site banner
felipec  unbelief  1yr ago (felipec.substack.com)   Edited 1yr ago   2908 thread views

not-guilty is not the same as innocent

felipec.substack.com

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.

-2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

if he was smugly wrong again

Doesn't that claim that I was smug?

Are you really going to start a second branch off this conversation in the exact same direction?

It's not the same direction. In subthread a I'm talking about why I don't believe it's good to elevate options to facts, I'm not talking about who/what was claimed to be smug anymore.

In this subthread b I'm asking a simple question: doesn't that say that I was wrong?

In fact before I started subthread b I was going to make a comment in subthread a that I don't believe if I had said "the tone was not smug, you believed it was smug" my point would not have changed at all, even if more technically correct, your initial comment (he said the tone was smug) would not have applied, and I'm pretty sure I still would have been downvoted.

I removed that comment because I didn't want to muddle my point, and I believe it's relatively unimportant what might have happened had I said something else. If you really believe it would have made a difference, I can edit the comment, but I don't think anything would change.

Then I read that he did in fact called me smug a few sentences later, so even if I'm not talking about "my tone"/"the tone" in subthread a anymore (I'm talking about something more important: my original point), I wonder if you still believe he didn't call me smug, when in fact he straight up did. You don't have to answer.

My actual point is in subthread a.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats