Burden of Proof VS Presumption of Innocence

[DogmaHunter]

These "aliens" are disproven by mine Church. And mine Church is proven here:
The True Religion is Proven - YouTube

I just told you that these aliens said that all religions are false and that the founders of those religions considered them angels and gods.

So, do you believe my claim?

Also: argument by youtube. Excellent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." (The burden of proof). Did you get it?

That's not what the burden of proof is about, nore is it a sensible way to deal with claims.

No, a claim isn't "false until proven correct".
Rather, a claim isn't "accepted as true until sufficiently supported to do so".

There is a difference between a claim not being accepted as true and a claim being accepted as false.

I tried my best to explain the difference. It seems my explanation didn't sink in.

O well.

 

[Michael]

I can prove, what there is no huge lion in the box of milk.

That's true of course, but you can't prove that a tiny invisible lion isn't in the milk container. The ability to disprove any particular claim will vary depending upon the claim itself.

So, I can prove the negative too.

Sure, but only "sometimes".

One can point to the author of the paper, what his formula nr. 3 does not follow from the formula nr. 2, that does not violate the Presumption of Innocence: because the author was proven wrong.

You're correct that *some* claims can be shown to be false, but it depends on the nature of the claim. That's typically why the scientific method puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. I cannot completely "disprove" the existence of exotic invisible forms of matter for instance, so the burden of proof falls to the individual(s) who claim that such forms of matter do exist.

There's nothing particularly sinister about the process of supporting an idea with 'evidence'.

 

[Michael]

Embedded in this post are the nonsense ideas that:
- "scientific consensus" is some species of a fallacious argument from popularity

What else would you call it in the absence of empirical cause/effect justification in controlled experimentation?

- that scientific evaluation of evidence is somehow subjective

It is. For instance, it's a completely *subjective choice* to claim that "space expansion" is a 'cause" of photon redshift. Nothing like that happens in the lab, so what exactly *isn't* subjective about that belief?

and that any "subjective interpretation" is as good as the next one.

I never said that. I'd rank them in order of their ability to be *justified in controlled experimentation* which is why I prefer inelastic scattering over 'space expansion" as the cause of photon redshift in space. They aren't all equal IMO.

This is a new low. Even for you, Michael.

I think you either misread or misunderstood what I said frankly.

 

[Michael]

I never mentioned science once, and I never attempted to apply scientific standards of evidence to the claims of the existence of a God.

I was just highlighting joinfree's hypocrisy in claiming he has no burden of proof when making a claim, but that other posters do have a burden of proof if they don't accept that claim.

He also implicitly made the assertion that a statement of non-belief in a claim is a contradiction of that claim. Saying "I don't believe your claim" is not "your claim is false" or "I believe the opposite of your claim".

Ok.

 

[Michael]

Even if we suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is some kind of consensus on the topic of God among the myriad religious belief systems, sects, and cults - that smacks of hypocrisy coming from someone who asserts his own rejection of the scientific consensus, and professes a God belief that can hardly be considered mainstream.

It's certainly ironic, but I wouldn't call it hypocrisy. My standard of evidence has always been consistent, and it's always been based on a preference for empirical physical explanations.

 

[joinfree]

T
........
You're correct that *some* claims can be shown to be false, but it depends on the nature of the claim. That's typically why the scientific method puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim. I cannot completely "disprove" the existence of exotic invisible forms of matter for instance, so the burden of proof falls to the individual(s) who claim that such forms of matter do exist.
......

The author of the paper is in right, if he calls the "exotic invisible forms of matter", which he has introduced into the text, as "hypothesis", or uses the sentence:

"let us assume for a moment, what the tachyons do exist. What properties such exotic particles have and can they be debunked right away? These simple calculations .... show, what they are not in apparent contradiction with the General Relativity, but the interested reader can study the case further. Remember, what even a wildest assumptions can have some reference to Physics: the real part of a complex numbers in math can have the physical meaning." Such neutral text would pass the peer-review.

 

[Michael]

The author of the paper is in right, if he calls the "exotic invisible forms of matter", which he has introduced into the text, as "hypothesis", ....

