In many discussions I'm pulled back to the distinction between not-guilty and innocent as a way to demonstrate how the burden of proof works and what the true default position should be in any given argument. A lot of people seem to not have any problem seeing the distinction, but many intelligent people for some reason don't see it.
In this article I explain why the distinction exists and why it matters, in particular why it matters in real-life scenarios, especially when people try to shift the burden of proof.
Essentially, in my view the universe we are talking about is {uncertain,guilty,innocent}, therefore not-guilty is guilty', which is {uncertain,innocent}. Therefore innocent ⇒ not-guilty, but not-guilty ⇏ innocent.
When O. J. Simpson was acquitted, that doesn’t mean he was found innocent, it means the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was found not-guilty, which is not the same as innocent. It very well could be that the jury found the truth of the matter uncertain.
This notion has implications in many real-life scenarios when people want to shift the burden of proof if you reject a claim when it's not substantiated. They wrongly assume you claim their claim is false (equivalent to innocent), when in truth all you are doing is staying in the default position (uncertain).
Rejecting the claim that a god exists is not the same as claim a god doesn't exist: it doesn't require a burden of proof because it's the default position. Agnosticism is the default position. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I did not claim my meaning was supported by that definition alone.
That's not what I'm saying, that's what your dictionary is saying. You are proving that the dictionaries disagree, which is what I'm saying.
That is what I'm saying. In one context the word "theory" means something for most people, in another context it means something else.
You can't say the word "assume" means
Xand onlyXin all contexts and here's a dictionary that says so, because that's not how language works, not all dictionaries agree, and dictionaries are not perfect.You can't say that my categorization system is an error, and you can't say only your categorization system should be considered by default, especially when it's not clear that everyone is following it.
To me it said: «to "assume" something is to accept it as true without proof of evidence». That to me doesn't include doubt, because it's true a priori: it's just true.
That aligns with my notion of a priori: you don't need evidence for an assumption, it's just true.
He is wrong: it's the other way around.
That's what I claim many rational people should do in most circumstances.
That isn't true, that's what you are assuming. It could be that you misinterpreted, and I contend that you did.
You contend that it means "strong supposition", yet the first person you asked said nothing like that, and the second person talked about "predetermined knowledge".
I guess your definition of "strong evidence" and mine are very different.
I never claimed such a thing.
You are the one that claimed most people here equate "assume" with "strong supposition", and that that's what common people believe as well. But there's nothing you have provided to substantiate that. Even the testimonies you provided said nothing about "strong supposition", they talked about "before it occurs" and "predetermined knowledge" which very strongly suggests: without proof of evidence.
Either way I don't have to provide evidence because I did not make that claim, you made the claim that my understanding of "assume" is at odds with what most people understand by that word, but the evidence you yourself provided shows otherwise. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. The person that said to assume is to consider something true before it occurs is completely aligned with my notion of considering something true without evidence.
I don't have to show that my notion is shared by everyone, because I did not claim that, all I need to show is that your notion of "strong supposition" is not shared by everyone, and you yourself proved that.
So would you say that ChatGPT disagrees with your notion of "assuming" in my example? If not, then how could Alice change her mind from the indirect evidence, if she had zero doubt that there was only a dog in the box?
You're calling people (like the dictionary author, or the second person I questioned) "wrong" when they say that you can "assume" something while still doubting it to some extent. Why are they "wrong", instead of being "right" about their own notion that is distinct from your notion?
No.
First: I think you misinterpreted what ChatGPT said, and second: ChatGPT can seem to disagree in one interaction, and agree in another, it depends on how the question was posed.
I bombarded ChatGPT with questions about the matter, and everything aligned to my notion, for example "If Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt, can she change her mind?" it answered "Yes", which is obvious to me. Alice believes claim X with zero doubt in one moment, but then receive evidence contradicting that belief (which was assumed in the first place), why wouldn't she change her mind?
But to be crystal clear I asked this killer question:
How does this not align precisely to my notion? I didn't even use the term "assume" throughout the question, I used it only to verify the outcome.
No, I said: if a dictionary says that to believe something is to assume it, then I believe it's wrong. I did not say the dictionary is wrong, I said that I believe it is wrong.
This is completely different from linking "assume" to doubt.
First, to make sure I'm not putting more words into your mouth: Would you say that most people outside of here would agree that when one assumes something, one cannot have any level of doubt about it?
That's not at all obvious to me. As it turns out, your notion of "believe with zero doubt" is very likely different than mine! So that I understand what your notion is: If, at a given point in time, Alice believes with zero possible doubt that the box contains nothing but a dog, then does she also believe with zero possible doubt that she will never receive unequivocal evidence otherwise? If so, does she believe there is a 0% chance that she will receive unequivocal evidence otherwise?
The evidence doesn't unequivocally contradict her belief: it could be the case that the box contains only a dog, but she misheard where the meow came from, or the dog is able to make a meowing sound. If she was previously absolutely certain that a dog is in the box, then why wouldn't she adopt one of the alternative hypotheses compatible with both her assumption and the evidence?
By my prior notion of "believe with zero doubt", your prompt is vacuous, since it is impossible that "Alice believes claim X is true with zero doubt" but also "changes her mind", since if she can change her mind, then she didn't actually have zero doubt. Under that notion, ChatGPT is logically permitted to output whatever it wants, since it is not consistently capable of detecting absurdities in its input.
