[Joe Bloggs]

I was reading up on the important links pinned to the top of this forum, and I thought the "Burden of Proof" link and "A post describing how science works" would make an interesting discussion in combination.

Firstly, we see KeithEmo outlining the scientific method. Which is fine as it goes, but it was posted as a refutation of Steve Eddy's post, which was an invocation of the burden of proof.

An article describing the burden of proof is also pinned to the top, so it may be assumed that the management believes in its utility at some point.

Now, I can't say whether they think Steve's invocation of the Burden was improper, or whether they just thought Keith's recitation of the scientific method was a good one. But either way, I would like to note that I've never seen a case where invoking Burden of Proof has convinced anybody in real life, much less in internet forums.

The reason for this is the lack of shared knowledge.

For example, the example given in the article for an assertion that needed burden of proof was "a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. The burden is on him to prove it, because we know that no manned craft has ever orbited between Earth and Mars, much less thrown out a teapot in its journey.

But what if, in an alternative universe, humans have settled Mars, make regular sightseeing trips in orbit between Earth and Mars, and such tourists have been known to regularly chuck all manner of junk out of their ships much like we litter the ocean in pleasure yachts every day?

Then it would be very hard to invoke the Burden convincingly.

In online forums, and especially in audio, what people "know" about a subject can be as divergent as the two alternate universes outlined above.

As a matter of practicality, it seems that, before the Burden can be invoked, you have to share with the audience all the facts you know that make the claim an unlikely one. And then you may just as well be forgetting about the Burden.

As another matter of practicality, saying that your opponent has to prove his claim to be true is by itself obviously not useful to convince him that his claim is false--at best it serves as a (shaky) argument to convince the audience not to take his claim at face value.

But in online forums we're always concerned with what the vocal opponent has to say, not what the silent audience thinks

Thus I'll be detailing in a later post why I think that the lowpass filter of DACs would not affect vertical imaging (or at least, that one holds the "burden of proof" to prove otherwise)

 

[Jabbah]

The burden of proof link and scientific method posts are not in conflict. Whilst KeithEmo gave a good high school example of the scientific method, it didn’t defend the requirement for burden of proof. Steve Eddy was correct in that for a scientific theory to be accepted then the theory must be able to make predictions which are then validated experimentally. This is the falsifiability principle introduced by Karl Popper. Without that validation it is not considered an accepted theory.



The scientific method defence was in relation to a hypothesis about how the brain might be influenced by inaudible cues in sound that can allow the brain to determine certain characteristics such as vertical imaging. Firstly from the scientific point of view this is a hypothesis and not a theory. Secondly there are two burdens of proofs required. KeithEmo would have needed to provide the evidence of the hypothesis eg a link to a paper, and then the paper’s author has a burden of proof to provide the evidence of its claims.



This all comes down to “you can’t prove a negative” and the falsifiability principle.



In the case of your teapot, you would have to prove that alternate universe exists.



However, you mention that is similar to junk being chucked out of ships in the ocean. There is plenty of evidence of junk floating on the surface of the ocean and washing up on shore lines, so the evidence is already there to support a claim that a certain piece of junk could be in the ocean somewhere, thus you have satisfied your burden of proof to your hypothesis.



If someone is willing to provide conjecture or hypotheses as valid scientific theories though, then appealing to burden of proof is not going to help I think. But as you say this is more of an appeal to the audience not to be sucked in.



I look forward to your thread, as mentioned previously it is practically impossible to prove that the lowpass filter would not affect the vertical imaging (proving a negative) so the burden of proof is indeed on those that claim it does.

 

[castleofargh]

@joe I agree that some claims need actual knowledge from a person, to make the refutation obvious to him/her/it(for the bats reading the forum). and it is a very obvious problem around here.
 
but I disagree with how you see the purpose of the burden of proof.
it's not a weapon people use to win something, it's not even limited to science. it's just logic at the most basic level of a conversation:
if I make a claim, it will be my job to prove it when asked. and that's all of it.
the more extraordinary the claim, the more important it will be to prove it. it's not about who's right and who's wrong, and it's certainly not a lack of respect. it's just that without proof, nothing can become a fact.
 
so to me the burden of proof is merely reminding someone of his mistake when he made a claim he couldn't back up. no such trouble with an hypothesis or an opinion. but if I make a claim, I must accept that someone may ask me to put my money where my mouth is, and prove it. it's a very fair system and I see no fault to the burden of proof.

 

[superjawes]

@joe I agree that some claims need actual knowledge from a person, to make the refutation obvious to him/her/it(for the bats reading the forum). and it is a very obvious problem around here.

but I disagree with how you see the purpose of the burden of proof.
it's not a weapon people use to win something, it's not even limited to science. it's just logic at the most basic level of a conversation:
if I make a claim, it will be my job to prove it when asked. and that's all of it.
the more extraordinary the claim, the more important it will be to prove it. it's not about who's right and who's wrong, and it's certainly not a lack of respect. it's just that without proof, nothing can become a fact.

so to me the burden of proof is merely reminding someone of his mistake when he made a claim he couldn't back up. no such trouble with an hypothesis or an opinion. but if I make a claim, I must accept that someone may ask me to put my money where my mouth is, and prove it. it's a very fair system and I see no fault to the burden of proof.