Someone may be right about the fact that it's called a "hypothesis", but the hypothesis itself can still be either right or wrong depending on the validity of the hypothesis itself. The hypothesis must still be supported by evidence, or I have a logical reason to 'withhold belief" in that particular hypothesis.

For instance, I might say that "I have a hypothesis that Bigfoot drank my water when I wasn't looking". I'm not automatically 'right' simply because I used the term "hypothesis". My water may actually be gone too, but again that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm "right" about the existence of Bigfoot or right that a Bigfoot actually drank that missing water.

 

[Michael]

Such neutral text would pass the peer-review.

FYI, even passing a "peer-review" process doesn't automatically equate to being right, nor does it demonstrate that the peer reviewed paper is the "scientific consensus" on that topic. All it means is that the paper passed a peer review process. I have published some peer reviewed papers on astronomy for instance, but that doesn't mean that the ideas I presented are automatically considered to be 'true' nor does it demonstrate that they represent the majority viewpoint on those topics.

 

[joinfree]

FYI, even passing a "peer-review" process doesn't automatically equate to being right, nor does it demonstrate that the peer reviewed paper is the "scientific consensus" on that topic. All it means is that the paper passed a peer review process. I have published some peer reviewed papers on astronomy for instance, but that doesn't mean that the ideas I presented are automatically considered to be 'true' nor does it demonstrate that they represent the majority viewpoint on those topics.

The Presumption of Innocence is not the Presumption of Verity. If man uses common sense language, then he does not sin before his God.

 

[Michael]

The Presumption of Innocence is not the Presumption of Verity.

FYI, that's exactly the same point that the atheists are making. You're ultimately comparing apples to oranges.

If man uses common sense language, then he does not sin before his God.

Maybe so, but God may still have to correct us about any false hypothesis that you or I might believe in.

 

[joinfree]

FYI, that's exactly the same point that the atheists are making. You're ultimately comparing apples to oranges. .....

I am willing to call the atheism by the word "false". Why? Because the atheism must be false "in the eyes" of mine God. So, I am calling it false everywhere. Please tel us all, what positive and new has taught us the false atheism yet.

 

[variant]

I agree with much of what you said, but I think the above statement misses the point. From Wiki -

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

The burden of proof is indeed lifted from the presumption of innocence, and for the reasons I said.

The reasoning is clear. The burden rests on the claimer to demonstrate always.

So, I don't see your point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"a human can be treated as he is already wrong, until he would be proven right." (The burden of proof). Did you get it?

Yes, I understand that; but it's not what the burden of proof means, as I already explained.

 

[joinfree]

Yes, I understand that; but it's not what the burden of proof means, as I already explained.

Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.

 

[Gene2memE]

Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.

No.

Not accepting a claim is not the same as stating it is wrong.

Suppose you have a sealed jar of coins. And you make the claim "There is an even number of coins in the jar".

I say "I don't accept your claim, show me you're right".

This is not saying you're wrong. This is not saying there is an odd number of coins. This is merely saying that I don't believe your claim until you can demonstrate it to me.

 

[quatona]

The Prince of this fallen world has invented the Burden of Proof:

Any human is wrong (sick, delusional, criminal, etc.) until he is proven right.

That´s quite a misrepresention of the principle of the burden of proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Explain again, please. The commonly used formulation od the Burden: "a claim needs not to be accepted, until it would be proven right". So, if a human goes to you and tells you something unsupported, you can just turn your back on him. You will act then as if this human is wrong.

No; the truth value of a claim is unknown until it's either substantiated or shown to be false; and the onus is on the claimant to substantiate it.

How you act when a claim isn't substantiated is entirely up to you; typically, people measure their acceptance or rejection by the initial plausibility of the claim. It's a pragmatic response.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you either misread or misunderstood what I said frankly.

Your response to the post, suggests otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am willing to call the atheism by the word "false". Why? Because the atheism must be false "in the eyes" of mine God. So, I am calling it false everywhere. Please tel us all, what positive and new has taught us the false atheism yet.

Atheism is a single position on a single issue and it has no content whatsoever that even can be "true" or "false".