But more practically speaking, to ChatGPT, "zero doubt" or "absolute certainty" can be far from absolute:
So whenever you tell ChatGPT that Alice has "zero doubt" or "absolute certainty", it may be inferring that you're probably mistaken or exaggerating (since many people exaggerate all the time), and that Alice is strongly but not absolutely convinced. That's my alternative explanation for the output you've posted.
The first time, you indeed said you believe that the dictionaries are wrong. But the second time, you said:
How is he "wrong" about his own notion of an assumption?
No, I believe most people outside of here would agree that when one assumes something it can mean that one doesn't have any level of doubt about it.
Yes, if that's what she believes, which the word "assume" does not necessarily imply.
Because she might be attempting to be a rational open-minded individual and actually be seeking the truth.
It's not impossible because of a fundamental aspect of reality: change.
It's entirely possible for
x=1att=0, andx=0.8att=1.The fact that you think it's absurd doesn't mean it is absurd. It is not absurd to me.
It may, but it's clearly not, since in your interaction it said: "If Alice truly had absolutely zero doubt", and then concluded "it would be unlikely for her to change her belief based". You seem to have a motivated reasoning since you are ignoring what it is saying. It's not impossible for Alice to change her belief, even if she truly had absolutely zero doubt.
No, I said I believed if they said
X, then they would be wrong.Because if you flip the definitions they are entirely correct under my view. Even under your view "assume" is stronger than "suppose", and he is saying the opposite.
If someone reads your words, "Most people assume we are dealing with the standard arithmetic" (from your 2 + 2 post), do you believe that they are likely to understand that you mean, "Most people have zero doubt in their minds that we are dealing with the standard arithmetic"?
On the submission for your 2 + 2 Substack post, you write:
Are you saying that "assuming something is true" is different from "thinking something is true with 100% certainty", and that you are making two different points in your Substack post and submission? Or are you saying that one can "think something is true with 100% certainty" without "believing" that it is true?
Then why does it matter whether or not anyone assumes anything? If people are capable of accepting evidence against what they think is true, regardless of whether they previously had 100% certainty, then why should anyone avoid having 100% certainty?
It is impossible by my own prior notion of "believe with zero doubt", which corresponds to assigning the event a Bayesian probability equivalent to 1. By Bayes' theorem, if your prior probability of the event is 1, then your posterior probability of the event given any evidence must also be 1. Therefore, if your posterior probability is something other than 1 (i.e., you have some doubt after receiving the evidence), then your prior probability must not have been 1 (i.e., you must have had some amount of doubt even before receiving the evidence).
I have barely any understanding of your concept of doubt, and this discrepancy appears to have caused a massive disconnect.
This was after I linked to them saying it:
When you said, "I believe they are", were you not referring to the dictionaries being "flat-out wrong to say [those things]"? Or did the links I provided not show them saying those things?
How does this imply that his definitions are "wrong" when they are not flipped?
Where do I say that?
No, I believe in this particular case they would understand that "assume" in this context means "take for granted", but that doesn't contradict the notion that they have zero doubts in their minds. They have zero doubts in their mind because most people don't see there's any doubt to be had.
No.
No. In my substack article I said: "Why insist on 100% certainty?". My point and the objective of my point are two different things.
Because the fact that it can happen doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
Not everyone follows Bayes' theorem.
And if it's true that under Bayes the probability of an event doesn't get updated if the prior is 1, regardless of the result. Then that proves Bayes is a poor heuristic for a belief system.
Yes, I was. So I believe the dictionaries saying those things are wrong.
The links you provided showed one dictionary saying those things, therefore if I believe those dictionaries saying those things are wrong, I believe that one dictionary saying those things is wrong.
I explained that in the very next sentence.
You literally said: «since most people here were under the impression that by an "assumption" you meant a "strong supposition"».
In your view, is having doubt the result of a conscious consideration of whether one may be wrong? Or can one have doubt even before considering the matter?
How does this property prove that Bayes' theorem is a poor heuristic? Since most people can change their minds given enough evidence, a Bayesian would infer that it's rare (if even possible) for someone's prior probability to be exactly 1 in real life. What is the issue with the Bayesian statement that hardly anyone holds a prior probability of exactly 1?
The links point to both dictionaries in question, not just one.
Under my own notion, that I use in everyday life, "to assume" is not stronger than "to suppose", so my question still stands. How is the opposite statement being correct under your definitions relevant to his statement about his own definitions being "wrong" per se? What bearing do your definitions have on the intrinsic correctness of his definitions?
First, I attributed that to "most people here", not myself. Second, I was talking about their impression of your meaning of an "assumption", not their own prior notions of an "assumption". Personally, my prior notion places no relative strength between an "assumption" and a "supposition"; I would not hazard to guess how strong others' prior notions of an "assumption" are without asking them.
Both. Some people can have doubt immediately, other people do not doubt unless they are asked to consider their doubt level. And most people increase their level of doubt once they are asked to put skin in the game, for example with a bet.
I completely disagree with that statement. Most people cannot change their minds regardless of the evidence. In fact in the other discussion I'm having on this site of late the person is obviously holding a
p=1(zero room for doubt).And only one of them is saying those things.
That is what we are talking about: it's your view that most people ascribe the meaning of
X, if a person ascribes the meaning opposite ofX, that is opposite to your view.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link