Does the Burden of Proof require a claimant to provide basic education on a topic?

[Stevicus]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

 

[Secret Chief]

I've seen similar discussions here on RF

Can you support this claim?

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to this. Depends on the topic. Sometimes I think it reasonable for me to ask for support of a statement or claim but then equally I might say to someone asking me for evidence to go away and do their own research.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

In practical terms, the burden of proof is really determined by the standard of the person (or people) you're trying to convince.

Someone jumping in can sometimes be valid and sometimes not. Depends on context. Calling out a Courtier's Reply for what it is can be useful when a field of study is really based on nothing (e.g. pseudoscience or some types of theology), and it's useful to occasionally check our fundamental assumptions.

OTOH, it can be rude to butt into a conversation to change the topic.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

The thing about sealioning is that the sea lion tries to argue that a random person on the internet has an obligation to interact with them. This is never true; we're all here voluntarily and can interact or not with who we choose.

If you don't respond to someone's point, you may not change their mind, but as long as you're okay with that, no problem.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Of course. Some questions call attention to hypocrisy or that a person's whole school of thought has no rational foundation. It's like that Futurama meme.

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

I think it's reasonable to say that the starting point for discussion should be what's agreed to by everyone in the discussion. If someone in the discussion doesn't agree with some tenet you're assuming, then it makes sense to establish that the tenet is true before proceeding to points that rely on the tenet being questioned.

To me, it's more of a question about online social dynamics. If there's a conversation in a public forum, should the participants of that conversation accept in anyone and everyone who posts in the thread?

 

[F1fan]

I think if a person makes a personal judgment, like why Trump would be a better president than Biden, then there's an obligation to present evidence that supports this conclusion.

But if it's something like a creationist asking for evidence of evolution then it's a flaw of the creationist for not doing their homework on the issue being discussed. In my experience creationists are presented with massive amounts of credible sources but they end up rejecting them anyway.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

It's possible to claim that one can talk to the dead, show mental telepathy, believe in astrology, even support antropogenic climate change --all w/o any supporting evidence. Making claims is a matter of choice and there's no "claim police" out there to stop anyone from making unsupported claims.

At the same time, let's all understand together that courtesy and reasonable behavior requires that claims be supported with observations and evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting ...?

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously ...?

Are these trick questions (or, perhaps, trolling for validation)? Put differently, can you imagine anyone answering in the negative?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Anything can be considered insulting. Whether or not feeling insulted is justified is another story.

I've had an elderly old lady apologize for asking to see my receipt at Walmart. I told her she did not have to apologize for doing her job, to which she replied, "I wish everyone was as understanding as you are."

But I digress. If one is insulted by a request for evidence, I think they might have some other issues they need to work through.

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

I don't consider asking for evidence, even if I know evidence isn't available, disingenuous. If you make an odd or extraordinary claim and expect me to believe that claim, the onus is on you to give me a legitimate reason to believe it.

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

 

[Kathryn]

Here on RF, some topics are above my paygrade and I don't butt into them. But many topics are not, and if some "evidence" is given without a source, I will often ask for the source.

 

[F1fan]

It's possible to claim that one can talk to the dead, show mental telepathy, believe in astrology, even support antropogenic climate change --all w/o any supporting evidence. Making claims is a matter of choice and there's no "claim police" out there to stop anyone from making unsupported claims.

Discourse is an honor system. It is expected for participants to be informed on issues that they debate. Since the internet it's apvarent that disinformation is more widely available, and more people are able to select disonformation for personal reasons. To my mind this is a failure of intellectual principles. Values have declined where it comes to discerning true from false. Fortunately the well informed have the advantage in debate since in science and journalism there is still a fairly strong set of ethics that can be relied on.

At the same time, let's all understand together that courtesy and reasonable behavior requires that claims be supported with observations and evidence.

To my mind this comes down to there being intellectual integrity. It's easy to believe anything (as we observe with many claimants). It takes work to reject ideas that do not follow evidence and sound thinking. High standards are useful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me the answer is "It depends". There is a lot of knowledge out there that most people do not have. Me included at times. If I know nothing about the person I will give that person the benefit of the doubt and post evidence for them. But usually they tip their hands on both their knowledge and their motives rather early. I then require that they at least learn a little bit of what they are arguing about and offer to help.

Sadly most debaters do not want to know and only want to believe. They usually never even try to learn. As a result they can be doomed to never learn.

Oh, and then there are those that are not at all honest when they debate. I often put them on a "Corrections only status". I will respond by correcting them but they are never in a position to demand evidence since they demonstrated their own dishonesty far too many times. If I feel like it I will give the some evidence. If I don't they can pound sand.

 

[Stevicus]

I think if a person makes a personal judgment, like why Trump would be a better president than Biden, then there's an obligation to present evidence that supports this conclusion.

I suppose if it's a subjective judgment as to who or what is "better," that may be more in the realm of personal opinion and one's philosophy and value system.

But if it's something like a creationist asking for evidence of evolution then it's a flaw of the creationist for not doing their homework on the issue being discussed. In my experience creationists are presented with massive amounts of credible sources but they end up rejecting them anyway.

Yes, I've seen discussions which have gone in that direction. I've also seen where someone might not present evidence in their own words and their own arguments, but instead just post a link to a 2-hour video and say, "Here, watch this."

 

[Stevicus]

Are these trick questions (or, perhaps, trolling for validation)?

No.

Put differently, can you imagine anyone answering in the negative?

Maybe.

 

[Kathryn]

I typically do not challenge anyone unless I believe they are wrong anyway. And sometimes I don't even do that! LOL

 

[Stevicus]

Anything can be considered insulting. Whether or not feeling insulted is justified is another story.

I've had an elderly old lady apologize for asking to see my receipt at Walmart. I told her she did not have to apologize for doing her job, to which she replied, "I wish everyone was as understanding as you are."

But I digress. If one is insulted by a request for evidence, I think they might have some other issues they need to work through.

I've gotten to the point where I don't wait for them to ask. I usually have my receipt in hand and ready to show them at the door. But if there's a few people wanting to exit, then it creates a line which can be an inconvenience.

But there might be other situations where some people can show resistance, such as being required to carry ID or show ID in certain situations. A lot of people don't like that.

I don't consider asking for evidence, even if I know evidence isn't available, disingenuous. If you make an odd or extraordinary claim and expect me to believe that claim, the onus is on you to give me a legitimate reason to believe it.

Sure, I can see that. But what would be the reason for even participating in such an exercise to begin with? I once saw a disheveled looking man, looked to be homeless, carrying a cardboard sign warning people that silent radio was working to control people's minds. I had no intention of engaging that person and asking for evidence for his claim. On the contrary, I felt more a sense of pity than anything else, but I respected his belief and went on my way. I had no obligation to believe anything he was saying, but I saw no need to openly challenge him either.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I've gotten to the point where I don't wait for them to ask. I usually have my receipt in hand and ready to show them at the door. But if there's a few people wanting to exit, then it creates a line which can be an inconvenience.

But there might be other situations where some people can show resistance, such as being required to carry ID or show ID in certain situations. A lot of people don't like that.

I throw the receipt in the top bag where it's easily accessible, because I'm often stopped because I have a case of water in the cart.

But in any case, such inconveniences are first world problems brought about by choice. One already knows there's a chance they'll be held up. If it's that big of an issue for them, they have the option to go elsewhere.

Sure, I can see that. But what would be the reason for even participating in such an exercise to begin with? I once saw a disheveled looking man, looked to be homeless, carrying a cardboard sign warning people that silent radio was working to control people's minds. I had no intention of engaging that person and asking for evidence for his claim. On the contrary, I felt more a sense of pity than anything else, but I respected his belief and went on my way. I had no obligation to believe anything he was saying, but I saw no need to openly challenge him either.

Holding a sign is a passive claim that doesn't engage a person directly. Would your reaction have been the same if he stood up in your path and engaged you directly rather than just holding a sign?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anything can be considered insulting. Whether or not feeling insulted is justified is another story.

I've had an elderly old lady apologize for asking to see my receipt at Walmart. I told her she did not have to apologize for doing her job, to which she replied, "I wish everyone was as understanding as you are."

But I digress. If one is insulted by a request for evidence, I think they might have some other issues they need to work through.

At the Walmarts here, they don't generally ask to see receipts.

I do get the frustration with it on a system level, considering their shift to self checkout: the company either trusts customers to scan items properly (in which case, checking the receipt shouldn't be required) or doesn't trust them (in which case, self checkout shouldn't be a thing).

