Claims without evidence

Joel DiBartolomeo writes:

Would this not be "two wrongs making a right?" 

If I am aware that you are relying on "bad" information, or none at all, and I use that as reason to be untruthful, I am committing a fallacy. 

Of course, in an honest transaction, perhaps one where I am more of a novice or dilettante than expert, and I am asserting (honest) bad-faith or half-truths, or no evidence whatsoever to support my claim, there is no fallacious intent, just that more knowing needs to happen. Should the opponent, the "dismisser of my claim," be aware of the context [ill-informed, say] and begin espousing unsupported claims to affirm his/her argument, this would be worse than fallacious: You missed a teachable moment.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

 

skips777 writes:

"Claims which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”......prove it, with evidence. If you can't, then this assertion is self-defeating.

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

It is not that simple, unfortunately. Identifying the "propounder of the proposition" is the challenge. In fact, it is common for people with extreme views to "bait" those to make the proposition. Consider:

Flat-Earther: Hey, do you think we live on a flat earth?
Sane Person: No.
Flat-Earther: Prove it!
Sane Person: Uhhh, no. You prove the earth is flat.
Flat-Eather: You are the one claiming the earth is not flat, so YOU have the burden of proof!

The burden of proof, in a critical-thinking context (not legal) helps us decide which proposition is reasonable to dismiss without evidence presented. In this case especially, no evidence was presented for either proposition, so default (i.e., what is understood as fact) prevails. Even if the flat earther were to throw in "the earth is flat because that is what our senses clearly tell us," we move to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule, which essentially states that the burden of proof has not been met.

In a more common scenario, we have groups organizing and filling social media with flat earth nonsense. Any push back to their nonsense is taken as a claim that the earth is not flat. It is perfectly reasonable and rational to dismiss extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence supporting such claims, no matter how the argument is presented.

Bottom line, when we talk about the burden of proof in terms of fallacies (errors in reasoning) what we can say about the sample exchange above is that the sane person is not acting unreasonable and demanding evidence to support the extraordinary claim is justified, even if the sane person technically made a claim to the contrary. I wouldn't be surprised if the "burden of proof" in a strictly legal sense is does have different rules.

Dr. Richard writes:

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I’m a pretty simple guy, but let me examine what you say.

Flat-Earther: Hey, do you think [believe] we live on a flat earth?

Sane Person : No.

Here the Sane Person is expressing only a lack of belief.

Flat-Earther : Prove it!

Here the Sane Person has nothing to prove, other than he does not believe. He does that with his simple statement: no.

Sane Person: Uhhh, no. You prove the earth is flat.

Here is where the Sane Person went astray. He should have left his response as no. 

Flat-Earther: You are the one claiming the earth is not flat, so YOU have the burden of proof!

Here the Flat-Earther is flat wrong. The Sane Person is not claiming the earth is not flat. The Sane Person is stating he does not believe the earth is flat. Major difference. The Sane Person can offer proof of his lack of belief by raising his right hand and swearing upon the memory of his late dog Fido that he does not believe. Indisputable evidence.

The error compounds if the Sane Person makes the mistake of taking the bait and trying to prove a negative, as distinct from disproving a positive, which I won’t discuss here.

Then, you say: “In this case especially, no evidence was presented for either proposition,...” 

There is no proposition presented. None. Flat Earther asked a question. He did not present a proposition. 

Let me change the original example given just slightly. Remove the pejoratives “Flat Earther” and “Sane Man.” 

X asks Y : Hey, do you think [believe] we live on a flat earth?

Y responds : No. 

All X wanted to know is if Y thought we lived on a flat earth. He got his answer, after which the two turn back to the TV and finish their beers. 

Moral of the story: never read more into something than is there.

 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

A good example of adding even more complexity to the issue of burden of proof. One can throw the word "believe" in there and attempt to bypass their burden of proof ("Hey, I am not saying the earth IS flat, I am just saying it is what I believe. So I am 100% right.") It is clear that when one believes something, they think it is the case. You are pointing out a technicality, which again might be fine in a formal debate, but it will not forward discussion in any practical matter. It is clear that the sane person (yeah, I am just fine using pejoratives referring to flat earthers or suggesting they are nuts by how I refer to those who aren't) thinks that it is the case that the earth is not flat (i.e, fact). I don't disagree that asking for clarification wouldn't be wise and that assumptions were made in the fictional dialogue. But I am also fine with making reasonable implications since, outside of formal debate and clear exercises often present on this forum, clear propositions are rare.

Dr. Richard writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

I did not “throw” the word belief in. In the context, “belief” and “think” are synonyms. In this context, many people would also use the word “feel.” I thought using the word “belief” made the discussion more clear. However, in the context here, everything I said regarding belief also applies to the words "think" and "feel."  

Never in my experience have I found pejoratives, no matter how self-satisfying, to move a discussion forward. I removed the pejoratives to remove the emotional aspect of the situation and make it more clear and more of an intellectual discussion. As Spinoza said, “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”

I agree drawing reasonable implications outside of formal debate is expected and proper, but it also leads to misunderstandings. 

Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Dr. Richard]

Just a point of clarification, I did not imply you threw belief in there, and I agree it is synonymous with think, etc. My point was, placing the focus on the belief rather than the claim is an easy way to avoid the burden of proof. Of course, the other can ask what evidence does someone have to support their belief.

account no longer exists writes:

Thank you, my skepticism goes into overdrive on social media. Agreed, and thanks Dr. Bo for this site!

account no longer exists writes:

LOL. I intended to give you another up-vote, but I accidentally hit the down arrow which took you to zero, Now I can't undo it.  Sorry!

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Prof M]

I gave Doc an upvote to counterbalance your mistake; no need to worry!

To Dr Bennett; you might want to consider making these votes less...permanent.

mchasewalker writes:

The commentator ludicrously flatters himself by assuming the late, great rhetorician Christopher Hitchens is "rolling over in his grave" by his clever "using/misusing" of his famed epistemological razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." He then goes on to quote Christopher Hitchens's brother, Peter, which is simply an Appeal to (false) Authority.

The commentator then goes on to smugly suggest that Hitchens' "witty riposte" works for both theist and atheist alike. Of course, it does. The reason Hitchens' Razor works at all is because it is a basic universal truism of scientific methodology and offers no preference or prejudice on what the original claim, or answer, might be, but only what can be supported through hard evidence. Certainly, Hitchens was no stranger to pernicious theistic misappropriations employed to validate the most impossible claims. I dare say no such crafty legerdemain ever surprised him in a living debate forum let alone from his tomb six feet under.

The commentator then goes on to imply that somehow theistic claims are on par with atheistic ones. This is a deception. Theistic methodologies and apologies are theologically-driven with the express purpose of justifying faith and beliefs regardless of any evidence. In fact, by its very definition "faith" is described as a "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof", whereas atheism simply announces the direct challenge, I don't believe, just show me the evidence. The former is a false epistemology, and the latter directly corresponds and conforms with fundamental scientific principles.

Stop Using Science To Validate Your Beliefs via @forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmsutter/2018/12/17/stop-using-science-to-validate-your-beliefs/

Jordan Pine writes:
[To mchasewalker]

"The commentator"? I post with my name, and it is Jordan. Passive-aggressive much? If you have something to say, take courage and address me directly.

He then goes on to quote Christopher Hitchens's brother, Peter, which is simply an Appeal to (false) Authority.

I didn't quote Peter Hitchens at all. Are you sure you read what I wrote?

Also: You may also want to re-read the entry for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. As Inigo Montoya said in The Princess Bride: "I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The reason Hitchens' Razor works at all is because it is a basic universal truism of scientific methodology and offers no preference or prejudice on what the original claim, or answer, might be, but only what can be supported through hard evidence. 

I agree with this statement. It makes a point I was trying to make. Hitchens' razor is "agnostic," cutting against the unsupported claims of all, regardless of worldview. That's why I, as a theist, enjoy using it against atheist trolls.

 

Certainly, Hitchens was no stranger to pernicious theistic misappropriations

Ah, now we come to it. I am not surprised. I knew my temerity would trigger at least one zealot. Hitchens is one of your major "prophets," after all. I meant no offense or denigration. On this point, I think Hitchens was absolutely correct (see above).

 

Theistic methodologies and apologies are theologically-driven with the express purpose of justifying faith and beliefs regardless of any evidence.

This statement, the last part in particular, represents an excellent example of the logical fallacy known as petitio principii or "begging the question." 

 

atheism simply announces the direct challenge, I don't believe, just show me the evidence.

That may be what atheism claims as an ideal, but it is not the (true) attitude of any practicing atheist I have encountered. All the ones I've met (including you, I'd wager) have strong, emotional beliefs and preconceived notions about God, the Bible and religion. They were not neutral or objective in their inquiries in any way, and they were largely immune to evidence that contradicted their worldview. In other words, they behaved as typical human beings subject to all the same emotions, passions and cognitive biases as everyone else. Indeed, their passion for their beliefs were easily equal to that of any religious fanatic.

More to the point: When confronted with epistemological questions, these atheists routinely asserted claims without evidence, which is (ironically) what allowed me to nick them with Hitchens' razor.

Jordan Pine writes:

I don't think Hitchens' razor is nonsense, but you raise a very good point. In debates with atheists, I have encountered this problem with a loose definition of "evidence." As a result, I did some further research to try to articulate what the word means and should mean.

"Evidence" is one of those words that needs a clear definition for debates to go anywhere productive and avoid what you call "an infinite regress with you forever needing more evidence to prove your existing evidence valid."

Here is what I came up with for a reply to someone I was debating at the time:

We have to be clear about the definition of "evidence" if we are going to have an intelligent conversation. The Wikipedia entry for this word will serve as an excellent guide.

According to Wikipedia, "evidence" is broadly defined as anything presented in support of an assertion . But let's go further.

There are two general types of evidence: intellectual evidence and empirical evidence . Loosely defined, this is what we accept in our mind and what we experience with our brain. Logical thinking is an example of intellectual evidence. Seeing is an example of empirical evidence.

The strongest type of evidence is direct proof of the truth of an assertion. You are lacking direct proof God created the heavens and the earth. But you are also lacking direct proof that life on earth arose spontaneously -- because neither you nor I were present at the beginning.

One of the weakest types of evidence is circumstantial evidence . This type of evidence is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions. However, we use this type of evidence all the time, in some cases to form our most cherished beliefs. For example, we believe our parents, our spouses and/or our children love us unconditionally. this conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence and typically resistant to counter evidence. Love itself is a metaphysical concept that lacks direct proof and is mostly supported with lesser types of evidence.

In the law, there are several types of acceptable evidence. There is testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence . Theists use all three to support their beliefs. For example, there is plenty of testimony that God exists. Just ask the two-thirds of the world's population that is monotheist about their experiences of God. Meanwhile, the gospels are essentially testimonial evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They also represent the second type of evidence, documentary evidence. The gospel documents are eyewitness accounts.

As for physical evidence, it may surprise you to know theists think they have that as well. The debate is really over what conclusions we should draw from this evidence. A theist looks at the design of life, the genetic code and the intricate complexity of living cells, and concludes this is physical evidence for an intelligent designer. An atheist looks at the design of life and concludes it is the work of chance and evolutionary processes. A theist looks at the physical evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe and concludes there must be a transcendent "fine tuner" at work. An atheist looks at the physical evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe and concludes it must be an illusion, a result of chance, which means there must be multiple universes where the "tuning" failed. Notice that the conclusions in both cases go beyond the physical evidence and amount to statements of belief.

Finally, there is scientific evidence , which "consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method," according to Wikipedia. Perhaps this is the meaning intended when atheists ask for "evidence" of God. But the scientific method is just a tool (a great and useful tool), and it is the wrong tool for this job. If scientific proof for God were possible, we wouldn't call belief in God "faith." We'd call it "science."

It's also important to understand that scientific atheism is not science. It is a worldview or ideology. It is a belief system. Science and belief, then, are clearly compatible. This includes belief in God. What is my evidence? Well, what kind would you like? How about testimony and documentary evidence? 

Did you know that the founding fathers of science believed in God? Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler, Galileo, Faraday, Mendel and so on were all men of faith. Even Darwin said: "I have never denied the existence of God. I think the theory of evolution is fully compatible with faith in God. I think the greatest argument for the existence in God is the impossibility of demonstrating and understanding that the immense universe, sublime above all measure, and man were the result of chance." 

Today, '"just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power," according to Pew Research. And the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), a 75-year-old network of Christians in the sciences, has more than 2,000 active members.

I welcome any thoughts on the above. One last point: Although logical thinking is technically a weaker form of evidence than empirical evidence, I have found it to be the most useful and powerful tool for epistemological conversations. Everyone has their own facts, but the laws of logic are universal and unavoidable. They're like math for ideas: the equations either work or they don't work.

GoblinCookie writes:

Maybe I have a narrower definition of evidence than Hitchens did, I consider evidence to mean that which is evident (visible, observable).  Evidence then is empirical observations that logically support a proposition being argued for.  I do not consider logical proofs to be evidence, I consider them merely proofs and evidence one form of proof. 

I think it is bad case of Hitchens trying to come up with a cast-iron way to destroy religious claims since one thing they are reliably lacking in is precisely reliable evidence.  It is however "The Cure is worse than the Disease" since actually consistently applying that principle gets you into massive logical problems.  The problems are known as Agrippa's Trilemma.  Evidence needs to be verified, which needs more evidence, which itself needs to be verified and so on. 

Jordan Pine writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

Solid points. This is fascinating, by the way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Thanks for mentioning it.

Question for you: If logical proofs aren't evidence in the proper sense, what do you make of mathematical proofs? I ask because much of quantum physics and other scientific fields where visible, observable proof (via experimentation) is not possible rests on equations that only a handful of people can understand or (properly) critique.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Jordan Pine]

 

Thanks for mentioning it.

Question for you: If logical proofs aren't evidence in the proper sense, what do you make of mathematical proofs? I ask because much of quantum physics and other scientific fields where visible, observable proof (via experimentation) is not possible rests on equations that only a handful of people can understand or (properly) critique.

Mathematics gives me a headache, but yes evidence depends upon the validity of some mathematical principles to begin with (particularly probability, you have to calculate the probability of the inaccuracy of your evidence).  Modern (as Ancient) science isn't really based upon evidence, there was a time back in the 19th century when advances in basically industrial technique made a lot of things measurable that were previously theoretical (like germs).  This led to a boom in the 'we can prove everything that exists through evidence' line of thinking but then they ran out of road as they were unable to forever come up with better devices to measure smaller and smaller things.  Religion took a big whack naturally since one thing religions cannot do is provide evidence for their claims, so there are a lot of Atheist types running about making arguments for credulous people who retain that old 19th century mentality.

So to sum up, empiricism (emphasis on evidence) tends to prevail whenever the technical ability to observe/measure exceeds what is known and rationalism (emphasis on logical proofs) tends to prevail whenever the extent of what is known runs up against a technological wall.  We are presently in the second situation while still believing we are in the first, which explains much of our present intellectual problems. 

Daniel writes:

Interesting discussion. Often we have to combine limited evidence with logic to arrive at a provisional judgement pending further evidence, with a view to identifying the most promising avenue for further investigation.

For example, in attempting to falsify flat earth, I calculated the surface area of the spherical earth model and compared it to the calculated surface area of the same earth flattened as a disk (with the same distance from north pole to south pole and centre to edge.) 

The flat earth turned out to be 60% larger in surface area than the globe. This was my evidence.

I then reasoned that for the flat earth conspiracy theory to be feasible, 60% of earths surface area somehow had to have been hidden from every explorer, sailor, pilot, traveller etc. since the age of discovery till now. Either that, or all those people had to be in on the deception of hiding that extra surface area. In addition, we all now use digital maps that agree with each other, interconnect, and are consistent with the surface area of a sphere with the 60% less area than the flat. If the earth were flat, there would be a larger area missing from the maps than the area represented and surely this would have been noticed. That was my logic.

