Possibility + burden of proof

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 25, 2020, 7:20:22 PM3/25/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

The Bill & Brady discussion in "TAG Defective?" caused me to think of some additions to my burden of proof essay.  I think they’re all solid, but I'm not satisfied with the last one.

 

Joe asserts, "X is logically possible."

Fred asserts, "No it isn't."

B.o.p. is on Fred to show a logical impossibility if X is the case.

 

Joe asserts, "X is ontologically possible."

Fred asserts, "No it isn't."

B.o.p. is on Joe to show an example of X being the case.

 

Joe asserts, "X is ontologically impossible."

Fred asserts, "No it isn't."

B.o.p. is on Joe to show that there is no way for X to be the case.  This can only be done when X can happen within an observable range.  No one is justified in saying anything is ontologically impossible in all possible worlds - unless possibility in this sense is confined to a limited range (e.g. within logic).

 

Joe asserts, "X is epistemically possible."

Fred asserts, "No it isn't."

B.o.p. is on Fred.  X is always epistemically possible until proven impossible.

 

Joe asserts, "X is epistemically impossible."

Fred asserts, "No it isn't."

I really don't know how to do this one.  I suspect that there may be no such thing as epistemic impossibility.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

don stoner

unread,
Mar 25, 2020, 10:05:09 PM3/25/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
>Joe asserts, "X is logically possible."
>Fred asserts, "No it isn't."
>B.o.p. is on Fred to show a logical impossibility if X is the case.

Hi Cary,

Both have made equal and opposite assertions.
Neither has provided any kind of argument to support his assertion.
Neither has given the other anything which he even could refute.
Neither has burden of proof. Neither can expect the other to take it.
They should both find something else useful to do instead.

- Don (I'm doing well and writing code today -- I hope all is well with you too.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e7be735.1c69fb81.b823d.068fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 25, 2020, 10:57:20 PM3/25/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

What you say is correct until a value is placed in X.

Then Joe has given Fred something to refute.

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

don stoner

unread,
Mar 26, 2020, 1:25:53 AM3/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

Assuming "X" includes an actual argument instead of just an assertion:
Then Fred has several choices, including:
1) Explain at least one fallacy in Joe's argument. 
2) Tell Joe he disagrees, but that there are reasons why complete answers are impractical.
3) Ignore Joe completely.
4) Agree with Joe.

Number 1 can continue the discussion.
Numbers 2, 3 and 4 discontinue the discussion.

If Fred presents a counter to Joe's argument, then Joe has several choices:
1) Show that Fred's fallacy is not possible.
2) Tell Fred he disagrees ... Etc.

Selecting between the options can depend on a load of "political" details.
(Some people aren't worth answering, others are, Different venues, etc.)
I've been in a range of debates (most on radio) and try to go with 1 or 4.
Toward the end of a radio debate, 2 (or even 3) starts to become more important.
(E.g.: "You've just given me five arguments and I have 1 minute left. Pick one & I'll trounce it.")

-Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 26, 2020, 2:51:12 AM3/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

I think I agree with your points.  But I don't think any of them affect where b.o.p. should reside.  Disagree?

don stoner

unread,
Mar 26, 2020, 2:10:28 PM3/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

That depends on how you define "burden."

Practical burden of proof:
If there is anything that needs refuting, I generally refute it (presuming I have the means and opportunity).
If I don't understand it clearly, or it doesn't need refuting, my lack the motive is enough to stop me.

Technical burden of proof:
I think I need to see the exact statement before I can pass judgement. The "{devil" can  hide in the details. 

-Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Mar 26, 2020, 7:11:41 PM3/26/20
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

This is how I defined it on my b.o.p. page:

 

In a dispute between one whose point is provable and one whose point is not provable, b.o.p. is a social obligation on him whose point is provable to do so.

...

B.o.p. can be applied to person vs. person or statement vs. statement.  When it's person vs. person, the only rules are those agreed on by the opponents.  When it's statement vs. statement, some epistemic rules can be applied.

-----------------------

Then I followed with the examples.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages