Atheist Debates - Burden of proof
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 гру 2015
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
There seems to be a lot of confusion around the burden of proof with respect to default positions and with respect to what it is - and isn't. Here's a quick "propositional logic 101" look at the burden of proof.
The switch between "X is true" and "I ought to behave as though X is true" sounds suspiciously like a setup for Pascal's wager.
I generally don't have discussions about religion with people because it always ends up being a circular argument. However, your videos about fallacies, null hypothesis and burden of proof has been instrumental in discussion pertaining to reality, specifically politics, economics, etc. For that, I do thank you Matt. You have been a great teacher and even shown me my own inadequacies as a person and in my use of logic. Peace brother!
All worldviews use epistemic circularity. Including your particular non-theistic worldview.
The goal is to determine which worldview utilizes non-fallacious epistemic circularity by appealing to a justified ultimate standard for truth.
But if you're objecting to other worldviews just because they use epistemic circularity, that's not a valid critique. Because all worldviews do that.
Matt, you and the AE team have played a huge, positive role in my life. I was never a believer. Even as a child, the Bible stories just didn't make logical sense to me. I wasn't always sure WHY I had such disbelief - seeing as so many people are so convinced by it all - (or how to defend my position) until I discovered Matt on AE about 4 years ago. I've learned so much about logic, reason, rational thought and their antithesis: theism. Thank you for all you do! You guys are literally changing the world.
You should make a suggested reading list.
I agree!
For clarity, the liars paradox comments were only intended to illustrate the difference between true/false and true/not true. It wasn't a solution to the paradox. There are other formations where true/not true would also fail. I'll probably post a clarifying video some day.
Hi Matt, can you do a video on why the question of God's existence is irrelevant if you haven't already? I see some theists who don't seem to understand how childish it is to expect someone to worship God just because it exists and claims to have created us.
+Green depending on the claims about "god", I don't necessarily think it's irrelevant. It may be the most important question one could consider.
+Matt Dillahunty I understand but there seems to be a lot of people under the impression that all it would take to convince atheists is proof that god exists and that he created us. As if we're just going to overlook his maniacal personality based on that alone.
Personally I like Joseph Fry's description of atheism the best: "Atheism is not simply the lack of belief in a God, but suppose there was one? What kind of God is he?"
Now, other UA-camrs have touched on this subject at some point or another in their videos but I have yet to see any video directly addressing these short sighted expectations.
Green Inmendham.
The claim God exists or does not exist is a different claim than I believe God does or does not exist. One cannot prove something does not exist, if something is said to exist, it requires agreement only for it to exist. The claim of how "something" operates requires much more proof than the claim of merely existing. I exist cannot be proven, therefore a believer can hide behind the claim. Once the believer claims HOW God operates, they put themselves in a very hairy situation.
When you confront someone like Sye who asks "what do you know?" You can reply with what you know you don't know. Example, "I know that I do not know brain surgery or how to engineer a rocket." The problem with belief is that we have not established a margin of agreement, in percent, which in an agreement about agreement.
Couldn't resist seeing DVDs behind him. Doctor Who fan, Good on you Matt
I noticed that too!
+Cal Roy Bonus points for the Babylon 5 box set too :-)
Yeah, Doctor Who. He must offer a lot of truth if Matt still believes there is no God/Jesus Christ. Probably another one of those under the influence of Satan's - the Devil's lies.
In the first tutorial of a philosophy of religion class I took at university (200 level class). An example of BOP was the following: A guy walks up to you and says he's a Martian just arrived on Earth. Should you believe his proposition? Who has the burden of proof? My own similar analogy that brings the BOP home even more is that if I walk up to you and say that "I am the king of the world and you must give me all your money or else I will put you in prison for life". Should you believe me? Who has the burden of proof? If you say that any proposition should be believed until proven false (ie: you believe me and give me all your money) then every person would have to believe any proposition and any crazy idea, no matter how absurd. Gullibility would rule.
Great video, very clarifying. Love your videos and debates. Keep up!
Not trying to be crude or anything, but I couldn't help but notice that it says 'Blue Bawls' in the background. =(
that was actually intentional.
+Matt Dillahunty LOL
+Matt Dillahunty Are you promoting it just because you like it, or are you being paid to include that on your background?
LukeSumIpsePatremTe I suspect it was just to be funny. ;)
lol, I noticed that too.
I like your videos a great deal. I often use them as part my conversation in various social media sights. Would it be possible for you to do short video of the gum-ball analogy?
I still don't know who came up with it first. You or Tracie.
+1 for Babylon 5 DVDs on the bookshelf. :-)
+Dean Gilbert Same here.Epic!
+Dean Gilbert Indeed. And another +1 for Blue microphone. They are just work of art.
+Dean Gilbert When combined with the giant Sagan Hardcover some videos ago it seems like he is geek baiting us into being jealous of his collections :D
LOL every time he slightly moves another genre classic is becoming visible I've now counted Voyager, Babylon 5 and House in the left hand cupboard and Doctor Who, Buffy, Donnie Darko, Star Wars and Dexter in the one directly behind Matt. The upper board seems to be non fiction, many of those have titles that seem to include personal names, maybe lecture series or something like that?
Not sure what the three TR boxes are. But they look really important :D
As allways a pleasure to listen to you Sir, thank you!
I would like to point out something about a null hypothesis: it is wrong to say that a null hypothesis is accepted as true as the default. A null hypothesis is never accepted. It is only rejected, or you fail to reject it. Rejecting the null hypothesis means you accept the alternative hypothesis, but failing to reject the null does not mean you accept the null.