My conclusion was that there is far less likelihood of the earth being flat than a globe as it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to hide the extra surface area, and so a conspiracy to hide the flat earth would probably not be feasible. The evidence, combined with that logic, seems to me to suggest strongly that the earth is a sphere, and so further investigation of earth should provisionally assume sphericity pending further evidence that either supports or undermines that assumption.

I don't know a great deal about the philosophy of knowledge so perhaps someone could point out how the evidence, in my example above, leads to an infinite regress of requiring more and more evidence to prove it valid.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Daniel]

I'm not very familiar with the trilemma, and I am not a flat-earther, but here are some ideas I had that may answer your question.

You: "I calculated the surface area of the spherical earth model and compared it to the calculated surface area of the same earth flattened as a disk (with the same distance from north pole to south pole and centre to edge.)"

Flat Earther: What was the basis for your calculations? You didn't measure the earth yourself. How do you know those numbers are correct?

You: "[W]e all now use digital maps that agree with each other, interconnect, and are consistent with the surface area of a sphere"

Flat Earther: They agree because they are all based on the same false assumption that the earth is a sphere. If all of the maps were based on a flat earth assumption, they would also all agree.

You: "My conclusion was that there is far less likelihood of the earth being flat than a globe ..."

Flat Earther: Your conclusions are highly skewed by your sphere bias.

Me: Your probabilistic language also supports Hans Albert's contention that "certain justification is impossible to attain." That is, Albert's version of the trilemma demands certainty, and you are not expressing certainty. Therefore, trilemma advocates would claim victory. They would say something like: We can never be certain anything is true because all claims rest on other claims that lack 100% certainty, going backward infinitely. Thus, we can't say for sure the earth isn't flat. We can only say it  probably isn't flat and then must admit this is a belief that is impossible to prove. Or something like that!

Daniel writes:

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was not claiming to have accurately measured the earth, I was pointing out that if the flat earther and I agree on the distance from pole-to-pole (or in his case, from north pole to edge,) the different geometries of a sphere and a disk mean the disk would have 60% more surface area. It doesn’t matter what the pole-to-pole distance is or if it’s accurate, the point is the surface would be much larger. I don’t see how geometric measurements require an infinite regress of further evidence.

Regarding the maps, the point is not that maps assuming a globe describe a globe, it’s that maps assuming a globe wouldn’t work unless it really was a globe. If maps assume a globe and the earth is actually a disk, none of them would work properly, or work together with each other, because all the distances would be wrong due to the surface area being far too small for the reality of actually travelling across the surface. Again, I don’t see how further evidence is required, in an infinite regress, to support this evidence.

The only reason I have any uncertainty at all is because I have not personally confirmed that all our globe-based maps work perfectly and reflect the surface area of a sphere rather than a disk. I can book a flight, or order cargo to be shipped, from pretty much anywhere on the earth to pretty much anywhere else, and all those services promise travel times consistent with a spherical geometry of the earth. For that to be a deception I would have to be individually targeted by that deception, and everyone else in the world, who claims to travel or ship goods, would have to be in on the lie. I am almost 100% certain that that is not the case, and I can think of no other way the deception could be pulled off, so my certainty is very near 100%. But I suppose they can still claim victory due to that tiny margin for doubt.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To Daniel]

I was not claiming to have accurately measured the earth

Right. That was the point I was trying to make (facetiously, of course). No one would do such a thing, which means everyone relies on information from someone else and trusts it is correct.

if the flat earther and I agree on the distance from pole-to-pole (or in his case, from north pole to edge,) the different geometries of a sphere and a disk mean the disk would have 60% more surface area.

I think that's a big "IF." Flat-earthers don't seem like the type to agree about such things. I'm not really familiar with their arguments, but I assume they would disagree with you on any critical facts that would lead to simple geometry proving them wrong.

