Discussions and The Burden of Proof Posted on6th November 2022  ByDavidian

One of the problems with contemporary social media discourse is jumping around and ahead in the conversation, misusing terms, axioms, and similar and not taking the time to actually have a discussion and understand what the other person is saying.

We are too quick to judge people based on the group we think they belong to and forget to appreciate the nuance between positions. A Christian is judged by how we judge all Christians based on previous experiences with Christians. The same can be said for atheists, Muslims or any other group.

This form of tribalism and cognitive bias makes use too quick to assume positions, all entailed beliefs and rationality, and you find people just name fallacies (often incorrectly) instead of having a dialogue and reaching some accord.

Recap: We often fail to hold conversations and throw out erroneous statements based on poor assumptions.

There is a difference between a belief and a claim.

A belief is something you accept as true. (Think most likely, conclude is the case etc)
A claim is something to say IS true.

So, sure, there is a claim that you believe something, but as we don’t have access to anyone’s mental states this isn’t anything we can prove, and really, why would someone say they believe something that they don’t? (Except for outlier cases and cons which again don’t really apply to social media conversations.)

When you do or don’t believe something, the only real duty you have is to yourself, and even then this duty only applies if you care about rationality.

Recap: Your primary duty to any belief position is to yourself.

Rationality deals with the way we reason, using the rules of logic and probability theory. This entails having no strong evidence against your position, no contradiction in your beliefs, not using fallacious reasoning but also realising that bit everything is a fallacy e.g. there are some authorities you can trust without it being a fallay, and this ties into good theories of testimony and all sorts.

So, if we care about rationality, our burden is to justify our position, at least to ourselves, so that we can ensure that we are holding a rational position.

Recap: rationality deals with the way you reason, everyone has a burden to justify their position to themselves if they care about rationality.

You can be wrong (without knowing it) and still be rational, and you can be correct and irrational.

However, rationality is definitely something that would usually lead one to truth if all all information was available to you and analysed mitigating all bias – which is hard to do, as bias is built into our wiring.

So, one’s rationality is somewhat relative to the information available. Someone in an epistemic bubble could be rational for believing something that outside of that bubble would be wildly irrational.

It can be said one can only be as rational as one can be. We should judge a child as a child, they do not have fully developed brains nor learned adequate reasoning skills, and therefore their behaviour is by default less rational on an adult scale.

This too relates to the information available. Forming an option based on 3 bits of information that point to a single conclusion and not being able to find anything else would be rational, even if that conclusion was wrong.

If you later found additional information that then leads elsewhere and the original conclusion was wrong, it would be irrational to maintain that original conclusion as true.

Recap: rationality should be judged in a more relative way, and based on reasoning, not conclusions.

Full Article at: Discussions and The Burden of Proof » Answers In Reason (answers-in-reason.com)

Evidence is often a hot topic, and one frequently misunderstood. I covered off a number of different types of evidence before in the post Dirty Words: Belief, Faith and Evidence and we have done a small podcast on the matter too BoPping to The Evidence. Even still, sometimes it is better to see if we can approach things...

Read More “Evidentially Evident Evidence” »

The Truth is Out There! What is truth? How can we know if something is true? What is a truth-apt statement? Do all statements hold a truth value? How does truth relate to morality? Can we have a subjective truth? In this stream, we hope to cover off these questions and examine a few theories...

Read More “The Truth of it All – SciPhi” »

The Rationality Thesis We take a look at the rationality thesis and delve into the rationality debate asking; are humans rational creatures that make performance errors or irrational creatures that sometimes demonstrate rationality? Dave talks about slides in this stream which you can find here: To Be or Not Be Rational – The Video This...

Read More “To Be or Not To Be (Rational)!? – SciPhi” »

Testified! Today we will be looking at testimony, and whether or not it is worth anything.   Are our memories to be trusted, or do they contain lots of false information? Can people create fake memories just by using words? How good are people at remembering other’s faces?  We will also be coving off a pet...

Read More “Are You Sure About That? – SciPhi” »

The Paradox of Negative Emotions Disgust, Fear and Sadness are all negative emotions we usually avoid.Why would rational agents want to seek out things that cause them such distress? We embark on a journey through the paradox of negative emotions to gain a deeper understanding of this very thing. Disgustingly Enjoyable – The Video To...

Read More “Disgustingly Enjoyable – SciPhi” »

Philosophy of Emotion, how sweet it is! Are emotions just chemical reactions? Or can we consider them more than that? Come join us for a basic introduction to the philosophy of emotion! We are also joined last minute by our friend Bearded Heretic (Luke). We look at emotion both through the lens of Philosophy and...

Read More “Sweet Emotions – SciPhi” »

Another Video Review? Yes, sorry, another one. Having been incredibly busy we thought we would do another video review. We thought that perhaps Haitham Talaat might have produced a better video than his last. It turned out worse. At least in episode 2 he seemed to be trying to engage in an open dialogue but...

Read More “Reviewing: Criticism of Atheism 3 – SciPhi” »

Rationality and Hammers? We come back round to rationality, as well as hammers! What do hammers have to do with rationality? Tune in to find out! The conversation will include, but will not be limited to: What is Rationality? How does Rationality relate to Reason? Are there any tools that can help you with rationality?...

Read More “Hammering Rationality – SciPhi” »

Moral Particularism and Value Pluralism Do particular circumstances affect the moral value of an action? Are there multiple values to assess when looking at moral judgements? Are there any particular standards we should base morality on or is it just what we feel is right at the time? Joi@kriss, @trolleydave and @davidian for tonight’s ethical...

Read More “Moral Particularism & Value Pluralism” »

Moral Realism Moral Realism states that there are some moral truths that are agent independent. Whilst not all moral judgements are necessarily objective, some are, at least under moral realism. We explore if morality can indeed be objective as well as answering questions and statements about moral relativism, subjectivism, and discussing truth-apt statements. Objective Morality!?...

Read More “Objective Morality? Be Real(ist) – SciPhi” »