The rest of the video, especially the gumball analogy, is consistent with this and is spot on.
Thanks for the video Matt!
Also some people may call it "intellectual laziness" when you ask for proof. They assume that you can't do you own research which is quite the contrary because what you looking for is evidence that weighs up with other evidence that falls into line with the present data and research methods
No asking for proof is asking you to supply strong evidence for your claim . If you make a claim prove it or shut up
I swear I was listening, but couldn't help but notice some contraption in the background with a large lettered word "blue," and immediately below it a bottle that says "bawls."
that's a blue microphones' baby bottle mic :)
Matt, based upon A. C. Grayling’s anecdote, ‘Fred,’ I won’t allow a debate unless something similar to the following is answered by the Theist:
[ - - - - - >
A teaching device used by philosophers is called 'word substitution.' Example: Someone asserts, "God created the Universe." The philosopher will substitute the word "God" with the word 'Fred' so the statement reads thus: "Fred created the Universe." The philosopher then asks, "Is this statement clear to everybody?" I.e., does everybody understand what is meant by the word "Fred?" So before a dialogue can proceed, and to avoid any future misunderstandings and/or red herrings to a Straw Man, it's necessary to be clear what ‘you’ mean by Creator/God/Fred/etc.
So below are a list of premises and/or attributes generally attributed to the God of Classic Theism or the 'Christian' God and a list of widely held beliefs. It's already understood that Theists or Christians might accept one, some, all, or varying definitions of these premises, attributes, or beliefs. Arguing from different terms is a straw man and an enormous waste of time; such dialogue just leads to semantics or the fallacy of equivocation. If you don't agree with the lists I've provided, please supply your own list with pithy, but articulate, explanations. From this point we can proceed with a productive exchange of ideas about your actual argued-for God.
My first question is: Choosing from the list 1 - 21, what premises and/or attributes do you consider the "truth?"
1. God is eternal (I.e., God has always existed.);
2. God is uncaused (I.e God is non-contingent; no other event or entity brought God into existence.);
3. God exists in a spaceless dimension;
4. God is timeless (I.e., God exists in a state of no time-seeing all time at once.);
5. God is tenseless (I.e., God has no past, present, or future; he experiences time all at once; God experiences them all simultaneously and from a perspective where all contained time has already concluded.);
6. God is changeless (I.e., God is one way-and has been this way eternally.);
7. God is all-knowing (I.e., God is omniscient.);
8. God is all-powerful (I.e., God is omnipotent.);
9. Although omnipotent, God cannot do the logically impossible;
10. God is all-present (I.e., God exists in all places; God is omnipresent);
11. God is all-loving (I.e., God is omnibenevolent);
12. God has some kind of thoughts or intentions;
13. God was the first cause [the Prime Mover] of the universe which was created ex nihilo;
14. God performs active miracles (I.e., miracles that have happened, are happening, and will or may happen);
15. God is perfectly moral; morality is grounded in God’s nature. (I.e., morality is an objective universal timeless standard; the God of the Christian Bible is the grounding for objective morals and duties.);
16. God is perfectly logical: logic is grounded in God’s nature. (I.e., Logic is a universal timeless standard; the God of the Christian Bible is the grounding for logic.);
17. Humans experience a temporal (or tensed) existence (I.e., humans experience a real past, present, and future; the past is no longer real, the present is real, and the future is undetermined potentiality.);
18. Humans have free will;
19. Humans are dualistic with souls; and,
20. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man?
21. Jesus Christ is God.
My second question is: Choosing from the list A - I, which of the following arguments do you hold to be true?
A. The Contingency Cosmological Argument:
1. All contingent realities depend for their existence upon a non-contingent or necessary reality;
2. The universe is a contingent reality;
3. Therefore, the universe depends for its existence on a non-contingent or necessary reality.
B. The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
C. The Planet Earth is between 6,000 - 12,000 literal years old.
D. Humans did not evolve through 'common descent' via 'natural selection.'
E. The Planet Earth was flooded approximately 4,400 years ago and all humans are descendants from Noah and his family.
F. The argument from divine sense (or sensus divinitatis) is true and God can be considered properly basic-requiring no external justification such as physical evidence; babies are born with sensus divinitatis.
G. Atheists and Agnostics know there is a God.
H. The Christian Bible is inerrant word of the God known as Yahweh/Elohim in the Hebrew Scriptures. (I.e., "The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!").
I1. Certainty is defined as absolutely certain. Without an avenue to God-a God knowing everything with absolute certainty-you cannot be absolutely certain about anything.
I2. The only thing that can make sense of the universal immaterial unchanging laws of logic, science, and morality is a universal immaterial unchanging God-and that is the God of the Christian Bible.
I3. The only way to know something as true is by, or through, a revelation from God.
I4. It is intellectually impossible for the God of the Christian Bible not to exist.
< - - - - ]
Matt, A. C. Grayling’s explanation reveals that it’s not simply a switching of the burden of proof, it’s a ‘bait and switch.’
Has anyone you’ve debated been held to specifically defining the attributes and/or premises they ultimately believe and subsequently positively argue-for Yahweh, the God of the Christian Bible, to be the non-contingent cause of the Kalam?
Thanks,
yinYangMountain
yinYangMountain TLDR
Matt these are extremely helpful for my own understanding about logic. Thank you so much.
Wow, now I understand why the null hypothesis was what it was throughout statistics. Great video.
Great video! It's easier on the one making the claim to say prove me wrong. That's why its often used. We tend to think very simplistic until educated on a better way of doing things or coming to the truth. I have but one question though. Is there any Battlestar Gallactica 2004 back there? =)
Matt, have you done a video about the objections to your "I find god not guilty of existing" explanations? I can remember at least one or two debates where the opponent seemed to have a valid point.
