site banner
felipec  unbelief  1yr ago (felipec.substack.com)   Edited 1yr ago   2620 thread views

not-guilty is not the same as innocent

felipec.substack.com

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.

-2
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How ludicrous does the example have to be before you are comfortable with a position of "innocent"?

There is no such thing.

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?

False. That would require me believing guilty.

Why take the innocent position and risk missing out on such a reward?

I'm not taking the innocent position. I'm not taking any position.

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"

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.

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?

Yes. That's a foundation of science: you cannot know something with 100% certainty.

The fact that you cannot do the same would seem to indicate a failure in your rationality, in my opinion.

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 X is 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 X is 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.

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.

I don't have an inability to do that. And even if I did, you are making an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. And if you think you can easily dismantle philosophical skepticism, I don't think you understand why it exists in the first place.

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)

I specifically said I do not believe it exists. It seems you don't understand my position.

You said it was extremely unlikely but not impossible. If there is even a .000000001% chance you should be doing the song and dance because of the payout. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree, because I'm not a Bayesian. I don't believe X .000000001%, I don't believe X.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats