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 -
Yes, unless you consider their definitions. My definitions (which are shared by many) are:
theism: believing that a god exists
atheism: not believing that a god exists
agnosticism: not knowing that a god exists
Under these definitions the default position is atheist/agnostic. Atheism answers the question of belief, and agnosticism the question of knowledge: they are orthogonal.
I believe atheism is the default position, but some people feel that atheism is stronger than agnosticism (I don't agree), or that atheism means "no gods exist" (I don't agree). I skipped a full explanation about these terms because that wasn't the point of the article.
Sorry, what do you mean by that? Are you saying you can believe something you know to be false? because it is a consequence of the orthogonality.
Yes, you know
Xis false, so you believeXis false. But an agnostic is not someone who believesXis false, is one who doesn't believeX.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link