Maybe this is explained in this video ... watching now.
In discussions, Atheists explained to me how burden of proof works:
1. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim.
2. Except when it comes to negative claims. Negatives can not be proven, therefore burden of proof is on the other side.
3. When you start the argument with "Somebody said the opposite of what I am going to say", the burden of proof is on the other side.
4. Saying "it's logical" or "you are too dumb to understand" counts as proof.
and whatever atheist told you that is wrong (already have a video on it)
oh, this IS that video. you're just ignoring it
What the video said seemed obvious to me, but it got presented as evidence of what I wrote. So I thought it would be better to ask.
I had to watch this video twice. The first time I become consumed in looking at the DVDs that Matt has on the shelves behind him.
I'd say the clear null hypothesis in the gumball case is that we don't know whether the number is even or odd.
I'll be honest, I didn't actually fully comprehend the concept of the null hypothesis until watching this video. Thanks, Matt!
#1 love the series, thanks for all the work you do.
#2 anyone else notice "blue bawls?"
Let's play "What would Sye say" ! (* Sye Ten Bruggencate)
Matt @ 2:03 "Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof."
Q: What would Sye say?
A: "Do you have a burden of proof for the claim you just made?"
Matt @ 2:30 "[...] because the truth is, the burden of proof addresses individual discrete propositions."
Q: What would Sye say?
A: "Is that an absolutely true proposition?"
Matt @ 3:32 "Your default position with respect to any claim is disbelief."
Q: What would Sye say?
A: "Then I don't believe your claim that the default position to any claim is disbelief... because that's the default position."
In other words, Sye is nothing, but a walking, talking et tu quoque fallacy.
Also known as the kindergarten "argument" of "I know you are, but what am I?"
@@gnagyusa So, when you have claimed that so and so _"has the burden of proof,"_ and *he then turns your own game against you* by claiming that you _"have the burden of proof"_ for your claim that he _"has the burden of proof,"_ what do you do, then, to try to console yourself and fool yourself into imagining that your irrational, useless game _isn't_ irrational and useless?
If you can ever advance beyond your pre-kindergarten level of thinking, perhaps you'll be able to understand that _"If I have the burden of proof for my claim, then you have the burden of proof for your claim"_ *is not the least bit analogous to* _"I know you are, but what am I?"_
One has to be pretty dull to mistake _"I know you are, but what am I?"_ for _"You are too (tu quoque)!"_ Yet, that's one of the mistakes you've made in your ill-conceived post. And, BTW, Professor, it is not fallacious to point out to someone, _"You [do/are] too,"_ when it is true that they do/are too.
You wrote: "Let's play "What would Sye say" ! (* Sye Ten Bruggencate)
Matt @ 2:03 "Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof."
Q: What would Sye say?
A: "Do you have a burden of proof for the claim you just made?""
Funny that you didn't stick around and try to explain, Professor, exactly why you imagine it would be erroneous for him to say that--let alone, tell us exactly what you would say in response to him saying that. Apparently you posted your post solely for the purpose of publicly registering your chagrin over the fact that you have no rational response to throw against it.
Here's a fun syllogism for you:
*Major Premise:* _"Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof,"_
*Minor Premise:* The claim put forward, _"Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof,"_ is a claim put forward,
Ergo,
*Conclusion:* The claim put forward, _"Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof,"_ carries with it a burden of proof.
And to think this is how DVD shelves looked like before the rise of streaming services.
I love it. Shows of some of your personality.
This video was very educational. Thank you very much, Matt. Greetings from Denmark :)
Is the liar’s paradox actually a paradox though? One is about the outcome of the statement and the other is about the statement. So, if the outcome is true then the sentence validity is false. If the outcome is false, then the sentence validity is true.
I think there are actually two different things we are assessing with the liar’s paradox which means it’s not a paradox at all. It’s just two different assessments we are making. One about the outcome of the sentence and one of the sentence’s validity.
I thought your example of the Liar's paradox was a little bit odd since the stronger formulation is "this statement is not true," which would make your discussion of it fall apart unless you would claim it a categorical error or were implicitly using non-classical logic (eg. intuitionistic logic in terms of provability and such).
yeah, i thought so too; wiki article & plato.stanford.edu did not seem to present a solution similar to Matt's, but i'm very new in this
But does the argument that fiath in god is lond date based changes the burden of proof in any form?
I know you think I dont see those Buffy DVD's in the back... But I do, and I love it.
The simplest way to illustrate the null hypothesis is the proper default position is to demonstrate that if you believe as the default position it leads to contradictory beliefs.
I love how thorough you are
The null hypothesis principle can be directly applied to the so called "fine tuning" argument. How can you show that the Univers is "fine tuned"? One may show that the models that physicists make to predict events in the Universe may be fine tuned in order to do their jobs, but assuming that means the Universe is fine tuned is a map-territory conceptual error. The null hypothesis is that the Universe is not fine tuned until it is showen to be so by evidence. But "what if" models that don't match what we see in the Universe can never be tested, so no amount of model fiddeling can produce evidence of so called "fine tuning" even if it were true.
thanks for the video and putting yourself out there.
Awesome .. I recently did a video on the burden of proof reversal.
Nice video
The only thing is, that the default position in question is really depending on time and circumstances.
You should do a video on Occam's Razor.
great video, a must share.
Hey matt :) nice upload :)
I think it is necessary to add to the "playing cards and cancer" analogy: Correlation of playing cards and cancer does not indicate causality.
I'm not sure why you are talking about the null hypothesis in non-statistical situations. It makes my brain hurt and makes little sense to me (a semi-statistician).
Wait what? You haven't made a burden of proof video before?
I could have sworn that was just a UA-cam "watch it again" suggestion for years old videos until I noticed the "uploaded 13 min ago" message. xD
If I make the claim "I am a conscious being," is the default position really that I am not actually a conscious being unless my claim can be proved to be true? Aren't there any positive claims that can just be accepted at face value with no need for justification? Or is the justification in these cases just so blindingly obvious that it goes unstated?
+godzillatemple Did you actually watch the video? Matt goes over this in detail when he states his "My name is Matt"-example. Some claims can and should be believed regardless of their truth value because it is reasonable to believe it, or the harm in believing it is so neglible as to be a non-factor.
+MultiKnark Yeah, I posted this literally seconds before Matt stated it. That will teach me to leave comments in real time instead of waiting until the end...
... so distracted trying to re-order the out-of-order DVDs on the shelf...
+Brian Shields
The OCD is strong with this one.
Just want to state my opinion here.. I think that when you are discussing sometimes hard to grasp topics like these (maybe not for all but definitely for some) you shouldn't flash a large amount of text on the screen, as it requires you to take your attention away from what you are saying at the time. If you must put text on the screen, try to make it appear exactly when what you are saying is relevant, and in small amounts. I had to pause, read the text, and then re-listen to what you said to digest all the information completely.
Also, while it might seem interesting to share your collection of books and things in the background, which it might actually be, I think it detracts from the information of the video and I found myself losing my focus on what you were saying to try to see exactly what was behind you. This is why I believe pleasant yet simple backgrounds like the ones you've created outside are the best if the goal of the video is to focus on what you are saying.
That said, it is 3 in the morning and I don't feel as sharp as I usually do, so maybe I'm just being a dummy right now.
Although, I already understand proper dichotomys... I completely and easily understood the way you explained it here (about where to place the negation)
Thanks (:
13:00 Null hypothesis discussion begins. 24:39 Further discussion of Null.
Great video, problem solved.
NEXT PROBLEM!
+Trampus you sound fun at parties
+Trampus I have no idea why you're angry
+ntheg Not really solved. Unless you can explain what I got wrong in my response (click on my user name to see it).
if "believe is the idea that you are convinced that a proposition is true or likely to be true", how can it not follow the same gradual scale as the conviction. What factor defines the point where "likely to be true" gets, in a binary way, distinct from "unlikely".
The distinction drawn seems merely semantics, hiding it in the word 'likely'. I don't see a fundamental breaking point.
What about propositions where you don't really know if it's (likely) to be true or not?
The "Burden of Proof" for dummies:
- I claim that cats does NOT exist.
- You claim that cats DOES exist.
"Burden of Proof":
- I show you no cat, therefore, I´m consistent with my claim.
- You show me no cat, therefore, you are inconsistent with your claim.
Now if you show me a cat, then my claim would be inconsistent and your claim will be consistent.
The "Burden of Proof" is defined by the claim. Pure and simple.
10:14 Should have used the Ripley's Believe It or Not font here.
Love the Babylon 5 DVDs in the background! :D
Maybe I'm missing something obvious but isnt "true or false" necessarily a true dichotomy according to the law of excluded middle? In bivalent logic "not true" and "false" would be equivalents.
As soon as you're talking about whether or not people accept a certain proposition that changes, but intrinsically every proposition is either true or false, we just might not be able to find out which is accurate.
A proposition with a truth value that can be discerned is true or false... but the proper dichotomy is true/not true. False and not true are only equivalent for propositions with a truth value.
Liars paradox for example is "not true" and yet, not false.
True/ not true applies to everything... doesn't require a proposition.
Peanut butter is "not true".
Nice video. I wasn't aware of this comparison between a statement and the null hypothesis. I like it. It makes sense to me. But then again: I already share your position, so my input might not be a useful benchmark. ;-)
Why wouldn't the default position in general be I don't know?
That's the answer to a different question
@@SansDeity Matt, your epistemology is out of step with way it is understood in peer reviewed epistemology. Theism isn't a claim and doesn't incur a burden of proof. The default position is irrelevant. Only claims incur a burden of proof (which a theist or atheist may make). You could just as easily reframe this to point out the contradiction by having a hypothetical debate between an atheist who says it's more likely no gods exist, and a theist who says "I don't believe you".
i hope more theists would listen to this explanation which i found many of them denies about this default position. and too sad that they stick to "believe it or not, it exists. that's the default position" or something like "i have my own default position"
That's a serious Buffy collection back there lol!
"this photon is spin up" is a statement that may not have a specific value until we look to see. Even if we look and see the answer is 'yes', that might not have been the answer at the time we asked the question. Therefore there are yes/no statements that might not be either true or false at a given time. Quantum questions take us outside our Aristotelian logic.
no they don't. what ever the thing is, that's what it is. You're confusing our ability to know, and our errors in categorizing with the ability to do so.
Matt: "whatever the thing is, that's what it is" is not necessarily true in the quantum world. I am not referring to our ability to know or our ability to categorize -- it is the fact that we can say (eg) 'it is up', and a certain % of the time when we look it will be. But it was not that at the time we made the statement. It was also not not that.
FiniteAutomaton. 'this photon spin is up' is a propositional statement -- no quantifiers necessary.
It's the default because you cannpt believe a claim before you've been presented with it (not even a claim you thought up yourself).
I have blonde hair. Assuming you believe me, did you believe I had blonde hair before you read that last statement? The default is to not believe a thing
16:25 calling the number of gumballs to be even or odd detracts from the point you made about true and false. Better to say the number of gumballs is "even or not-even" or "odd or not-odd". In the event you have half a bumball or working in another system where it's not the case that the number of gumballs is neither even or odd.
[19:30] The claim that, "There _is_ a cop around the corner," establishes a burden of proof. Something has been asserted which may be either true or not true. The claim, "There _may be_ a cop around the corner," does _not_ establish a burden of proof, because it is already true in a world where cops have an established probability of lurking around corners to catch speeders.
Compare this to stating, "There is a god." Like above, this claim establishes a burden of proof. But unlike the policeman example, a burden of proof is also established by stating, "There _may be_ a god," because, unlike cops which have been established to exist around corners via empirical evidence, there is NO empirical evidence establishing any god claim. As Matt says, the default should be skepticism (the null hypothesis) absent evidence. Either way, the theist (or even the agnostic) cannot escape the burden of proof. Another great video Matt!
I can see your bawls... :P
Also... keep up the good work. I like what you are doing.
So, that other guy Matt keeps referencing basically tried to smuggle in Pascal's Wager while trying to shift the burden of truth. Wow...
The default position is your brain on standby, like a empty sheet of paper, until a claim comes along.
I'm just amazed that they still make Bawls energy drinks.
A gumball machine is probably more likely to have an even number of gumballs (than odd) because being empty of gumballs is a common state. :)
Matt has Babylon 5 on DVD. I always suspected that he had good taste.
Matt, I would put it simplier. As Karl Popper said, empirical observations may show an explanatory statement false, but not true, because potentially a single event may dismiss the whole statement, so we have no reliable tool to SHOW it is true and unable to do it. So if someone thinks his statement is automatically true, he is simply wrong. The default position is NEVER true; but theology says the god proposition is true; we can see a contradiction.
ok, so we really have four things here, if B is belief and G is god exists we have
BG: i believe god exists
¬BG: i do not believe god exists
B¬G: i believe god does not exist
¬B¬G: i do not believe god doesent exist
where B is a relation to G.
the agnostic position is usually
¬BG and ¬B¬G
i neither believe a god exists nor that no god exists.
***** yep, but that's outside the scope of my chart. i didnt cover certainty, just the different things you can believe.
If true-or-false is not a true dichotomy, is it a false dichotomy?
+Martin Pfefferle +Martin Pfefferle No it is a not. It negates a third option that is sort of the "middle ground" or the area that can be where new knowledge comes from. For instance something might not be true but it doesnt make it false because we currently dont know enough to ascertain its truth value.
your next video should be people who claim " oh they have nothing to do with X" or the no true Scotsman fallacy
As a data engineer/ scientist, I really enjoyed the talk. However, I just feel like as an agnostic atheist, debating in public doesn't really change people's mind. I'm not so surprised by people who my speeches will at least make them think, but I feel like actually most people just want to be willfully ignorant. And unfortunately there is no cure for that. I also doubt that having debates with people actually increases my ability to do science/ be happy. The atheist position is simple. Theists have not met their burden of proof and some are happy being ignorant. Way to increase my misery by talking to them to no avail!
honestly I am not sure of the difference between "false" and "not true" if anyone can help me out with this that would be great. On the surface the usual definition that we are given when we are taking tests and what not would lead me to believe that these two are exactly the same. can anyone help me with this. I am an atheist.
+redshiftexperiment what I mean is that usually if something is not fully true .. even if it is partially untrue .. wouldn't you still define it as false?
+redshiftexperiment Bertrand Russel once said that at times we must "reserve judgement" .. which I think is what we mean here? .. I still don't think there is a difference between "not true" and "false" ?
+redshiftexperiment about false and not true.
I have a comic book collection numbering in the tens of thousands of issues. The exact number must be either even or odd.
I claim that it's an even number. If you say you don't believe me (not true), that is not the same as saying "you're wrong, it's an odd number" (false).
It's like the difference between Not accepting a claim and believing a claim is false.
Christian Forbes I hope that's not what Matt meant, though it does appear that way. At any rate, it's obviously wrong. If you say the number is even and I don't accept that because I don't believe that you know or have justification, I am NOT saying it's not true.
Saying it's not true is the SAME in this case as saying it's false (and as saying it's odd). Matt is right that "false" does not mean "not true" because there are things that are not true yet not false either (e.g., the sentence "Close the door"). But when it comes to genuine statements, like "God exists" or "the number of gumballs is even", saying it's not true is the same as saying it's false. For any given meaning of "God", either God exists or God doesn't. And for any given gumball machine, either the number of gumballs is even or it isn't. If yes, then the statements are true, if no they are false (not true).
So what AM I claiming when I challenge your statement that the number of gumballs is even? I am claiming that we don't have sufficient reason for accepting the statement. The question here is whether "we have sufficient reason for saying the number is even" is true or not, not whether "the number is even" is true or not. Obviously, those are different questions!
Bawls for the win! Great explanation of the burden of proof and null hypothesis, no wonder theists flee before your incontrovertible logic.
Well said as ever Matt, what makes me laugh when we point out to some believers that they have the burden of proof is that their reluctance to accept the challenge on the basis that it is 'unfair' on them that they should be the one to carry it and not us is almost like them inadvertently expressing doubts about the ability and power of the very supreme and almighty being that they claim they believe in, do they not think that their God can take up the challenge then?, because such a being if they really existed could easily meet that challenge without even the slightest hesitation or effort.
It's a bit like if I claim I have a magic genie who can do anything by just a wave of his hands and a few magic incarnations right?, then someone says to me 'John....can you show us this magic genie and get him to do some magic?.... because if you don't we won't believe you' and then I turn around and say 'no....this isn't fair....why should I have to be the one to prove my genie is real?....why can't YOU be the one that has to prove he isn't?', by me saying that, what am I really telling them?
I'm almost giving away the fact that I really have no magic genie, because such a magic genie by their very nature could easily meet the burden of proof without the slightest hesitation, after all is said and done, there's not much point being called 'a magic genie' if they couldn't do magic on demand Lol, when it comes to claims about the existence of a supreme, almighty, omniscient being, same principle applies, if such a being really existed then they would have ALL the power which means they would have ALL the responsibility to demonstrate themselves to us lesser beings.....so far they've failed with a lot of us, which is why we are Atheists.....errrrrr...... they've failed?.....yep....a being who is supposed to be capable of anything has failed Lol.....not much of a 'supreme, almighty and omniscient' being then eh?, when you read the Bible you can see that failure after failure has followed this God, so I guess some might say he's keeping up his long tradition Lol, thanks :)
Dose jump cuts doe
Actually the default position is that the natural doesn't exist. Why? Because the supernatural is defined not by what something is, but by where it comes from. We define the supernatural as any manifestation or event that comes from something beyond our scientific understanding. Right now a full understanding of the origins of everything in existence is beyond our scientific understanding, therefore by default everything in existence is supernatural. The job of science is to bring everything into a full scientific understanding, and when it does then we get to call things natural if we are still so inclined.
We note. Subsequent videos Matt has "polished" his position - "I'm not convinced....." 👍 If you say that, burden of proof can't be on you.
The phrase "reject the claim" is too strong it seems to imply that the claim is false. We do not "accept" the claim fits better with the null.
+Buzzcook Rejecting a claim is not equivalent to accepting that the claim is false. Indeed, I would say that it is equivalent to not accepting a claim after having considered (or at least been exposed to) the claim.
This should be taught in public schools. It will make American children smarter.
How is none acceptance an acceptance of the burden of proof?
I think using True/False as an example of "possibly not a true dichotomy" was a bad choice. Sure, it's the simplest example but people are going to resist that idea as soon as they hear it.. and isn't "false" by definition equal to "not true"? So, it is actually a true dichotomy, even if it's not stated as precisely as it ought to be. My 2c
Also.. the null hypothesis, the default position, it seems the most intuitive way to describe this is to say "it's the position you hold /in the absense of any or all claims about thing X". So, what you would believe if no claim was being made either way. Given no reason to believe X - no claim made about it - you would not believe it, or believe the counterpoint.
+Regan Heath
True and false are only dichotomies within the explicit framework of two-value logic or when other potential logic states *cannot* apply. As soon as there is some option that is neither true nor false they become a "false dichotomy".
The axiomatic principles of logic themselves account for a state that is neither true nor false, which is what Matt was talking about w.r.t. "this statement is false". In may seem non-intuitive to some, but a logical contradiction is *not* the same thing as "logically false". *A contradiction has no truth value*, it is a non-sentence or non-statement which cannot be evaluated. It is literally neither true nor false, but simply non-truth-apt in logic terms.
+jessesipprell Sure, and it became clear what Matt was talking about as the video progressed. However, my point is not that he was wrong, but that this example is not a good one to lead with. I would lead with the liars paradox, or some other example which shows that state which is neither true nor false.
Also, I was saying true and false *themselves* are a true dichotomy which is another confusion which will arise from this example. Matt is really talking about other propositions like "this statement is false" and "this statement is true" which are a true dichotomy.
Regan Heath I'm still not quite sure it's entirely accurate to say that true and false are true dichotomies, although they certainly _can_ be true dichotomies.
A dichotomy, syntactically, is a perfectly antonymic pair such as "P infers Q" and "P does not infer Q" or "A is B" and "A is not B". If we plug "true,false" into #2 we get "true is not false" as well as "true is not false == not false is true", meaning that the identity of true is the same as the identify of 'not false' so that there is a symmetric equivalence between "true is not false" _and_ "not false is true".
In two-value classical boolean logic the above is absolutely correct. In multi-value logic however, it is not necessarily the case that 'true is not false == not false is true'. In one simple ternary logic system, for example, it would be correct to state that "true is not false" but *incorrect* to state that "not false is true". This broken symmetry is a formal way of demonstrating "true and false are not a true dichotomy given this ternary logic". There are numerous variations of multi-valued logic but for a great many of them "true" and "false" retain the exact same usage and meaning as they do under 2vl, and in fact some, but not all, of the logical inferences or operations applicable in 2vl are equivalently and precisely applicable in 3vl or 3+vl.
+jessesipprell You're right. I meant to come back and edit my reply. I think I meant to say they are truly opposites and people get opposites and dichotomies confused, as I did in my reply, so by using the example of true and false, while perfectly correct, you risk running in to this confusion/gut rejection of the idea before you even get started.
+Regan Heath I agree with you though. "false" is equal to "not true" that is to say both statements have the same meaning. this is the only flaw with the video. when you think of True or False, the third option could be something like "i choose to reserve judgement". As an example if I were to come up to you and present the following question; "I have orange juice in my fridge. Is this a true or false statement?" No answer would really make sense other than you reserving judgement until you had more information. In this way there would not be a true dichotomy I suppose or at least there shouldn't be a dichotomy.
I think a 3rd truth value needs to be used.
True,
False
Absurd.
Absurd is for both not True and not False.
Easy examples:
6 > 2 is true.
5 < 3 is false.
4 > green is absurd.
There is a sense in which the statement 4 > green is "more false" than 5
@Matt Dillahunty
I see the default position between belief and non-belief as being non-belief and here's why, if we aren't indoctrinated into a faith as young children, then there's absolutely no empirical evidence that one or more characters in a random book exists now or has ever existed because the characters have absolutely no direct impact in my day to day life. I do not and can not interact with these characters because they are no where to be physically found.
Consequently, if I had never been told of about them, they would have same direct impact. Fuck all nothing.
So there is no reason to believe.
holy shit! I love you man!
Buffy, B5, Doctor Who.
Epic trifecta!
Thanks Matt, this helps a lot. I will now say I do not believe that a god or gods exist. Instead of I believe that no god or gods exist. This is super confusing sometimes so thanks for laying it out in an easy to understand format.
this applies to any beliefs really not just theism that there must be a burden of proof.
Has anyone else only just found out that chipmunks may not come from an alternate universe? That burst my bubble.
"A god exists" can not be the default position, because *which* god out of the 3000 or so should be the default position? Gods are not even defined clearly-enough to make believing in them a valid position, let alone the default one.
Theists claim that "this vaguely defined thing that I believe in should be the default position, even though other people believe in different vaguely defined things". It's utterly ridiculous and dishonest. Ok then. Believing in my invisible, cloud-farting pixie friend Fred is the default position. Because I said so.
Kind of wierd. Matt loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Matt has been/is a software developer. Matt plays Path of Exile.
I fit in all of those categories :)
"Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof"
Is the above not a claim that carries with it a burden of proof? Don't all the examples given in the video make logical sense only after assuming the above claim is true? According to Matt, I should initially disbelieve his claim concerning who carries the burden of proof until he provides good reasons supporting his claim. Like I already stated, it seems all of his examples only rest comfortably on the assumption that his initial claim is true. Did I miss the proof for his claim? Is it even possible to prove that you should have to prove any claims you put forward? Is his claim concerning who carries the burden of proof axiomatic in nature? Any clarification will be much appreciated!
The problem is that Matt made a statement that is far too general, his language is sloppy. What he should have said is that "Every single claim put forward that something exists carries with it a burden of proof of existence" The terms he uses, like truth claim or proof, are too general and include different sub-groups that are distinctly different. This leads to a lot of confusion by everyone, including Matt.
Brian Monks I think my question still applies to your suggested revision. If you were to stand by it, would you have to prove the existence of a burden of proof of existence for that claim?
The claim "Every single claim put forward carries with it a burden of proof" is incorrect. It is incorrect because of the sloppy language used. Every claim that something exists has a burden of proof. If you are claiming that you don't believe that something posited to exist actually exists, you don't have a burden of proof. You have a burden of disproof of the evidence presented to support the claim of existence.
The difference between belief vs disbelief and proof vs disproof is lost on Matt, and leads to incorrect views, such as claiming the statement "gods don't exist" carries a burden of proof, This is just incorrect. Any disbelief claim can only carry a burden of disproof not matter how convinced you are that it doesn't exist.
The fact that Matt knows that it is impossible to prove gods don't exist, while simultaneously believing that a burden of proof is required for that claim, shows a level of cognitive dissonance that would be obvious to him, if he thought about it.
@Frances Snowflake Sure, you can justify your position, but that is not what a burden of proof is. If you have a truth claim, i.e that something exists, i.e. that its existence is true, you must define what it is that you think exists and give the reasons that have convinced you that it exists.... that is the burden of proof. When you evaluate that claim you are under no obligation to offer new evidence, only evaluate the evidence given in the burden of proof. The burden you have is to judge the definition to see if its contradictory, or fits with what you know already exits. You also have the burden to judge the evidence presented to evaluate if it actually does validly lead to the conclusion that the believed thing exists. What you don't have is a burden of proof to find evidence to supporting that it does not exist.
If you are going to define burden of proof as a requirement to justify your position, then any belief has a burden of proof, and the phrase is pointless.
@Frances Snowflake Where did I say you needed "proof"? Proof only exists in totally defined systems like mathematics, very rarely in real life. The name "burden of proof" is an inaccurate name for what I actually described, which only causes confusion. That is the term, however.
This is actually an easy one. As an Atheist I make the claim that 'I don't know' some stuff, so now you have the burden of proof that 'I do know' that stuff... It's impossible to get a theist to convince me that I do know while I don't know... no evidence at hand.
On the other hand, I myself can prove beyond any certainty the argument that 'I don't know'... checkmate theist!
PS Not true means false.
it seems to me Matt is describing modal logic, where statements are assigned not only a truth-value, like in syllogistic or propositional logic, but some extras like belief-value or obligation-value (see plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/)
also, confused with Liar's paradox apparent resolution; Matt clarifies in the comments though; what I think he intended was to show how negation in modal logic of belief is different from negation in propositional logic
for once a channel explaining basic epistemology without distracting doodles and cartoons, at a slow thoughtful pace; cheers!
@Fernando Scasioso I'm quite out of my depth; what would you recommend to read that i could fully appreciate what you're saying?
@Fernando Scasioso I see now, thank you!
i'm curious that, in so many of these discussions, which are mostly concerned with preventing theists from saddling the burden of proof onto anyone but themselves, why have we heard almost nothing about the complementary *benefit of assumption*?
from wikipedia: "she or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries *the benefit of assumption*, meaning (s)he *needs no evidence to support her or his claim*. fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."
hand in hand, a discussion of both the burden and the benefit should make amply clear the dynamic at work in any debate over evidence (or lack thereof) for any claim. the benefit of assumption deserves more attention than it gets, which seems to be none at all.
