Burden of proof

[Stoker]

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.

Perhaps everyting that you post is opinion, but In My Humble Opinion, I'd say a good many posters actually try and debate, like adults, from both sides of the fence, with facts.

It's a simple concept really. Imagine if a Crown prosecutor or the defence's counsel was trying to make their case to the jury with just their opinions and not a shred of evidence........

Now thats not to say that we have to take this forum as serious as a courtroom, but if we want to maintain some level of maturity when debating/yaking about current events, history, and politics etc the forum members must follow, at the very least, some form of rules and structure.

I don't expect Greg to monitor the forum 24/7 and I found that when there has been a serious problem, Greg has dealt with it.

With that being said, when it comes down to any given posters creditbilty WRT backing up their statements with some decent proof , I must admit, I don't think this can or should need to be moderated by Greg. (Unless it's just a plain old trolling post thats wasting bandwidth)

When you think about, the quality of a person's post, most likely reflects the quality of the person (as in real life). Some people are just plain ignorant, and thats best judged by the beholder(s).

The only thing I can suggest, is that each and every member treat the site as somebody elses home (Greg's?) and in turn act as if you are guest and as such can be asked to leave anytime. I've had parties and been to many parties in the past, and if I have learned only one thing, it is that it only takes a few people to ruin the said party for the majority...........

[Tawasakm]

I don't think this can or should need to be moderated by Greg.

I agree that we should be able to self-regulate. However I believe a consistent committment is required by posters to adhere to the rules and that the rules should clearly outline a necessity of providing evidence to back up statements and support claims.

With regards to moderation any poster who consistently ignores this rule over time could be brought to the moderator's attention and given warnings etc as warranted.

I really believe its important to have a common understanding over the requirements for evidence.

[Stoker]

I agree that we should be able to self-regulate. However I believe a consistent committment is required by posters to adhere to the rules and that the rules should clearly outline a necessity of providing evidence to back up statements and support claims.

I would suggest that the vast majority of posters do infact provide evidence in the first place or when asked. I'd even goes as far as to say that (In my own experince) that after more mapleleafweb users have gotten to know each other, and in turn respect one another, in many cases, almost a "honor system" has emerged, in that in the process of the debate, an opposing side in some instances, may not require "evidence" to accept or at the very least, be willing to debate another point of view.

Respect breeds trust, trust breeds respect, simple really, and once that occurs everybody involved is able to enjoy the site and it's wide ranging points of view.

With regards to moderation any poster who consistently ignores this rule over time could be brought to the moderator's attention and given warnings etc as warranted.

I agree here in some instances, but in some cases, the best policy is to just not feed the trolls They get hungry and eventually go somewhere else.

[Guest eureka]

Tawaskasm:

I am beginning to think that you are a young, serious-minded student. Public discussion and debate is not so evidence heavy as ypu would wish. That is for academia only.

I consider a lot of what I say as evidence and it comes from a long experience of high level debate and interest both in print and in audience. Quite a lot of what I say is primary source evidence gleaned from my personal efforts. I have little remembrance of where all the facts or factors going into it came from originally.

I get a little tired of these calls for evidence as though some opinion on a Web site somewhere were more credible than the opinion of a poster. If some do not like what is expressed ten, by all means, dispute it. Back it up with links and those who have time may even read all the links. There are not many who will not revise an opinion when given sufficient reason.

Sometimes those who are called "trolls" are people who know something of what they are posting but do not revere the Internet as some new deity.

Stoker, it is nice to see you being almost right in your opinion rather than always using incorrect backup for wrong opinions.

[Tawasakm]

I am beginning to think that you are a young, serious-minded student.

Bit condescending there? I've seen you bring up a person's age before when you disagree with them.

See what I am interested in here is some accountability. If I am debating a point with someone and bring up sources to support my claim I think its reasonable to expect somebody who disagrees to come up with their own sources. Otherwise its a meaningless argument made up of assertions.

Secondly I think I being misunderstood a little here. I am not insisting that everybody always come up with evidence for any post they make - I am only insisting that it is necessary when somebody is asserting something as fact. When that fact is challenged a person should be able to back it up instead of saying 'it's true' over and over. That is, as I have said, meaningless debate.

It is legitimate to introduce opinion or a line of reasoning so long as it is clear that is what it is - in other words don't pass it off as fact if you can't support it.

I have given plenty of other reasons why introducing one's sources adds to the quality of debate - points which you have failed to address.

I consider a lot of what I say as evidence

Why should I accept something as evidence just because you say it is right? If I think you are wrong and challenge you surely you should be able to back yourself up. The same goes vice versa. If I make a statement of fact but cannot back it up, for whatever reason, then I should withdraw it as a 'fact'. Thats not unreasonable - it is being as accurate as I can be and accountable for what I have said.

I get a little tired of these calls for evidence as though some opinion on a Web site somewhere were more credible than the opinion of a poster.

