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 -
Yeah, honestly.
Pretty much everything you write comes across as extremely smug. To me, at least, I can't state how anyone else feels. But it absolutely does to me.
I dunno if that's your intention, but if it's not your intention, I recommend revisiting your writing style.
Technically, yeah. But at some point there's the fact that we all speak as to our own opinions, and you just gotta read a little bit of that in implicitly. From a recent ACX post:
I do strongly encourage people to couch their words as opinions if they're diving into areas that are highly controversial and sensitive, and I've pushed to the point of warning (and maybe even bans) if people keep doing it. But this (1) isn't sensitive, and (2) is phrased specifically as "the last time [he] read your posts".
No, that's your opinion. Two opinions do not make a fact.
I have done this countless times. I challenge you to find a statement of mine in an article that in your opinion has a "smug" tone, and I'll show you why that's not the (likely) case. Either you misinterpreted something, or you are committing a fallacy, or something. What usually happens when I challenge somebody this way is that they eventually give up.
ACX is not an arbiter of truth. As shocking as it may be to some people to hear: Scott Alexander is not infallible.
What he is essentially saying in his post is that there's absolutely nothing he can say, he cannot be wrong. If he says "X is true", and later it turns out that "X is false", he is not wrong.
I do not have a problem with /u/magic9mushroom not couching his opinion, he didn't couch his opinion, Scott Alexander didn't couch his opinion, that's fine. What I have a problem with is continuing the discussion as if X is indeed true: it is smuggling an opinion.
There's a rule that says "don't attempt to build consensus", what he is doing is essentially silently building consensus, now people are primed to believe that his opinion ("the tone was rather smug") is a fact. I replied "I was not smug, you believed I was smug", but the "fact" has already been established, so now I'm downvoted for challenging a "fact".
You can say it doesn't matter because this "isn't sensitive", but the other claim that my articles "made catastrophic mistakes in understanding the topic" is also elevating an opinion to a fact, and I believe that is important. It's another smuggled "fact" that now everyone believes. No, it's not a fact my articles made "catastrophic mistakes", it's only his opinion.
This is 100% attempting to poison the well, not only for this post, but for every other article that I write, and every comment that I write, because I am generally "smugly wrong" (I am not). He is claiming that I have been generally "smugly wrong", but I'm the bad guy for challenging that "fact" and claiming that's not necessarily true.
Yes, I have no problem believing this.
That doesn't mean you're right, though. At least in some cases it's just that they don't think there's much value in debating with you. I'm not interested in arguing over every line in your articles, and I'm not interested in arguing over details of what I think is an ACX article that you're grossly misreading, and I'm not interested in trying to logically prove that I have a gut feeling.
I think there's a reason that your articles reliably hit negative score, and it's not because of some kind of mass well-poisoning attempt. I think right now you're blaming that on everything except "people don't like my articles" and I think this is not a useful direction to go; at some point you need to ask "what can I do to make my articles more convincing and interesting".
Whereas what you're doing right now is arguing with people regarding whether or not they like your articles.
I thoroughly accept the possibility that my tone is indeed smug.
Here's the asymmetry between you (plural) and me though: I am willing to accept the possibility that I'm wrong, you are not. None of the critics of my tone ever accept the remote possibility that they might be wrong.
It is precisely because I accept that possibility that I'm willing to debate it.
To believe that is fine, but once again: it's an opinion, not a fact: they might be wrong. Maybe there is value in debating me.
This might feel like an infinite regress of "you might be wrong", "I might be wrong about you being wrong", etc. But it's not because I'm not claiming that you are necessarily wrong, and also there's an easy escape: be charitable.
That's why giving people the benefit of the doubt and being charitable is generally good.
You can be wrong though. Correct?
Once again: you can be wrong.
And here's one piece of evidence that suggests you might be wrong: people in fact do like my articles. Many straight up tell me: "really good article". They heart my articles, they upvote them, share them, retweet them, and even post them in different forums.
Many people don't share your opinion that they are unconvincing or uninteresting, you are committing the same fallacy of elevating your opinion to a fact.
But fine, let's just say that all the people that like my articles are wrong, what can I do to improve my articles? You don't want to tell me, or you want to tell me, but not for me to reply and engage in a debate.
No. I'm making the point that /u/magic9mushroom is elevating his opinions that my articles are "smug" and "wrong". If he doesn't like my articles, that's fine, that's his subjective opinion, but that's not what he is saying. It's a fact that he is attempting to poison the well, and instead of engaging with my point you are ignoring it and joining the bandwagon by adding your own opinion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link