Burden of proof

[Tawasakm]

Lets get a clear ruling on this once and for all.

When somebody makes a statement and is asked to provide evidence on whom does the onus lie to provide that evidence?

It has been suggested that the person asking for the evidence should be the one providing it or they should not challenge the statement. It has also been suggested that this means the person making the statement would then be required to do the questioners research for them. It has further been suggested that unless the person presents an opposing viewpoint then they should not be making a post that is just a question.

I disagree with this. First of all I will refer to the rules:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

If a poster is not ready to do so then they haven't done their OWN research. The objection that they are doing the questioners research seems spurious. It is their responsibility to have source(s) ready - it is their OWN research they are completing and providing links to.

Secondly if somebody can make a statement and not be required to provide evidence then they can make any absurdity they wish a statement of fact. And it would stand until the objector could provide evidence to shoot it down. This seems nonsense to me.

As to making posts that are just questions. Firstly this can be a prelude to making their opinion known - but is contingent upon the first poster providing evidence for their statement first (which seems reasonable to me). If the original poster is not prepared to back up a statement why should the discussion move on until they have? In the second place I hold the view that questioning statement is in and of itself a valid contribution to the direction of a discussion. The question can be a point in itself. It is saying 'I'm not convinced that point is valid - unless you can prove it is then it should not be considered as part of your argument'.

What I would appreciate is if Greg could give me a ruling on this. I realise, and respect, that this forum is moderated. I will stick to whatever answer he gives.

[Stoker]

Very good post Tawasakm!!!

I think that a "Burden of proof" is the ideal in these type of forums that seperates adult debates from playground banter and since this is not a playground.....

But if this forum is merely a "playground" I hope that that will be made common knowledge to all the users, namely to those that are looking for something more.

[caesar]

Let's face it gentlemen (I presume) Most of the "statements" are opinions. In international affairs most things are only opinions as there are many diverse opinions in print. There is much completely different slants and "truths" on every story. I am not prepared to keep bring up the same old common knowledge stuff over and over. Stoker ignores any sources I have given.

[Stoker]

Stoker ignores any sources I have given.

It's quite bad that I have to ask you in a topic under the support and question section, in which we are talking about the Burden of proof and how sources are required in a adult debate, to provide proof that I ignore your sources.....I laugh at them (when you provide them) but I hardly ignore them.

As for opinions, yes, I agree, that they are infact in the eye of the beholder, but when a person uses his or her opinion as fact in a debate, the onus is on that person to support their opnions.

[caesar]

I use good reliable mainline sources; you only choose to believe right wing sources. So why bother; it is a waste of time. You have your mind set and will not change. case closed.

[Tawasakm]

I'm seeking resolution on the broader issue of 'burden of proof' from the moderator. I'm certainly not attempting to start arguments between individuals concerning the validity of sources and whether or not people read them.

[caesar]

Well; what I am saying is that providing "proof" to certain people is useless. They do not offer credible sources nor accept your sources and when it is a consensus and an opinion?????? Why should I waste my time on someone who does not show any respect and discuss in good faith. It is tit for tat. If you have a reasonable point of view; supported by facts; then it will be quite happy to provide my sources.

[MapleBear]

"If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc)."

Although I think this is basically a wonderful idea, it's, unfortunately, too simplistic. Let's start with the word "official;" what does it mean? A government site? Media site? Mainstream media, only?

Replacing "official" with "credible" would be an improvement, but it still covers a lot of territory. Let's face it, most of the media are corrupt, and they have a strong presence on the internet.

Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to limit support to links to online references. What about logic? Common sense?

Here's my suggested makeover:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with a link(s) to an official online resource(s) - preferably associated with a credible source - and/or logic, common sense or common knowledge.

However, we realize that even this seemingly simple rule is problematic. Who defines "credible," and can we really know if an online source is truly credible? How many media and websites are without hidden agendas?

And who determines whether something presented as logic is really logical? What if another members recognizes your logic yet claims it's illogical as a propaganda technique? What if members scoff at the references you link to?

In this spirit, we offer the above as a guideline rather than a rule. Just keep in mind that arguments that are supported by verifiable facts, links to credible resources, logic, common sense and common knowledge are generally better than posts that read like personal opinion.

When criticizing an individual for not posting links, you can boost your argument by posting your own links. For example, several people criticized a recent post titled "Is George W. Bush Evil?" frequently citing a lack of supporting links. They could do much better by offering links proving Bush is NOT evil.

Obviously, there are probably no references that prove, by themselves, whether George W. Bush is "evil." This is a thread where logic, common sense and common knowledge - a general knowledge of Bush's deeds and reputation - carry a lot of weight.

