The Burden Of Proof

[Vzearr]

Starter Notes:

This is being posted as a CRT because it was not accepted as a staff thread. If need be, and debate comes forth to the point where a staff thread is a necessity, then it will be moved accordingly.

The claims that this is redundant because the fallacy page already features these, and that this page would be, quote-unquote, "pointless". Is flawed.

Why the Burden of Proof page feature would be important:

Fallacy page = A diagnostic tool to be used when someone commits a fallacy
Burden of Proof = The governing rule of argumentation


Fallacies help you identify bad reasoning. Burden of Proof determines who is obligated to justify claims in the first place. Which is a fundamental for debates and powerscaling. Without the Burden of Proof.

• People can assert anything with no obligation. This actually happens a lot more than it seems. Out of the tens of thousands of pages of content, debates, and scales, the idea of Burden of Proof comes up less than 150 pages, with most of the pages not actually including the burden of proof in its content.
• Threads devolve into “disprove me”, instead of actual structure.
• The fundamental standard of evidence-based debates fails.

So Burden of Proof isn’t just “another logical concept”, it’s the framework that makes debate possible at all.

• People assert claims with no scans
• Shift the burden: I.e. “Prove me wrong”
• Ignore counterarguments and demand disproof of their assumption/presuppositional claims.

This could all be solved by making a standard Burden of Proof page.

Now, let's move on to whether people will use the Burden of Proof page.

Should It Be Enforced?​

Yes. That's the blatant answer.

The Burden of Proof is not optional; it's the literal baseline standard that determines whether a discussion is even functioning as one. Without enforcement, it immediately collapses into claim-spamming, burden-shifting, and false assertions being treated as valid positions. Staff should be required to meet the standard on this page as well. Staff discussions, evaluations, and threads regarding calculations implicitly rely on the Burden of Proof being applied correctly. If staff do not consistently enforce it, the standard becomes inconsistent, and once that happens, any outcome of threads is no longer based on evidence, and is instead "maybe" based on evidence.

Some people enforce this. Most don't.

So not only should a page be created, but it should actively be reinforced into staff's replies.
---
The Burden of Proof is defined as the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. In a Burden of Proof, there are negative and positive claims. Where:

• Person 1 asserts claim C
• Person 2 rejects C

Person 2 is on the negative, whilst person 1 asserts a positive claim.

Then:

• Person 1 must prove C
• Person 2 is not required to disprove C, only to show insufficient justification

A positive claim is asserting the existence of something.

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

When you create a claim such that it entails the existence of something, for example. "Luffy beats Goku". Asserts the existence of a specific state of affairs in which Luffy possesses the necessary properties to... Well.. Beat Goku-. That such a claim is a positive claim, whereas a negative claim would be "I disagree with that claim." Person 1 must prove Luffy beats Goku as he is on the positive.

Now, how does this lead to our problem with power scaling on the wiki? Well... During the debunking of certain things, we usually expect the debunker to be on the affirmative side of a negative claim; we even do this for vs debates. Example. Here, even if evidence is presented, asking someone to “prove it’s not happening” is still asking them to prove a negative; the burden doesn’t shift just because you gave an explanation. You still have to prove your claim is true. Here we see another one, Laser, asserts that the shockwave is real, and the panel shows a shockwave, saying "this isn't real" is not a positive claim; it’s just rejecting the certainty of said feat.

This pattern can be seen in hundreds of posts on the wiki, and it's especially bad in calculation debunks. Many threads feature calculations with no supporting evidence, and debunks are generally expected to provide evidence for each debunk. So what we see is a lot of debunking proving negative claims.

What do we do?

Well, we should strongly define what the burden of proof is on the wiki. More than this page, which I don't think anybody actually reads.

I would like to make a page where we go into depth regarding the burden of proof, and negative and positive claims.

I shall name this page: The Burden of Proof.

It'll go like this: I'm open to ideas and making it go more in-depth. This is the base of it. It will be improved further as the discussion comes around.
------
The Burden of Proof is defined as the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position. In a Burden of Proof, there are negative and positive claims. Where:

• Person 1 asserts claim C
• Person 2 rejects C

Person 2 is on the negative, whilst person 1 asserts a positive claim.

Then:

• Person 1 must prove C
• Person 2 is not required to disprove C, only to show insufficient justification

A positive claim is asserting the existence of something.

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.

When you create a claim such that it entails the existence of something, for example. "Luffy beats Goku". Asserts the existence of a specific state of affairs in which Luffy possesses the necessary properties to... Well.. Beat Goku-. That such a claim is a positive claim, whereas a negative claim would be "I disagree with that claim." Person 1 must prove Luffy beats Goku as he is on the positive.

What are some more examples of the burden of proof?

Person A:

• “This explosion is city-level because it vaporised buildings.”