In the first place sources aren't limited to the web. You can cite from books, newspapers, journals and so on and so forth. In the second place web sites can be a great deal more credible then a poster. For example if one wanted to get the exact definition of Dissociative Identity Disorder the website of the American Psychiatric Association should be considered credible - for obvious reasons. Yes some websites won't be that credible for various reasons. All the more reason that should be known. If people are basing their facts on such questionable sources it should be known - in this fashion a person's 'evidence' is more transparent and assessible. This is a much better system then, "I tell you it's right because I say it is." Additionally such close examinations of the validity of various sources will improve everybody's knowledge base.

Every rationale I have heard behind a rejection of giving evidence appears to me to be entirely spurious. (Notice that I clearly introduced my opinion there AS an opinion not a statement of fact)

As I see it if a persons argument depends on statements of fact then they should be able to demonstrate the validity of those claims.

[Guest eureka]

Part of the point I am trying to make is that I have read thoudands of Books and sources over the years. I often have no idea where a particular piece of information came from. However, I never accept information until I am convinced that it is credible and have considered the alternatives.

I have had this happen a couple of times here when I have been questioned and have spent considerable time finding the evidence in an acceptable form. I think August will agree to that since it was for his persistence. If I had to do that with everything, I would not participate in these discussions. I can't spend my whole life here.

You, or anyone, are perfectly free to disagree and to produce contrary evidence. I will probably dispute that on the basis of my own assessment unless I can accept as a correction of what I thought I knew.

This is about discussion not academic or scientific method. Your requirements are for experts in limited fields. They do not enhance general discussion.

It is interesting that you mention definitions. There are many words that the Courts are obliged to rule on over and over as someone uses a Dictionary definition and puts a different "spin" on them. Definitions, hoever authoritative the source, do not necessarily conclude debate.

No, Tawasakm, I am not being condescending. I am reading you as I might have been myself once. I am now far more concerned with the world at large.

[Tawasakm]

Bearing in mind that I am talking about a situation where somebody has made a factual claim, and used sources to back up that claim , and a person who has not is disagreeing with him let me go over a few of your points.

Part of the point I am trying to make is that I have read thousands of Books and sources over the years. I often have no idea where a particular piece of information came from. However, I never accept information until I am convinced that it is credible and have considered the alternatives.

First of all anybody can claim to have read thousands of books and that claim would have equal merit with yours in this situation. Secondly memory isn't the most perfect of things. If you are relying on recall, bearing in mind you can't even remember where the info was gleaned, there’s nothing to say your recall is spot on without reference to your source. Thirdly the point of providing sources is for other people to assess how credible that source - obviously you have already assessed it be so if your opinion is based on it. Even professionals keep reference books for their field - even though they are specialised and trained extensively in their field it is necessary to have reference books on hand to ensure perfect recall and to refresh as necessary. So if you are going to disagree with somebody who does know their source, and has provided it, how can you reasonably disagree with them on this basis? Your validity can't be tested. If the book (ie the source you don't remember) turns out to be a twenty-year book which was thoroughly discredited five years ago that cannot become a relevant fact if nobody knows where your info came from.

Let me make a hypothetical example. Let us suppose you've had an interest, amongst others, in elephant tusks throughout your life. You've read various articles on them as the chance arose over the years. Now one day a topic is started on Maple Leaf Web about elephant tusks. The debate is - what is the average length of an elephant tusk? The two main respondents are citing different recent studies which provide a different result. They have been debating the research methodology of the different studies. You remember reading, although you can't remember where, that the average is really 4 foot (I have no idea myself - I made that number up) so you join this debate and tell them so. You don't provide a source since you don't remember it. When they ask for a source you just repeat your point, perhaps phrasing it a different way. Why on earth should they take you seriously? They have a concrete argument underway and such an assertion (even if it ultimately wound up being true!) becomes meaningless under those circumstances.

Bear in mind that even then I only have a problem if you make your interjection an assertion of fact. If you join in and say, "I remember reading something about this years ago, don't remember where though, and the figure they came up with was four foot" then how could anyone have a reasonable problem with that? Your argument is transparent then and can be taken at face value. Should you try to make that an authoritative statement it would seem to me to be completely unreasonable.

I have had this happen a couple of times here when I have been questioned and have spent considerable time finding the evidence in an acceptable form

And there have been times that you haven't responded to that request.

If I had to do that with everything, I would not participate in these discussions. I can't spend my whole life here.

You wouldn't have to do it with everything if you altered the way you are introducing the information - refer to the above example. You might think it makes your arguments weaker but I think it means your argument will be resting on its merits. I don't think you would be the only presenting information that way - I know I would at times.

You, or anyone, are perfectly free to disagree and to produce contrary evidence.

