Hacker News Reader

Comment by ABCLAW | Hacker News Reader

Entirely. The burden is placed upon the objector to have even a passing argument against the initially held position, otherwise you can raise infinite substance-less objections against an otherwise strong point and 'win'. This tactic is used in court and in point-based debate systems to game the system (in the first to drive up expenses, and in the second to score uncontested points).

The bar doesn't need to be high, but at least something needs to be offered as a counterpoint beyond someone telling an expert in their own field that they don't believe them. It helps to establish that the counterargument is made in good faith and requires effort on the part of the objector, indicating that they have some skin in the game.

View on HN

That's not how debate works. The initial burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, you're just shoving off your responsibility onto others.

You complain about substance-less objections, but so far you've just made a substance-less assertion. It's hypocritical.

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with ABCLAW, but for the edification of readers who might otherwise be inclined to believe the assertion in the sibling comment, it is NOT on the objector to provide evidence. The moving party bears the burden of proof.

Sometimes the initial burden of proof is merely prima facie evidence, after which the burden shifts. For example, in some states, a defendant in a murder case need only make a prima facie case that the killing was done in self-defense, after which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. But even in that case, the initial moving party bears the initial burden of proof.

Also, ABCLAW: it's spelled "judgment."

1) It isn't hypocritical to ask someone to articulate why they don't agree with an assertion.

2) No, that's NOT how the burden of proof works. The initial presumption is that the moving party is speaking truthfully, and objections are raised afterwards. If the objection has enough proof, then the initial party is under the burden to refute the defense. This is literally how our court systems work in civil cases.

The alternate assumption, that every element of every statement needs to be laid out for any statement to be found to be valuable means that every post here would start with a discussion of epistemology.

Edit: torstenvl's post is incorrect - in the initial stages of dispute resolution, in summary judgment and the phases where the claims are evaluated for importance (whether the originating document should be struck, etc.), the claims as drafted in a statement of claim are assumed to be true. This is why default judgment is accepted - because the pleas are accepted truthful. Pleas are also evaluated as if they are true in summary judgment and a number of other pre-trial levels. Once a defense is filed and objection is noted does the burden switch and the evidentiary examination begins. But that requires a defense, and a defense will be struck if it says nothing.

Fortunately, this procedure lines up fairly well with Bayesian inference and the principle of charity.

In any event, this meta discussion seems to have generated ill will and little understanding, so I'll let it rest where it lies.

Thanks for the spell-check! Common error of mine.

There is a Latin proverb, "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur". Translated, this is "What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"; Hitchen paraphrased it as "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

ok. counterpoint: steven pinker, et. al.

go!

Pinker does not argue that access to justice is increasing in Better Angels. He elaborates on the point of Rule of Law, which is related in concept but distinct.

There's a few weaknesses in his statements re: the Rule of Law, but that's outside of the scope of my critique.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com