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 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