I'm glad you agree with me. Isn't that part of what I've been saying? That people should produce evidence when they disagree. Additionally I think people should provide evidence for a statement of fact when challenged on it - or at least be transparent in regards to sources. I would make the additional point that if only one side is producing evidence it’s a meaningless argument. In other words the onus for evidence is not on only one person.

This is about discussion not academic or scientific method. Your requirements are for experts in limited fields. They do not enhance general discussion.

I am advocating this requirement under certain circumstances - not under every circumstance. As for your assertion I disagree. I believe that a transparency in sources will enhance discussion. I don't believe it can do anything but that.

As to your apparent point about general discussion not always needing formal sources you are correct. I had a long participation in a thread about religion and that was all about opinion and interpretation. That’s fine though since the sources were still transparent - our source was our own thoughts and ideas. The whole thing was based on opinion. It’s when one starts dressing their opinion up as something else that things go awry. And so on and so forth. I think everybody understands my position by now.

Definitions, however authoritative the source, do not necessarily conclude debate.

And where did I say they conclude debate? I provided an example of a web site that could be a credible source. That was that the American Psychiatric Association's website would provide a credible definition to Dissociative Identity Disorder. Do you think that they wouldn't? Providing sources as required for definitions or assertions of fact is, to my mind, a necessary part of reasonable debate - I never claimed it was the conclusion of debate.

No, Tawasakm, I am not being condescending. I am reading you as I might have been myself once. I am now far more concerned with the world at large

But you are being condescending. You are implying I am at a point you were at before becoming more 'advanced'. Which doesn't really address any of my points - although it may seem an attempt to reduce their validity in comparison to yours.

[Guest eureka]

I am saying,Tawasakm, that you are at a point that defeats the purpose of general discussion. I really don't care how much people claim to have read or not read. I will dispute them not from a basis of textual information unless that is easily available, but from my own reasoning and history.

Most of the discusion here is related to history in a very broad sense. And history is something we create: its "facts" can and are created in many ways.

When I see a discussion on the forum that interests me or that I know something about, I do not dive into research. I post from what I know or to elicit opinion and information. I do that quickly without any research or editing. I have no desire to limit myself to participation in a couple of areas in which I am expert - there are a couple of those.

As for recall being suspect, I would not post anything that is suspect without qualification. The quantity of reading and original source is irrelevant to most things. I recall, for instance, that I read "Eugene Aram" by Bulwer-Lytton when I was nine years old. I obviously did not really understand it then and the only reference I would make to it now is in title and author which are not questionable.

I can sympathise with all you are saying but I repeat it belongs to a more limited sphere than discussion forums. There is the possibility of serious matters where it would be useful to have those, like yourself, who will provide much information. I prefer to be able to simply give my opinion on that and to post what I do know elsewhere.

[Tawasakm]

Any progress on this?

[last_niceguy]

In our Canadian legal system the burden of proof lies on the party who is presenting their case against another person or persons. In Canada it is the duty of the Crown to provide proofs or evidence of their claims in order to proves the guilt of the person. If the Crown in unable to put together a strong argument then the person walks.

I think that a debate ought to run in the same manner. The person making the claim ought to provide evidence to support it. The ideal situation being that any arguement presented already has with it evidence that way the debating party does not have to demand evidence they can simply ginve their 'proofs' or 'evidence' to support their claims.

It seems to be a waste of a post to simply say "prove it". If I say that all men are cats then I should have some type of proof to present with that and then the posts that follow can challenge the evidence I presented, present more evidence for or against my claim or even provide support to my arguement. But I should never just say that all men are cats and then leave it at that.

So in my opinion the burden of proof is on the orginal poster he/she must provide the initial evidence to back up the claim being made not only for their own good but for the well-being of the discussion to follow it.

[Tawasakm]

I give up.

[shoe-in]

I give up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You asked:

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

The answer is simple my friend. It all depends on who's talking. If some VIP here makes some ludicrous statement, such as ... "Israel was created because nobody wanted the Jews" ... they go scott free.

If some ordinary Joe said it without providing evidence they'd be kicked out in a New York heart beat.

[Black Dog]

The answer is simple my friend. It all depends on who's talking. If some VIP here makes some ludicrous statement, such as ... "Israel was created because nobody wanted the Jews" ... they go scott free.

VIP? I'm flattered, but I don't think I have any influence on what goe sopn here at MLW. I'm just this guy, you know?

And FYI, the exact statement was:

Israel was formed because western nations (including the U.S.) were extremely reluctant to accept the tide of European Jewish refugees ......

Which was supported by a reference to contemporary immigration quotas and Thomas A. Kolsky's work ""Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948".

You can also check out Peter Novick's "The Holocaust in American Life", which touches on the popular association of Jews with communism and the resulting reluctance of political leadership to admit more Jewish DP's.

If I erred it was in not making it clear that the resitance to jewish immigration was but one factor, not the singular one.