Hacker News Reader

Comment by austincheney | Hacker News Reader

Burden of proof fallacy occurs as a form of red herring, an attempt to kill an argument by distraction through evidence requests.

People form all kinds of biased or disagreeable opinions for manners of reasons. If you think evidence is lacking in an opinion do your own research and provide a superior counter argument. Lazy people asking for sources without any contribution to a conversation or effort to find sources of their own is something I blanket downvote.

If you think an opinion is incredibly ignorant or utterly depraved you aren’t forced to engage it by feeding the troll. Attempting to kill the bad opinion through lazy evidence requests just contributes an alternate form of trolling.

Ultimately it comes down to motive. You can generally tell when someone is trying to move a conversation forward or simply adding noise.

View on HN

The reason burden of proof is on the person making the argument is that it is trivial to come up with arguments that are not falsifiable. And for any non-falsifiable claim you can make a contradictory non-falsifiable claim.

So if you can accurately say of some claim "there is no evidence of that" then the claim is completely refuted. Thus asking for evidence is a polite way of pointing out when something is completely made up.

Sure, if someone makes a claim that is widely established, like climate change or natural selection, then of course some rando on the web asking for yet more evidence is probably trying to derail the conversation.

But if a claim is not widely established, like intelligent design, then a request for evidence is perfectly reasonable. There can be no a-priori convincing counter argument without referring to facts in the real world. Indeed, almost not claim is refutable a-priori without real world facts.

So given an unreasonable and unsupported claim on the internet I suppose we can 1) assume the poster is a troll and ignore them or 2) assume they and the audience are genuine and point out their statement is unsupported and therefore false. Whether one actually wants to go around correcting people being wrong in the Internet is another question. But a guy's gotta procrastinate somehow.

This isn't law. This isn't a scientific journal or theory of medicine. It is commentary on the internet. If there is an unsubstantiated claim you have two good faith choices:

1. Ignore it.

2. If, and only if, you are actually interested in exploring the comment deeper than ask a proper question kindly probing for specificity or help with understanding.

There is some false notion that assertions must be proven. It is commentary on the internet. If you really REALLY want it proven, in the spirit of science, you will independently attempt to reproduce the experiment or research.

> ask a proper question kindly probing for specificity or help with understanding

"Can you back up your statement with a source" is insufficient?

> in the spirit of science, you will independently attempt to reproduce the experiment or research

In the spirit of science, I need to know your prior assumptions, sources, previous work in the area, ...

I get where you're coming from, but I need to know your starting point, otherwise we're as likely as not to be arguing past each other.

I absolutely disagree that those are your only "good faith" choices -- like I implied above, before I'm going to get deeply involved in a discussion with some random person on the internet, I need to know that you're coming from a good faith place too.

What if an unsupported claim is actually harmful to society, if believed?

15% of people believe the US government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks[1]. 42% of Britons believe that the UK sends £350M a week to the EU[2]. If voters make decisions based on such beliefs, I'd expect material damage to democracy.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_con...

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-br...

I think it really depends. It needs to be used in good faith. I have seen "burden of proof" requests made in the case of very obvious common knowledge type of information, which is a red herring. But if you see an outlandish claim that you suspect is not backed up by credible evidence, I don't see asking for proof as a red herring at all. It's necessary to keep people honest.

> If you think an opinion is incredibly ignorant or utterly depraved you aren’t forced to engage it by feeding the troll. Attempting to kill the bad opinion through lazy evidence requests just contributes an alternate form of trolling.

This holds up in internet discussions, but not in all dialogues. For example, scientists and politicians could do terribly stupid/harmful/wasteful things if they aren't held accountable for demonstrably false statements.

Then ask a well reasoned question. There is no burden of proof on questions. Compensating for weak communication by making evidence requests is less helpful than it sounds.

Then ask a well reasoned question.

Only to get accused on 'sealioning' which itself I've observed tends to become a red herring all of its own.

I hold the opinion that on the grounds presented in the original comic[1] that spawned the term, it's been a red herring from the start.

Though that's just opinion.

[1] http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Red herrings are distractions or tangents. Asking questions is not sea lioning. Sea lioning is bad faith requests for sources.

https://github.com/prettydiff/wisdom/blob/master/Avoiding_Tr...

> either cannot find the energy to do their own research

So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame.

If you make a fact-based assertion ("access to guns saves lives"/"access to guns kills more people"), you need to be prepared to back up that assertion to give people a starting point. Is your assertion based on opinion, are you saying that based on a survey conducted by viewer on Fox & Friends, or was it a formal study conducted by an accredited researcher?

So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research, but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy? Nope, no. This is shifting the blame.

That's the entirety of my problem with the term "sea lioning", even in the comic that spawned the phrase/meme we see this happening. Person makes a pretty wide and generalized statement about sea lions, and a sea lion politely asks for an explanation.

I suppose maybe I'm just not surprised to see how conveniently it gets ignored that the entire conceit begins with a completely unfounded position that can't very well exist in a vacuum.

The Sea Lion was right to demand an explanation.

I don't know that I can entirely agree. There is a nuance to sealioning that the comic doesn't get into.

I think the difference between reasoned discussion and sealioning is beginning from a good faith argument versus bad faith. If I say "sealions suck," and you ask me "what's your evidence for that," you aren't necessarily sealioning -- yet.

I will agree there is a thin line, but that's how trolling works across the spectrum. If it was actually easy to troll well, it would probably be easy to block or filter.

I think there's also a problem in the comic with the premise that isn't entirely explained -- "Sealions suck" wasn't an invitation to debate the issue. For a more real situation, if I see a feminist on Twitter exclaim "men suck!!!" and I respond with "well, what's your rationale for saying that" then I think I can definitively say that's sealioning, right off the bat. Sometimes you just need to blow off steam, and I think that's as okay to do on social media as it is anywhere else; not everything is an invitation to debate.

> So person 1, who made the assertion, gets a free pass on doing research

Yes. It is the difference between a strong assertion and a weak assertion.

> but person 2, who doesn't know the basis for the assertion is being lazy?

Then they aren't asking the correct questions. I have absolutely no sympathy for people with weak communications skills.

A "strong assertion" versus a "weak assertion" has no bearing on the burden of proof. An assertion requires evidence.

This isn't a communication issue. If I make an assertion, and someone asks me where I'm getting that information from, if I can't or won't provide an answer, it's not worth your time to debate.

If you make an assertion in a debate, you need to be able to back it up. Period.

When Trump says "many people are saying," he doesn't get a free pass on providing evidence to support his case because he said it first. This isn't the playground.

I'm having a hard time understanding how an evidence request could kill an argument.

Suppose someone says Beethoven revolutionized music because unlike other composers he wrote kickass songs in C minor.

Suppose I reply that writing music in C minor isn't on its own revolutionary, and many other composers from that period or earlier wrote pieces in C minor.

Suppose that someone then demands I provide them with evidence.

Suppose I give two famous pieces of evidence: Mozart's Fantasia in C minor, K. 475 and Mozart's piano concerto in C minor, K. 491. Perhaps I even put a little icing on the cake and mention that Beethoven reportedly heard a performance of that Mozart concerto and told a colleague, "We'll never be able to write anything like that!"

What possible benefit would there have been if I had refrained from writing that last paragraph? From what I can see the discussion was essentially just noise until I offered up evidence to support a claim. It cost me nearly nothing to write it, while I would have risked a descent into snobbery if I hadn't.

> Suppose I reply that

Then you have a difference of opinion. The other person is free to accept or deny your opinion.

It's not really a difference of opinion though is it? Whether the day is nice or not is a matter of opinion. Whether this is a tasty meal is a matter of opinion. Whether anyone else wrote works in C minor is a matter of fact - or not, and he's provided evidence that shows that other people did - fact established.

This is the whole problem occurring these days - too many things are seen as "well, it's a valid opinion". No, if it's claiming something which can be falsified, it's not an opinion it's a mistake (charitably - if it's done with less than wholesome intention it's something else - a lie).

> Whether anyone else wrote works in C minor is a matter of fact - or not

Not exactly. That is likely a statement of fact, which is a conclusion expressed in a factual manner, but conclusions are still opinions. Facts are atomic data unhinged from description. Journalism is a good example of presenting facts in commentary. You will see language like: "according to the memo, person x wrote song y". Journalism is careful to differ to facts as a point of deflection from invention, because when they are fail at such they tend to get sued and lose.

Also, facts are never true or false. Facts are either valid or invalid according to other facts. Something that is not falsifiable is probably an ill formed assumption upon logic.

I... get where you're coming from here, but I'm not sure I'm going to agree. Sure, yes, to some extent you can go all the way to Descartes and believe nothing but your own existence. But back to those works in C minor - there's a lot of evidence of them. Recordings. Sheet music. Orchestras who claim to have performed them, and so on. Now sure, you can say that all of those things are also assertions and not facts but at some point the onus flips, and it's going to be on you to provide some reason for why those things should be disregarded.

If you're not going to operate on a basis of "reasonable doubt until falsified by a better theory" then you're where? In an entirely post-fact state, where sure, everything's an opinion. And sure, if you want to be there, nobody has a right to stop you but it's not a very productive state.

Yes, journalists tend to be pretty careful with claims around things where there is reasonable doubt. But there is a reason journalists are not still writing about Mozart and using careful phrasing like "and it is also believed by some sources that other composers may have composed comparable works in the same key". For humanity to work we have to go with "fact until shown not to be" otherwise we wouldn't make it through a day.

You cannot prove a general claim, such as 'requesting evidence never harms an argument', with a single example that provides support for it.

One class of bad-faith demands for evidence is the rhetorical ploy of trying to suggest that an argument is lacking evidence by demanding absolute proof where 'only' strong scientific evidence exists - see climate-change denial and anti-vaxxing for examples.

I disagree. Conclusions require propositions to draw an inference. If I say “the moon is made of cheese”. That is a conclusion that can’t be supported on its face and lacks any propositions to evaluate the reasonableness of the statement.

If I say the “moon appears to melt in a manner similar to cheese on earth, so it must be made of cheese” that proposition can be evaluated to determine to what extent it supports the conclusion.

Asking for support of a conclusion or questioning whether a proposition actually supports an inference is totally legitimate in a debate.

Attacking one proposition while ignoring others, pretending that a proposition that clearly supports a conclusion doesn’t; those are invalid.

I agree you can often tell when someone is being ridiculous and adding noise (I like that phrase in this context) or trying to prove a preconceived argument rather than being open to changing in the face of evidence.

> If I say

So what? The person to whom you are speaking can disagree with you and leave it at that. Commentary need not be proven and may be completely ridiculous, or perhaps you merely think it is ridiculous. Either way if the subject were important to you then you would independently put forth you own independent exploration into the subject matter.

I literally could not disagree with you more.

Arguing with someone on the internet (while almost always pointless) means I'm talking with someone whose motivations I don't know. Are they being disingenuous, trolling, are they quoting something exactly but missed the context?

On the internet, you don't get the benefit of the doubt -- you need to prove to me that you're making an attempt at having a real conversation, and if you can't provide a source that you presumably have already seen -- but I haven't -- that is nearly the lowest barrier of proof I can set.

> On the internet, you don't get the benefit of the doubt -- you need to prove to me

Why? Why not disprove it yourself? In science theories can never be proven, but they can certainly be disproved. Mandating people never form an original opinion without first proving it to you sounds incredibly ignorant and hopelessly entitled.

> incredibly ignorant and hopelessly entitled

Sure. Thank you for staying away from personal attacks during the debate.

I explained why a random person on the internet doesn't get the benefit of the doubt -- particularly when you raise a point and the other person turns around and claim you're being ignorant or entitled.

> In science, theories can never be proven

That's not really accurate. Within a reasonable set of assumptions, I feel pretty confident I can prove to most people that 2+2 = 4. That doesn't mean it's not "proven;" it just means there are conditions on the proof -- reasonable conditions.

> Mandating people never form an original opinion without first proving it to you

That just grossly misrepresents what my argument is. Further evidence that random people on the internet need to demonstrate they are making good faith arguments, otherwise you get this nonsense. So... thanks for making me feel more certain I'm right on this issue.

I have asked for a citation numerous times because I was genuinely curious to learn more about a topic. Not all discourse online is combative.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there ;)

I've heard of these evidence requests as being a form of intellectual denial of service attack in public debates

Reply on news.ycombinator.com