+aarrgghh : one side cannot assert the burden onto another side because their claim is invalid, but each side has an obligation to prove things in a debate.
-i will prove this with an analogy: you take what you think is a 1 lb rock (atheism) and put it on a scale. You then put what you think to be a 1 lb loaf of bread on the other side of the scale. Can you prove either object to be one lb and can you prove the scale (reasoning) to be correct.
--this happens when a person uses a world view that has not been proven to try and disprove another world view. it carries no weight. it is meaningless, which leaves each side the obligation to prove their own side.
+spartacus the destroyer in a debate only one side - the side asserting the proposition (for example, “god exists”) - has the obligation to prove it. as stated in the definition of the benefit of assumption, the side opposing the proposition actually has no obligations whatsoever; it may even remain silent if it so chooses. if the weakness of the assertion is self-evident, no response is required. claims asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
this framing is at the basis of the debating arena known as our legal system and is responsible for the existence of the fifth amendment and the miranda warning. but the opposition may consider its job done if it chooses to expose enough flaws to introduce sufficient doubts about the assertion.
this is why proof is considered a burden; only one side is required to carry it, which affords the other side the benefit of assumption and the presumption of innocence. your analogy falls short at its premise; atheism is not what’s on the scale.
to fix your analogy: the theist asserts the proposition: (“this rock is 1lb”); the scale represents the proscribed debate arena; the bread represents a means of proving of the claim - evidence. the theist carries the burden of proof while the atheist is given the benefit of assumption: it’s all on the theist. if the theist can successfully meet the burden of proof (“the 1b bread balances the rock”), the atheist then loses the benefit and assumes the burden. it now falls upon the atheist to produce counter-evidence (“the scale is not calibrated”) or the atheist may in fact concede defeat.
this is how our legal system is works. if this framing is good enough to decide a man’s life, it’s good enough for theological debates.
that is not the point. the point is atheists assume theism has the burden of proof because of their world view (god made the world and exists). The fact is they do have the burden of proof because of their world view of there god, but atheists also have a world view. Atheists refuse to present their world view like they have no belief on the world and no logical basis for any evidence. The fact is everyone has a world view thus both side have a claim and something to prove and atheism is normally naturalism. So atheists need to prove there world view as well.
--this is important because we you make an accusation on a world view without first proving you world view is correct can your claim be justified for both sides.
--in a debate you are claiming their world view is not right so you do need to prove your own world view is true first, but no side can do that so you have to just agree to play along or there would be no debate.
--if you have ever seen Sye you would know why.
--and if you assume you have no world view or can stand in a middle ground you are wrong. you can just look at the world views presented by atheism or theism and see if you are basing your logic off one of them.
---if you have no view on the world or belief then you cannot have any evidence i mean "this is evidence of ...um.... i have no belief so nothing.
--your basic laws that we use for burden of proof cannot be applied when neither side can prove their side is correct.
+spartacus the destroyer no, theists assume the burden of proof because by making a claim, the claimant is solely obligated to demonstrate the truth of their own statement. no one is obligated to demonstrate its falsity. that is the default and that’s just how the rules of logical inquiry work; atheists are not simply making them up.
atheism is not a worldview. it’s just a rejection of the theist’s claims. it is a position on a single question. many atheists practice skepticism, which is a worldview. atheism can be a subset of skepticism, but skepticism is not necessary to reject theism. for example, all newborns are unequivocal atheists. are they atheists because they claim god does not exist? of course not. are they atheists because they have adopted a skeptical worldview? of course not. do newborns need to prove their atheism? of course not. their atheism is the human initial default state, while theism of any kind must be taught before a person chooses to accept or reject it.
your last statement is a bit silly; the burden of proof is not suspended when neither side can prove their case. if the bearer of the burden cannot prove its claim, it loses and the debate ends. the prosecution cannot win if it cannot prove its case; a claim must stand on its own merits. no response is required.
you are missing one element to that who discussion that would change everything.
--atheists do have a claim that is just as outlandish as theism.
--and i didnt say no one has the burden of proof i said the other person cannot apply more burden of proof by saying you are not right, or that is crazy because their claim cannot be justified when their world view is not proven true first.
I think im understanding this correctly, but say does an atheist have a burden of proof for saying it doesn't exist. why or why not. i love your videos BTW.
+Andrew Collett If you have ever listened to Matt's discussions on the Atheist Experience he explains this. The atheist position is not a god does not exist. It is the position that one does not believe a god does exist. Where you put the "not" matters. There is a difference between saying I do not believe a god does exist vs I believe a god does not exist. We have no methods to go about explaining negative claims such as the statement "I believe a god does not exist." However we can investigate the claim that "I believe a god does exist." So far we have no good reasons to believe a god does exist.
+Cameron Yu so then the short answer is no. thanksgiving.
Yeah pretty much. Atheists do not have a burden of proof.
God exists or not=unicorn exists or not=demon exists or not. Such propositions are invalid because they exists on the level of assumptions, guesses, beliefs, wishes/etc.
And true or false answers do not pertain to guesses---they pertain only to what we can see, hear, taste, touch, and smell.
I love the way you think, Matt, but I don't expect everyone to make decisions based on logic, just because many of us do.
I'm fine with people choosing to believe in God, or simply finding themselves believing in God without ever having thought about it much.
When someone states their beliefs or opinions as if they are facts, however, THAT'S when I turn into a snarling beast.
+UTU49
I'm not fine with that.
Beliefs matter. I won't leave people alone who defend poor thinking.