Person B:

• “No, it didn’t vaporise anything."

Person B seems to be on the negative side, but, in and of itself, it is a positive claim.

• Person B is asserting:

“The buildings were not vaporised.”

Now he's claimed a description of reality, meaning the burden is on him. Person A:

• “This feat is planetary based on a calculation using inverse square law, and pixel scaling.”

Person B:

• “Your calc is invalid because your assumptions aren’t justified.”

Person A:

• “You haven’t proven my assumptions are false.”

Person A makes the original claim. Person B claims, “Your calculation is invalid because your assumptions aren’t justified.” So the burden is on person B now, right? No. Person B's statement is such that “There is insufficient justification for your claim”. Not a positive claim. Person A asserts his assumption hasn't been proven, shifting the burden. B is not asserting an alternative reality, not asserting what actually happened, not giving a different calc. They only discriminately attacked A's justification. If I say:

• “There’s an invisible being in my room”

And you say:

• “You haven’t provided evidence”

You do not have to prove:

• “There is no invisible being”

Relating this to sound more like Person B vs Person A.

Person A:

• “This feat is planetary because my calculator assumes vaporisation and inverse square law.”

Person B:

• “This isn't valid. You haven’t justified those assumptions.”

B saying "This isn't valid" is not asserting a state of reality. Therefore, a non-positive claim... A negative.

The goal of this thread is to create a page to inclusively guide users and new users on how to use burden of proof, where to use it, when, and how.

 

[Antvasima]

Damage moved this to our staff forum.

 

[Random-Helper323]

The issue of positive claim vs negative is that it's easy to be deceptive with it.

Using the OP's shock wave example:

Spoiler

Person A: this shockwave covers this area.

Person B: Prove that it's a real shock wave.

Person A: the ground and buildings shake from it and glass windows on the buildings shatter.

Person B: prove the ground and buildings are real.

Person A: there are people in the buildings. We see them up close trying to hide from the shock wave. It's also the same city the whole film takes place in.

Person B: prove those are people. Prove this event happened in real life.

In this scenario, Person B is framing their position as negative claims when in truth they're implying something seen on screen is false and as a result implying strange things such as fake buildings and fake but somehow still moving people, and are even implying it's a dream or something. Their implications would arguably be a positive claim in this instance.

 

[Vzearr]

The issue of positive claim vs negative is that it's easy to be deceptive with it.

Using the OP's shock wave example:

Spoiler

Person A: this shockwave covers this area.

Person B: Prove that it's a real shock wave.

Person A: the ground and buildings shake from it and glass windows on the buildings shatter.

Person B: prove the ground and buildings are real.

Person A: there are people in the buildings. We see them up close trying to hide from the shock wave.

Person B: prove those are people. Prove this event happened.

In this scenario, Person B is framing their position as negative claims when in truth they're implying something seen on screen is false and as a result implying strange things such as fake buildings and fake but somehow still moving people, and are even implying it's a dream or something.

This sounds all right, but once you understand the premise of a positive and a negative claim, as well as the burden of proof, it becomes easier to decipher.

Should I add this example and write its implications into the base template?

 

[KLOL506]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ultima_Reality @Mr. Bambu @Planck69 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Dereck03 @Maverick_Zero_X @Just a Random Butler @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Damage3245 @GrathOfLux @Everything12 @SomebodyData @Crabwhale @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @SamanPatou

@Reiner04 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @KingTempest @Catzlaflame @UchihaSlayer96 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Emirp sumitpo @LordTracer @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @Nierre @Dalesean027 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless @Vietthai96 @Imaginym @Godernet @Theglassman12 @FinePoint @Mr._Propeller_Hat @Elizio33

Given this seems like a pretty important thread, your input on this would be appreciated.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I guess I'll reiterate what I said before.

I don't think the page is necessary or likely to help much. The OP talks about how nobody reads the fallcies page, but I'd wager this page would be read even less, given its less generic proposed name. I also tend to not care that much about debating. On a policy level, we tend to be aligned in goals. On a versus thread level, I don't really care what happens.

I don't intend to argue against the page's creation, I just find it sort of pointless.

 

[Reiner04]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ultima_Reality @Mr. Bambu @Planck69 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Dereck03 @Maverick_Zero_X @Just a Random Butler @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Damage3245 @GrathOfLux @Everything12 @SomebodyData @Crabwhale @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz @SamanPatou

@Reiner04 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @KingTempest @Catzlaflame @UchihaSlayer96 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Emirp sumitpo @LordTracer @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @Nierre @Dalesean027 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless @Vietthai96 @Imaginym @Godernet @Theglassman12 @FinePoint @Mr._Propeller_Hat @Elizio33

Given this seems like a pretty important thread, your input on this would be appreciated.

I think this is already mentioned on the fallacy page. However, given how often people refer to it, and considering that the concept of “burden of proof” is one of the most important things to understand when arguing in a CRT, I wouldn’t mind it having its own page. That said, this isn’t me agreeing with the CRT, I just wouldn’t oppose its creation if the majority supports it.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Given this seems like a pretty important thread, your input on this would be appreciated.

It should be added in some capacity to the Fallacy page or a section within the discussion Rules as burden of proof standards. But there's zero need for a dedicated page in my view.

 

[Reiner04]

It should be added in some capacity to the Fallacy page

Its already present in the fallacy page.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Its already present in the fallacy page.

In that case... I don't really see the point? Just being it up more, or alternatively, just add a note in the discussion rule section for CRTs about Burden of Proof.

 

[Vzearr]

I believe that the addition of a burden of proof page enables more rigorous standards to be imposed on staff and members. Keeping it on the fallacy is sort of a disgrace to the meaning of burden of proof.

Fallacy page = A diagnostic tool to be used when someone commits a fallacy
Burden of Proof = The governing rule of argumentation


Fallacies help you identify bad reasoning. Burden of Proof determines who is obligated to justify claims in the first place. Which is a fundamental for debates and powerscaling. Without the Burden of Proof.

• People can assert anything with no obligation. This actually happens a lot more than it seems. Out of the tens of thousands of pages of content, debates, and scales, the idea of Burden of Proof comes up less than 150 pages, with most of the pages not actually including the burden of proof in its content.
• Threads devolve into “disprove me”, instead of actual structure.
• The fundamental standard of evidence-based debates fails.

Our fallacy page features the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, and an undetailed one at that. Such an important part of debating and powerscaling, detailed in such a way, is ultimately of no benefit to the site.

With rigorous standards, we can make powerscaling and debating on our site much easier.

I believe if staff are up to date on the Burden of Proof, not only would we have an easier way of getting actual, valid crt's through, but also calculations through.

Burden of Proof isn’t just “another logical concept”, it’s the framework that makes every debate possible at all.

• People assert claims with no scans
• Shift the burden: I.e. “Prove me wrong”
• Ignore counterarguments and demand disproof of their assumption/presuppositional claims.

This could all be solved by making a standard Burden of Proof page.

 

[Vzearr]

Oh, and I expect staff to have a rigorous understanding of the idea of Burden of Proof. It's philosophical implications build the standards of debate. So I believe it should also be added as a prerequisite for becoming a staff member.

 

[Planck69]

As most others have said, this is a redundant page that's already mostly covered by the Fallacy page. Making it it's own thread won't magically compel others to read it anymore than our other pages do.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It does fit the fallacy page as well though, given that attempting to reverse the burden of proof is itself a fallacy.

 

[Vzearr]

As most others have said, this is a redundant page that's already mostly covered by the Fallacy page. Making it it's own thread won't magically compel others to read it anymore than our other pages do.

Can you at least read my rebuttals, the benefits, and the idea of it being heavily enforced on staff? I feel like it's being ignored, not a single response to it.

It does fit the fallacy page as well though, given that attempting to reverse the burden of proof is itself a fallacy.

I didn't say it doesn't.

I believe that the addition of a burden of proof page enables more rigorous standards to be imposed on staff and members. Keeping it on the fallacy is sort of a disgrace to the meaning of burden of proof.

Fallacy page = A diagnostic tool to be used when someone commits a fallacy
Burden of Proof = The governing rule of argumentation


Fallacies help you identify bad reasoning. Burden of Proof determines who is obligated to justify claims in the first place. Which is a fundamental for debates and powerscaling. Without the Burden of Proof.

• People can assert anything with no obligation. This actually happens a lot more than it seems. Out of the tens of thousands of pages of content, debates, and scales, the idea of Burden of Proof comes up less than 150 pages, with most of the pages not actually including the burden of proof in its content.
• Threads devolve into “disprove me”, instead of actual structure.
• The fundamental standard of evidence-based debates fails.

Our fallacy page features the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, and an undetailed one at that. Such an important part of debating and powerscaling, detailed in such a way, is ultimately of no benefit to the site.

With rigorous standards, we can make powerscaling and debating on our site much easier.

I believe if staff are up to date on the Burden of Proof, not only would we have an easier way of getting actual, valid crt's through, but also calculations through.

Burden of Proof isn’t just “another logical concept”, it’s the framework that makes every debate possible at all.

• People assert claims with no scans
• Shift the burden: I.e. “Prove me wrong”
• Ignore counterarguments and demand disproof of their assumption/presuppositional claims.

This could all be solved by making a standard Burden of Proof page.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Oh, and I expect staff to have a rigorous understanding of the idea of Burden of Proof. It's philosophical implications build the standards of debate. So I believe it should also be added as a prerequisite for becoming a staff member.

No lol.

Being a staff member isn't based on debating. You can employ critical thought and possess great insight without being a capable debater, we have no need to limit ourselves to people who can argue well. I don't care if a discussion mod can't debate his way around a fifth grader, I care if he is sensible and can fulfill the duties of his role. The same goes for any other role on the wiki. Debating is chiefly relevant for versus debates.

Absolutely not.

 

[Vzearr]

Being a staff member isn't based on debating. You can employ critical thought and possess great insight without being a capable debater, we have no need to limit ourselves to people who can argue well. I don't care if a discussion mod can't debate his way around a fifth grader, I care if he is sensible and can fulfill the duties of his role. The same goes for any other role on the wiki. Debating is chiefly relevant for versus debates.

This contradicts our current standards. The appointment of a discussion moderator occurs only after that member can actually debate and understand our site's standards. If you don't fully grasp the burden of proof, how can you understand our site's standards and the tiering system? It's a contradiction. One doesn't coincide without the other; they're mutual.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, that staff requirement was nonsensical. The debating aspect is an add-on to the site not its core.

Can you at least read my rebuttals, the benefits, and the idea of it being heavily enforced on staff? I feel like it's being ignored, not a single response to it.

I didn't say it doesn't.

I have and this is a general response to all of that; it's not actually any more enforceable than it currently is now and frankly not that relevant to the site's core function.

Not to mention, we already do require and enforce Burden of Proof. I see no way the addition of this thread will meaningfully make people stop twisting it or start putting to more rigorous use.

 

[Vzearr]

Yeah, that staff requirement was nonsensical. The debating aspect is an add-on to the site not its core.

How can one understand site standards and the tiering system, without an in-depth grasp of the burden of proof?

I have and this is a general response to all of that; it's not actually any more enforceable than it currently is now and frankly not that relevant to the site's core function.

How is it not enforceable? The issue is enforcement standards. Right now, the burden of proof exists but isn’t consistently applied; threads still regularly devolve into "disprove me". A dedicated page gives staff a clear, centralised standard to reference and enforce such a standard, which the current fallacy page doesn’t achieve.

 

[Vzearr]

Like I'm going to say it right now, this kind of just proves my point. Discussion mods are required to resolve CRTs and act against inaccurate information. That inherently requires understanding the burden of proof, because without it, you can’t distinguish between a justified claim and an unsupported assertion.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

How can one understand site standards and the tiering system, without an in-depth grasp of the burden of proof?

How is it not enforceable? The issue is enforcement standards. Right now, the burden of proof exists but isn’t consistently applied; threads still regularly devolve into "disprove me". A dedicated page gives staff a clear, centralised standard to reference and enforce such a standard, which the current fallacy page doesn’t achieve.

Those two things aren't connected to each other. I can comprehend destruction values and the concept of feats without being able to debate about it. We have no need of such an arbitrary requirement.

Like I'm going to say it right now, this kind of just proves my point. Discussion mods are required to resolve CRTs and act against inaccurate information. That inherently requires understanding the burden of proof, because without it, you can’t distinguish between a justified claim and an unsupported assertion.

No it doesn't. Debating is for convincing someone. Thread evaluators are the ones who would need to be convinced. We tag users for their good sense of judgment, which is not intrinsically tied to the ability to convince others. I'm not saying we don't value the ability to debate or understand its core concepts, but it isn't a central part of our needs for a staff member by any means.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Burden of proof is already listed in the fallacy page though, and that's also a page discussion mods should ideally have read. Maybe that could be listed as suggested reading for Thread Mods and Admins?

 

[Planck69]

Like I'm going to say it right now, this kind of just proves my point. Discussion mods are required to resolve CRTs and act against inaccurate information. That inherently requires understanding the burden of proof, because without it, you can’t distinguish between a justified claim and an unsupported assertion.

Most staff do understand it, it's implicit in most content revision. Adding a page won't make users any more knowledgeable on it in any meaningful way.

Not only that but this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of what a staff does. A thread moderator doesnt need to debate to understand the concept of powerscaling, feats and the like. A thread has to convince them not the other way around.

 

[Planck69]

Burden of proof is already listed in the fallacy page though, and that's also a page discussion mods should ideally have read. Maybe that could be listed as suggested reading for Thread Mods and Admins?

I was honestly under the assumption it already was. Yeah, I wouldn't mind it being suggested reading for thread mods and above.

 

[Vzearr]

I'll quit while I'm ahead and let this thread take its toll with more staff then .

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We already have Burden of Proof fallacy, and also, there's kind of an extension of Burden of Proof Fallacy known as the double negative fallacy, which is basically a pseudo intellectual attempt to U turn a double negative fallacy.