

This makes sense. I think involving the order that claims are made muddles things a bit, but essentially it means either claim will have the burden of proof.

This is where I diverge from what I've read and start playing around.

The gumball machine is a great example, and like all great examples it is over-simplistic. What if I have to make a decision based on the even/odd status of the gumballs? I could guess, which I think protects the tenuous "default position" that I've adopted, but I could also try to find evidence to support one claim or the other. Depending on how much I care, I could find a little or a lot of evidence, and come to the logical conclusion that either Claim A or B is correct.

In this situation, there is no "practical" default position (unless I'm being irresponsible and, I don't know, flipping a coin or something.) When I'm solving my gumball machine problem, whatever it is, I have to act like I believe in one of the claims, even if from a logical standpoint, I have little reason to do so. So, even though I would prefer to be agnostic about the number of gumballs, I can't.

This is the weakest point of my argument: if there's no practical agnostic position, we can't expect the burden of proof to behave the same way, can we? Who holds the burden in a situation where we have no way to act neutrally? From a purely logical standpoint, the way we act is completely beside the point, but this is the real world, and we have to marry logic and reality somewhere.

The way I see it, having the burden of proof means I am obligated to provide evidence to support my claim. Duh. And it also means you have no obligation to change your mind unless you find my evidence meets your standards. (And how we come up with these standards is a wholly different issue that I'll look into later.) If you can adopt the default position, you should stay there until a claim is sufficiently proven to you. But what if we're all forced to adopt one claim or another? Well, we could be irresponsible and flip a coin, but logically, we would be forced to seek evidence until we're comfortable adopting one claim or another.

Or I suppose we could just pick the one we like best.

So, what do you guys think? Have I made any major errors in my reasoning? Are my sources wrong (lol)? Is this something you've thought about before?

Comment! (5) | Recommend!

The talk in the shout box reminded me of this girl at my school. Her name...well, let's keep that a secret. Anyway, I've known her since....third grade? Before? Sometime in elementary.

We were really never friends. I was the social outcast of sorts...I made pretty good grades back then, and that set me apart. She was the cheerleader brand...really popular, I guess, and she could be a real snob. At least, that's how I remember her. While I was doing some sort of funny skit in the Talen Show, she'd do a gymastic routine. After a while this is all that remained of contact. Of course, that just isn't my thing, and I was bored with it, and that probably influenced how I thought of her. In fourth grade, I stopped thinking about her. Kind of like when you were young. I, for one, didn't think of sex or anything like that. I've watched Ants, a family favorite, recently, and I noticed all the cussing. What the heck? I also appeared to have censored out thoughts of nudity, which I also NOW recal.

Anyway, she disappeared. This year, she sits behind me in first period. We didn't talk much, but my personailty is a bit more pronounced these days. Now we talk some. She puts up with me, and I figure I'd have gotten beaten up by now if she didn't. I MAY have taken advantage of her laid back personality a few times, as I've been known to do.

BACK TO THE POINT! (I'm rambling.) She was showing some pictures a few days ago, and that girl was pretty chubby. I mean, I said, "Wow, that is NOT how I remember you..." (cause remember, she'd dropped out of my head un-noticed.)

She openly admitted to getting chubby (when she quit gymnastics for a year). She wasn't obsessing over it, but when I said, "Hey chubby" before school she just grinned. She's pretty cool with it. She thinned back out, of course.

There's no real point to this story.

Comment! (19) | Recommend!

In 3 years. i must be on a roll.
The first time...actually, im not sure i know what happened the first time. it wasn't as bad as this though....
i thought she really cared for me. what do I know about real love, a noob 14 year old? Still. She gave me notes, candy, more attention than i could bear. I was too stupid, to above it all, to return the favor. she did try, but she got tired of trying rite when i got more into her. I Still Haven't even given her the christmas present...how totally lame am i?
but i put more effort into it. i tried talking to her more, but it always fizzled out. i senced an end, but i thought it'd be more direct. Today she gives me a note, and runs.
Now i feel like crap, even after it's all done. im trying to feel like crap, so nobody try undepressing me. i want to be more emotional, for next time.
God knows i could use it

Edit 1-10-2006
haha, i gave her the present.

Comment! (17) | Recommend!

wow. lota stuff. gimme some time to get used to it...lol. here's meh xanga.....

Comment! (5) | Recommend! (1)