I agree that none of this is the fault of the employee checking receipts, though.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Discourse is an honor system. It is expected for participants to be informed on issues that they debate. Since the internet it's apvarent that disinformation is more widely available, and more people are able to select disonformation for personal reasons. To my mind this is a failure of intellectual principles. Values have declined where it comes to discerning true from false. Fortunately the well informed have the advantage in debate since in science and journalism there is still a fairly strong set of ethics that can be relied on.

Personally debate is a non-starter. My preference is that we join together, all of us on the same side, and we all go over the issues and consult for direction. Not every one agrees and we end up w/ a lot of conflict/vitriol.

To my mind this comes down to there being intellectual integrity. It's easy to believe anything (as we observe with many claimants). It takes work to reject ideas that do not follow evidence and sound thinking. High standards are useful.

My solution is example. You and I show intellectual honest and we return the convo to the issue. When I do that I usually end up w/ is either a joint search for the truth or the other person just leaves and goes off to other threads.

 

[Stevicus]

I throw the receipt in the top bag where it's easily accessible, because I'm often stopped because I have a case of water in the cart.

But in any case, such inconveniences are first world problems brought about by choice. One already knows there's a chance they'll be held up. If it's that big of an issue for them, they have the option to go elsewhere.

It's brought about by choice, but I wonder whose choice. After all, this is all a sign of a lack of trust. That's why we have to show receipts at the door, it's why they have video surveillance everywhere, it's why we have to go through security checkpoints at airports. It's also why there's such a hullaballoo over fake news and misinformation.

I wouldn't say it's a first world problem, but more an indicator of an underlying corruption and internal rot within society itself.

Holding a sign is a passive claim that doesn't engage a person directly. Would your reaction have been the same if he stood up in your path and engaged you directly rather than just holding a sign?

Yes, my reaction would have been the same. Every OP on a message board is a passive claim, too.

 

[Heyo]

I was reading an online discussion in another forum where a claim was made and someone asked for evidence to support the claim. The claimant believed that his claim was as obvious as a claim that "the sky is blue" and felt that asking for evidence for that was unreasonable. He felt that the person asking for evidence knew nothing about the topic and that he was being presumptuous by jumping into a debate and challenging claims regarding a topic he knew nothing about - as if he was requesting a basic 101 level essay.

I've seen similar discussions here on RF, where someone might request evidence, and a common retort might be "Google it" or "I'm not here to do your homework for you." One might also be accused of Sealioning in which someone repeatedly asks for evidence which has already been provided or makes arguments which have already been answered and refuted.

Can a request for evidence even be considered insulting? (I'm thinking of times when the Walmart greeter asks to see my receipt upon leaving the store, essentially asking me to prove that I paid for the items I have with me. Some people might be offended by that, viewing it as an implied accusation of theft, while others might be annoyed by the delay itself.)

Can some requests for evidence be made disingenuously? That is, someone might make an odd or extraordinary claim, and someone asks for evidence, knowing full well that not a shred of evidence exists to support the odd claim?

On that note, it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but how does one differentiate between an "extraordinary" claim and an ordinary claim?

So, it's meta-debate day today?
I have seen what you are describing here and elsewhere used in debates, in valid and in disingenuous forms.
I have used some of them, e.g. the rhetorical question for evidence (when I know there is none).
The fact that some of the rhetorical devices (and even some of the "fallacies") have valid uses, makes it so difficult to detect them and defend against, when they are used for trolling.

To your main question, requiring expertise to participate in a debate, it is reasonable, but rude and probably against the site rules. At least RF is open to the public. You won't invite a layman to speak at a science conference, but here you have to deal with the hoi polloi.
It's a bit like your preschooler stating their opinion about politics at your dinner table. Or like the teen at your friends - now you vary. Do they know what they are talking about?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's brought about by choice, but I wonder whose choice. After all, this is all a sign of a lack of trust. That's why we have to show receipts at the door, it's why they have video surveillance everywhere, it's why we have to go through security checkpoints at airports. It's also why there's such a hullaballoo over fake news and misinformation.

I wouldn't say it's a first world problem, but more an indicator of an underlying corruption and internal rot within society itself.

Society has always had that share of dishonest people. Unfortunately, honest folk have to suffer such minor inconveniences to keep prices down in stores or to stay safe in the skies. The alternative is stores raising their prices to account for shrink or risking one life every time they board a plane.

Yes, my reaction would have been the same. Every OP on a message board is a passive claim, too.

But aren't you more compelled to respond to the claim when you are engaged directly...when someone quotes your post? Especially when someone asks you a question?