In many discussions I'm pulled back to the distinction between not-guilty and innocent as a way to demonstrate how the burden of proof works and what the true default position should be in any given argument. A lot of people seem to not have any problem seeing the distinction, but many intelligent people for some reason don't see it.
In this article I explain why the distinction exists and why it matters, in particular why it matters in real-life scenarios, especially when people try to shift the burden of proof.
Essentially, in my view the universe we are talking about is {uncertain,guilty,innocent}, therefore not-guilty is guilty', which is {uncertain,innocent}. Therefore innocent ⇒ not-guilty, but not-guilty ⇏ innocent.
When O. J. Simpson was acquitted, that doesn’t mean he was found innocent, it means the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was found not-guilty, which is not the same as innocent. It very well could be that the jury found the truth of the matter uncertain.
This notion has implications in many real-life scenarios when people want to shift the burden of proof if you reject a claim when it's not substantiated. They wrongly assume you claim their claim is false (equivalent to innocent), when in truth all you are doing is staying in the default position (uncertain).
Rejecting the claim that a god exists is not the same as claim a god doesn't exist: it doesn't require a burden of proof because it's the default position. Agnosticism is the default position. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Should we be agnostic about Russel's Teapot?
E: Mostly focusing on continuing your thought about agnosticism. Your point about guiltiness is right.
Yes. Although I don't like to use the term "agnostic" because it relates to knowledge, and here we are dealing with belief. I prefer "skeptical".
The default position is
uncertain, so maybe there's a teapot, maybe not. That means we are questioning its existence, therefore we are skeptics. But this also means we don't believe its existence (not-guilty), which is different than believing it doesn't exist (innocent).Russel's Teapots seems bogus to me. I would absolutely not like to be "skeptical" (
not-guilty) about Russel's Teapot. I don't believe in such a teapot (innocent). Can it be proven?When I continued to think about this post, this is the reasoning that occurred to me: I am not completely ignorant. I know a few facts here from experience:
Teapots do not naturally form in outer space.
Humans do not normally send teapots to outer space.
Based on this line of thinking, I'm comfortable with believing it doesn't exist (
innocent).The one can come to me and say I haven't proven it
beyond a reasonable doubtbut now it feels like we're haggling over the standard of proof, not the burden of proof.Whereas your post gets the burden of proof right, it doesn't say much about standard of proof. Perhaps that is just a different topic?
But there is still zero evidence that such a teapot doesn't exist. Even if I were to grant you that your rationale is solid, that's not evidence.
I feel people have a hard time understanding that unlikelihood is not evidence. If someone tells me it's unlikely for me to lose in Russian roulette, that's not evidence that I'm going to win. Unlikely events happen all the time, and people don't seem to learn that.
What are the chances that the entire housing market is overpriced and it's about to collapse? Someone might have said "almost impossible" right before the financial crash of 2008, and in fact many did.
What are the chances that Bernie Madoff is running a Ponzi scheme given that his company has already passed an SEC exam? Again, "almost impossible" is what people said.
Black swans were considered impossible long time ago, and yet they existed, which is precisely why the term is used nowadays to describe things we have no evidence for, but yet could happen.
You can be considered right in thinking that black swans don't exist, that Bernie Madoff is legit, and that the housing market is not about to collapse (
innocent), right until the moment the unlikely event happens and you are proven wrong. It turns out a cheeky Russian astronaut threw out a teapot in the 1970s and it has been floating since.Why insist in believing the unlikely is not going to happen only to be proven wrong again and again when we can just be skeptical?
How ludicrous does the example have to be before you are comfortable with a position of "innocent"? Russel's complete tea set, with a table, two chairs, cups and saucers, the whole deal... Still just skeptical or are you innocent yet?
What if maintaining the "skeptic" position actually involved having skin in the game? Imagine that not only is the claim that the teapot exists, but that by singing and performing the I'm a Little Teapot dance each night before bed for one year the teapot grants you a wish with no restrictions that will come true. If you are truly just skeptical (after all there is no evidence that such a teapot doesn't exist), then you would of course be singing every night, correct? Why take the innocent position and risk missing out on such a reward?
Unlikely events do happen all the time, but it seems to me your method of thinking is what allows people to believe that impossible things can/have happened, usually defended with "You can't prove it didn't"
There is no such thing.
False. That would require me believing
guilty.I'm not taking the
innocentposition. I'm not taking any position.Your example is not impossible, just extremely unlikely. If you tell me the teapot has the shape of a triangle with four sides, well, that is truly impossible and I would say
innocent.My example, that I made up on the spot, that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter that will grant you one wish if you sing certain words every night for one year, is not impossible, just extremely unlikely?
This is a near perfect example of what I meant, and why I am convinced your way of thinking is absolutely incorrect.
In my mind, I am completely justified in applying the label "impossible" to that example. The fact that you cannot do the same would seem to indicate a failure in your rationality, in my opinion.
Yes. That's a foundation of science: you cannot know something with 100% certainty.
I did not say I cannot do the same, I said do not do the same.
This is shifting the burden of proof: you want me to prove to you how
Xis not impossible. I don't have to do that, because I'm not making any claim. You can believe whatever you want.If you want me to believe that
Xis impossible, then you have the burden of proof. But you can't do that, so you have no justification in questioning my unbelief.I am perfectly entitled to stay in my skepticism. What you do is up to you, I'm not questioning your belief.
I do not want you to believe anything is impossible, what you do is up to you. I am simply commenting that your inability to concede that the extraordinary magic space teapot that I admit to you I fabricated on the spot does not possibly exist indicates a failure in your rationality.
You are welcome to hang on to your skepticism and hold a belief that it may exist, but the fact that you are not singing the song and dancing the dance (I assume) every night would indicate you don't think it exists any more than I do (which is not at all), since the payoff is so large for such a small cost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is evidence? Is seeing a video recording of the defendant shooting his wife evidence? Recordings can be faked, even if it's unlikely.
I agree with the rest of what you said, that people who predict things will often be wrong.
What's stopping me from being skeptical about everything, even in the face of stuff you call "evidence"? Maybe you & your blog are just a GPT bot. Why should I just assume I'm talking to a human?
Which is why evidence should not be considered proof. People often confuse the two, for example in the aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" which is incorrect: it is evidence of absence, it's just not proof.
You shouldn't. Why do you need to know that I'm a human?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Humans also don't normally send Tesla Roadsters to outer space. Until one abnormal one did.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link