[Tawasakm]

Nor am I asking other posters where they think the burden of proof lies. Nor on what they think it constitutes and when it is applicable.

I am asking for the moderatoe to offer a clear guideline. I asked here so that everyone could see it. I will stick to it (even if it runs contrary to my views) and I hope everyone else will also.

[Cartman]

I do not think it is Greg's job to moderate in such a fashion. I think people should just let the power of their arguments be judged by everyone here. There are few links on the internet that can be said to be "good proof" for any argument. Cite well researched books or journal articles.

[Tawasakm]

Cartman I'm not asking Greg to read every post and judge. I'm only asking for a clear guideline that we can all refer to which would set a standard. It would, in my opinion, smooth out the discussions and may well improve them. The onus, I well realise, lies on US to adhere to the guidelines.

[Greg]

I apologize for not responding quicker to this thread.

I have however, read over everyone's opinions, which I think have been extremely positive and useful, and will be responding in more detail in the coming days. The workload involved with MLW and Policy.ca, along with the looming deadlines of my Masters thesis, have been increasingly heavy of late, so please understand that I appreciate everyone's opinions and I would like to provide a detailed and well thought-out response.

You all deserve as much,

Cheers,

Greg

Admin

[Tawasakm]

Take your time Greg. The wait won't cause us to spontaneously combust - although with your workload it would seem that hurrying it could cause you such a problem.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear all,

This is indeed a sticky issue, as there are countless internet sites which offer 'proof' of all sorts of things, pro and con on every issue. Even Creationists have sites 'proving' the theory of evolution to be wrong.

I do a lot of reading when I can, and for some reason retain a lot of otherwise useless information. Often, I don't provide sources for statements because I would have to spend too much time looking back through my books to find the specific page or passage for the info when I usually remember it just fine. I do try to be accurate on quotes, however.

I do notice that a lot of posters are good enough to start certain passages with "IMHO" or "IMV" which is to say, 'the following is opinion or interpretation'.

[Cartman]

There is one other issue I would like to present. What if someone has endlessly debated an issue with another poster, spent significant time finding "credible" links and information, only to then have the issue resurface 6 months later and some of this information is either lost or the links are broken? Eureka, for example, has debated the legality of the war in Iraq a few times and is probably a little less than excited in offering the same links again and again. It does happen. Thus, I think that there are no real hard and fast rules but you should always supply as much info. as you can. In the end, it is just the other posters that you must convince.

Check out the rules as there is some info. on this matter.

[Tawasakm]

Surely if their links worked at the time then they have already demonstrably backed up their opinion with evidence. You are correct that it seems harsh to make the research it again and again. Given that links worked at the time surely you could simply link back to the earlier thread and accept that the statements were backed up?

Theres always something else to make the guidelines more difficult aren't there?

[Tawasakm]

If I may I will draw attention back to this question and ask Greg if progress is being made?

[daniel]

Sometimes it's impossible to supply the proof simply because there is no web site to support it. That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist. Web sites are made by people who want to post whatever information they want to post and not necessarily all the information available.

Furthermore, sometimes discussions can relate to obscure issues that do back decades ago. Again information that may not be available on the web.

Lastly, a poster may recall information heard, read or seen on the radio, newspaper, or tv newsbroadcast or documentary in which the exact date, time or page or even the source could be obscure.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear daniel,

Lastly, a poster may recall information heard, read or seen on the radio, newspaper, or tv newsbroadcast or documentary in which the exact date, time or page or even the source could be obscure.

Indeed, this is exactly the case when August1991 asked me to verify information I had posted regarding a modern slavery issue. I recalled reading about it in the newspaper at the time, some 4-5 years ago, but the only link I could find on google (within a reasonable time frame) was a related article, and not the original that I had recalled.

To be fair, sometimes news stories can sometimes change as more information is found out. Such is also the case, I believe, with maplesyrup's call for banning rottweillers for alledgedly killing a sleeping child, when the full facts of the case were not yet known.

I think that the onus should be on the poster of information to provide at least some relevant 'proof' of quoted facts, when asked, and doubters can look up information to either corroborate or discredit those claims.

[Tawasakm]

Sometimes it's impossible to supply the proof simply because there is no web site to support it.

If you are unable, for whatever reason, to provide evidence when asked then it seems reasonable to me to profess that. You can say something like, 'I have been unable to find the evidence which I thought I could and so I cannot back up my claim. While I still believe what I said to be true I will alter it in form so that it will read as my opinion. When, and if, I can find the evidence I need I will readress the point and press it again.'

There is nothing wrong with doing that in my view. It is wrong, in my view, to insert statements or claims into a debate which you then will not back up. It is not wrong to enter opinions, logical constructs or anecdotal evidence so long as it is CLEARLY defined as such.

Thats my two cents.

Also,

Again information that may not be available on the web.

It is my understanding that reference material need not be restricted to the web but may encompass printed material, televised sources and radio etc. If you can find a source on the web it is obviously preferable since it is then easily accessible to other posters but the web is not the be all and end all.

[daniel]

Sometimes it's impossible to supply the proof simply because there is no web site to support it.

If you are unable, for whatever reason, to provide evidence when asked then it seems reasonable to me to profess that. You can say something like, 'I have been unable to find the evidence which I thought I could and so I cannot back up my claim. While I still believe what I said to be true I will alter it in form so that it will read as my opinion. When, and if, I can find the evidence I need I will readress the point and press it again.'...

Yes, that would be reasonable. I would try it and see how debating opponents would respond.

[Guest eureka]

Some of the wishes for evidence, if granted, would turn this into a student resource centre . There are other considerations than links or citations,

Probably 90% of what I post is from memory of readings and observations over a lot of years. Often I would not even know where my information came from or why I formed a certain opinion. But any opinion I do have is not something that I have excitedly concluded after attending a lecture and have yet to be exposed to a world of different ideas.

What I do post, though, is entirely accurate, with some range of variance on statistical things. It may be controversial and I am always pleased to see argument that may allow me to reform some of my convictions.

I think that it is entirely reasonable for any who oppose me to do so in any terms they chose. The debate then becomes one of either logic and/or information from sources provided.

One who disputes with me is welcome to provide links and I may even read them when I have time. However, as has been said, many, possibly most, Web references are also opinion masquerading as fact.

Then, too, I would have no idea how to make links to most sites. I have been successful at that rarely and I really do not want to spend more time on computers. I agree with Cartman about sources and am far more comfortable with my library. The Web is a strange new world that brings more misinformation than information.

[Tawasakm]

Some of the wishes for evidence, if granted, would turn this into a student resource centre

That I would consider to be a possibility. I suppose it is possible that some students would come here to shortcut their research. Even if they do, so what? What are you losing by this?

What I would consider to be a certainty is that the quality of debate would be improved. We can all see how each others views are formed as we 'lay our cards on the table'. We would all benefit because we would all be exposed to a broader base of research.

Also bear in mind that I am not suggesting that people MUST produce evidence when posting anything. Rather I am suggesting that any time somebody posts something as a fact then they should always be prepared to back it up or retract it as a statement.

It seems to me that some think they will be 'losing out' somehow by a requirement to provide evidence. I just can't understand this. You cannot lose anything. When sharing information and research you do not lose a single thing - you GAIN through the exchange. So why is it that there are some who seem to have a 'miserly' grip on their sources - who think that they should not share their sources because they would be doing the work of others for them? It doesn't work like that. If everybody contributing here is required to provide research then we are all sharing each others work. Indeed this is how the international scientific community works - by sharing the fruits of their labour freely with the wider scientific community every researcher gains.

So I would suggest that people not think of what they are 'losing' (which is impossible since sharing your knowledge does not make it disappear) they should think of what they are gaining by creating an association of people who exchange ideas, knowledge and resources.

The only thing I can think of that may be lost is a freedom from accountability when posting 'facts'.

I would repeat again that it is my view that it is fine for people to post opinions so long as it is made clear that it is opinion. Moreover I see no problem with posting the conclusion to a chain of reasoning so long as they include the line of reasoning and are prepared to back up anything asserted as fact in that line of reasoning.

Theres my two cents.

Hopefully the guidelines will be released soon. Not that I'm trying to rush you Greg.

[caesar]

Give it a rest TAWK; everything on this forum is opinion> We can and you can always find questionable sources to back up any opinion; they just lack any real credibility. That is why I have decided not to bother unless I am talking to a reasonable poster. Are we going to ask the administrator to rate the sources as credible or not.

[Tawasakm]

We can and you can always find questionable sources to back up any opinion

We can also attempt to find authoritative sources to back up statements of fact.

Are we going to ask the administrator to rate the sources as credible or not.

In this respect we can self-regulate. If we all provide sources then that means that other posters can check those out - and if they find them questionable then they can bring that up (backing that with sources that they find more reliable) and so on and so forth.

You seem to believe that it is a negative thing to have the validity of a source questioned. I don't agree because this process allows us to evaluate our sources more critically and more fully which must lead to a better understanding of the subject. We still may not end up agreeing but it is a more then worthwhile exercise which is valuable because it exposes our 'foundations'. Debating conclusions has limited value - it is through debating our processes of reasoning and the information we base that on in addition to our conclusion that we wring the most out of the opportunity.

Give it a rest TAWK

The name is Tawasakm. I would ask you out of courtesy to use it properly.