Indeed.

One thing I like about the US justice system is that it is based on "innocent until proven guilty", which means that the prosecution must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the accused committed the crime. This is a perfect example of putting the burden of proof on those making the claim. Likewise, if a defendant uses a self defense claim to plead innocence, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the self efense claim (in most states, anyway).

 

[Joe Bloggs]

In the case of your teapot, you would have to prove that alternate universe exists.

However, you mention that is similar to junk being chucked out of ships in the ocean. There is plenty of evidence of junk floating on the surface of the ocean and washing up on shore lines, so the evidence is already there to support a claim that a certain piece of junk could be in the ocean somewhere, thus you have satisfied your burden of proof to your hypothesis.

You get and miss my point at the same time :rolleyes:

Yep, as you say, just as it's perfectly likely that there's a teapot floating in our oceans somewhere, so too is it perfectly likely that there's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars in the alternate universe I described.

My main point, though, was that what the debaters and the audience "know" shifts the practical burden of proof to all the wrong places, all the time.

Ideally, for a scientific debate, both debaters and the audience should all be familiar with the state of the art.

For all kinds of real-life debates, though, usually practically only one person in the whole room / chatroom / forum is aware of the scientific state of the art, and that is the scientist trying to convince everybody else.

In this case, everyone just "knows" that there are pleasure cruises in space throwing out teapots every day. (edit: meaning that they have a lot of background "knowledge" that is actually false)

Where does the burden of proof lie now?

There are many fields for which the public has been loaded with untruths turned into facts through repetition by the media, their peers, by authorities, etc. Or at the least, their knowledge level is only up to the level where the argument with the best buzzword compliance (like the argument given for the effect of DAC lowpass filter on height perception) wins.

 

[Jabbah]

@Joe, I got your point, my point was that it wouldn’t matter if the person you are talking to knew about the cruises or not. If they didn’t know about the cruises then you would be able to provide the evidence that the cruises happened and also the evidence that junk was thrown into the ocean from them. In that case the burden of proof was still on you to provide that evidence. If the other person accepts that cruises happen and junk is thrown, then equally the burden of proof was there but has implicitly been met. Once that has been done then you have a basis on which you can calculate the probability of there being a teapot floating in the ocean at some point.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Read with me:
There are no space cruises and no teapots in space.

What the people "know" are mistaken.

Only the 1 scientist in the crowd knows that there are no space cruises

That's why the burden of proof is still with the guy claiming teapots in space in theory (because *actual* background facts do not support it)

but has been shifted to the scientist in practice (because everyone mistakenly "knows" that there are space pleasure cruises.



Simply put, just think of your everyday scenario of laymen making wild claims, supported by popular misconceptions, and the scientist trying to debunk them. The burden of proof gets laid on the wrong person (the scientist) all the time, because of background knowledge not shared among the audience.

 

[Jabbah]

The burden of proof gets laid on the wrong person (the scientist) all the time, because of background knowledge not shared among the audience.

Exactly. Just means some people need educating where the correct burden of proof lies. In this case all the scientist has to do is ask for the evidence of the cruisers.

 

[cjl]

Yep, as you say, just as it's perfectly likely that there's a teapot floating in our oceans somewhere, so too is it perfectly likely that there's a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars in the alternate universe I described.

And even though it's perfectly likely, if someone claims that there's a teapot floating in the ocean, it's still up to them to prove it. Burden of proof isn't based on likeliness, it's based on who is making the positive claim.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

The burden of proof gets laid on the wrong person (the scientist) all the time, because of background knowledge not shared among the audience.

Exactly. Just means some people need educating where the correct burden of proof lies. In this case all the scientist has to do is ask for the evidence of the cruisers.

Speaking of which, one of the background facts given supporting the effect of DAC lowpass filters on height perception was that ringing from the lowpass is audible.

Since ringing is confined to the transition band of the lowpass filter (namely 20-22kHz for 44.1kHz audio, >40kHz for 96kHz audio, etc...), he'd need first need to demonstrate audibility of those ultrasonic frequencies in the listeners--at the volumes in which they occur in music (we'll ignore masking for now)

 

[dvw]

Exactly. Just means some people need educating where the correct burden of proof lies. In this case all the scientist has to do is ask for the evidence of the cruisers.

 
This will also depends on what has been claimed. If I claimed I heard a difference in the cable, do I have to prove the difference exists or what caused the difference. It is the explanation that people refuse to accept. The burden of proof does not help in this case. Am I not entitled to an opinion without a scientific education? This is why the defense always claimed no evidence to contradict my belief. Bias is hard to overcome.
 
Take climate change; common defense of politician: "I am not a scientist so I don't believe climate change exist.
Evolution: There is no mathematical model to back up the claim, therefore evolution does not exist. This is an actual claim in a lawsuit against the education department.
Not only there is no burden of proof, it is basically I don't believe in science. It is I trust my pastor more than the liberal scientist.Oh the pope believes it. "Then he should shut up", said Rick Santorum.

 

[threephi]

I think perhaps there's a conflation of a few related but subtly different concepts here regarding the "burden of proof".

The link given in the original post above describes a logical fallacy called the "burden of proof fallacy".  The fallacy is as follows: Noone has disproven my theory, therefore it is true.  This is a false argument because it turns the concept of proof upside down and backwards.  Anyone defending their idea with it is wrong by virtue of basic logic, meaning its falseness is independent of whatever the particular facts or claims may be.  So I don't see any problem with citing the fallacy to refute an argument, whether there are disparate knowledge sets among people debating the question or not.

I think I see where you're going with the alternate universes analogy, but the fact remains that we do all actually live in the same universe, despite how fervently some people may believe they live in a different one.  Demonstrating this is the central mission of science, to establish a shared model of nature that is consistent with observation.  It can be very hard if not impossible to convince someone committed to a supernatural belief that their version of reality is false, or at the very least, unprovable, since at that point the discussion has been turned away from concrete questions about physical reality, into irrational, subjective, and frequently emotional philosophical points.

 

[Baxide]

   
This will also depends on what has been claimed. If I claimed I heard a difference in the cable, do I have to prove the difference exists or what caused the difference.

That's a good example actually. Signal reflection, cable inductance and capacitance, impedance matching, and length of the cable can make a difference  that could be audible. But then again, measuring those difference scientifically and providing evidence does not appear to be that straight forward. It's like tasting different bottles of water.
 
But science does not stand still. Burden of proof in court cases such as murder has advanced. DNA testing is now widely used, whilst before we just had the blood groups to rely on. At the same time, commonly accepted science can one ay turn out to be totally bogus.
 
Take the hair particle test used for so many decades by police forces all over the world, and that sent many to their death. It has recently been discredited big time. The burden of proof would have been on the defendant in those trials. But they stood no chance when confronted by the "science" that has now turned out to be totally wrong from the onset.

 

[Jabbah]

   
This will also depends on what has been claimed. If I claimed I heard a difference in the cable, do I have to prove the difference exists or what caused the difference. It is the explanation that people refuse to accept. The burden of proof does not help in this case. Am I not entitled to an opinion without a scientific education? This is why the defense always claimed no evidence to contradict my belief. Bias is hard to overcome.
 
Take climate change; common defense of politician: "I am not a scientist so I don't believe climate change exist.
Evolution: There is no mathematical model to back up the claim, therefore evolution does not exist. This is an actual claim in a lawsuit against the education department.
Not only there is no burden of proof, it is basically I don't believe in science. It is I trust my pastor more than the liberal scientist.Oh the pope believes it. "Then he should shut up", said Rick Santorum.

 
If you are claiming on a science forum then absolutely you need to prove that the difference you hear is due to an actual audible difference rather than subjective bias. This can be done through ABX testing etc. Without that essential evidence there isn't even any point in putting forward any conjecture of what could cause such differences. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, just realise that it isn't a scientific opinion and therefore will not carry any weight on a science forum.
 
Politicians can claim whatever they want, their opinions do not get published in scientific journals.
 
Evolution is about as sound a scientific theory as you can get with huge amounts of supporting evidence. Some people don't realise the difference between a common theory and a scientific theory and so you get frivolous law suits from religious folk trying to promote ID as a scientific theory or stop evolution being taught as one. Luckily these arguments do not fly in a court of law, teaching of evolution has prevailed and ID has not.
 
Throughout human history science has had to battle commonly held beliefs, but it has always eventually won out. People used to believe that you could fall off the edge of the world; that the Earth was the centre of the universe with everything rotating around it; that the world was created by a mystical being 6000 years ago; etc.
 
Unfortunately climate change is very political and so in some countries a false controversy is generated (similar to evolution vs ID), the scientific consensus is that it is happening. The Rick Santorum quote is funny considering the Pope probably has a more scientific background than him. 

 

[Jabbah]

Speaking of which, one of the background facts given supporting the effect of DAC lowpass filters on height perception was that ringing from the lowpass is audible.

Since ringing is confined to the transition band of the lowpass filter (namely 20-22kHz for 44.1kHz audio, >40kHz for 96kHz audio, etc...), he'd need first need to demonstrate audibility of those ultrasonic frequencies in the listeners--at the volumes in which they occur in music (we'll ignore masking for now)

 
Something only the claimant can do through say an ABX test. If you think that there isn't going to be a difference then that bias could affect the ABX test and generate a negative result. If you think there is going to be a difference, that bias can't positively affect the ABX outcome.