I can book a flight, or order cargo to be shipped, from pretty much anywhere on the earth to pretty much anywhere else, and all those services promise travel times consistent with a spherical geometry of the earth.

I would guess that a trilemma-loving flat-earther (TLFE) would challenge "travel times consistent with a spherical geometry of the earth." Such a person would ask how you know that, questioning all of the assumptions that go into that statement. The phrase "consistent with" already indicates some level of uncertainty, which is where the TLFE would focus his/her attack. The TLFE would also then no doubt launch a counter-attack featuring geometric equations that show the functioning of these services is also/more consistent with a flat earth geometry. See the point?

Because this is a reductio ad absurdum and not an area of interest to me, I don't have the passion required to research and argue the geometry of the earth point. But I bet that if you sought out a flat-earther (with an interest in math) and tried this argument on him/her, you would quickly discover your argument isn't as strong as you think. It's not you -- it's all of us. -- and that's the point the trilemma is trying to make.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Daniel]

Regarding the maps, the point is not that maps assuming a globe describe a globe, it’s that maps assuming a globe wouldn’t work unless it really was a globe. If maps assume a globe and the earth is actually a disk, none of them would work properly, or work together with each other, because all the distances would be wrong due to the surface area being far too small for the reality of actually travelling across the surface. Again, I don’t see how further evidence is required, in an infinite regress, to support this evidence.

Maps do not have to be accurate in order to work. 

Daniel writes:

[To GoblinCookie]

That's true up to a point, but when the difference between the map and reality is 60% the map won't work.

For example, if your map says the next town is 100km away in a certain direction and you drive your car in that direction for 100km and find nothing - because the next town is actually 160km away - the map doesn't work.

If the earth is flat, it has 60% more surface area than our maps indicate, meaning either the majority of the earth is somehow hidden, or all maps are an average of 60% inaccurate and won't work.

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Daniel]

 

That's true up to a point, but when the difference between the map and reality is 60% the map won't work.

For example, if your map says the next town is 100km away in a certain direction and you drive your car in that direction for 100km and find nothing - because the next town is actually 160km away - the map doesn't work.

If the earth is flat, it has 60% more surface area than our maps indicate, meaning either the majority of the earth is somehow hidden, or all maps are an average of 60% inaccurate and won't work. 

You do realize how bad an argument that is.  People normally use flat maps to get around the place despite the fact that the world is round and you can measure the distance between two points quite fine on the assumption of the world being flat (it makes no difference).  The practical usefulness of flat-earthness is oft used as an argument *for* flat-earth not against it.  The flat-earthers are typically arguing that evidence for the roundness of the world is an illusion, which would explain rather well why practically we nearly always use a flat map of the world rather than a curved one.  We might know the world is round, but yet for virtually all purposes we model the world as though it were flat. 

There is also no problem with the world having 60% more surface area.  We calculated the surface area based upon the round-earth assumption, we can easily recalculate based upon the flat-earth assumption. It not like anyone actually walked every inch of the total surface area of the earth.   

Daniel writes:

All flat maps of the earth of any significant size are distorted to account for the fact that earth is not flat. Flat earthers don't comprehend the implications of that so they think flat maps make for a good argument against the globe. You don't have to cover every inch of the earth to establish it's shape, you just have to determine longitude and latitude to a rough accuracy with a few long sea journeys with some travel east to west in the northern and southern hemispheres. 

GoblinCookie writes:
[To Daniel]

You do not have longitude and latitude if you have a flat world, but yes if you want to know objectively how much of the world there is you have to walk every inch of it.  Yes we both know full well that the world is actually round, I am not arguing that it isn't.

There are however possible circumstances that can account for that.  It could for instance be that the round world is actually a flat plane made to look like a round world.  Rather like the holodeck of star wars.

Jordan Pine writes:
[To GoblinCookie]

I couldn't let this one go:

Rather like the holodeck of star wars.

Of course you meant Star Trek , specifically The Next Generation .

I'm not a Flat-Earther, but I am a lifelong Trekkie! :-)