Important distinction
myslsl @ myslsl @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 177Joined 2 yr. ago
myslsl @ myslsl @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
177
Joined
2 yr. ago
Why is it silly that the claim originally presented should have to present evidence first? The counter-claim only has zero burden of proof so long as the original claim has failed to give any proof of their own.
That's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying the claim AND counter-claim should provide evidence/proof before either one is accepted. Blindly believing not B because you can't prove B is just as bad in my opinion as believing B itself with no proof.
You wouldn't have to present an argument yet, at that stage. I'd think you're really dumb for needing something like that proven to you, but the initial burden of proof would still be on me. However, when I quickly and easily provide proof that 2 + 2 does equal 4, THEN the burden of proof falls to you to prove your counter-claim.
A lack of evidence or proof for some claim B is not sufficient proof for not B. It doesn't really matter what claim we assign to B here.
For example, you might not have evidence/proof that it will rain today (i.e. B is the statement "it will rain today"), that doesn't give you sufficient evidence/proof to now claim that it will not rain today. You just don't know either way.
This ties into the part you absolutely agreed with. The word "God" as it is defined now would not exist without the original unproven claims that God. Even if you're not responding "God doesn't exist" directly to someone who said "God exists", you are if nothing else still responding to the original millennia old claim that they do exist. For that reason, it is always a counter-claim.
If I say god doesn't exist to you I feel like I'm making a true or false factual claim to YOU rather than to a bunch of old dead people or some greater historical/cultural context. The history of the word/definition might be relevant for deciding what the word means, but the claim is aimed at YOU. The actual truth status of the claim (even if we call it a counter-claim) that I might be making is either true or false (assuming we subscribe to bivalence like that) regardless of the history or culture that lead us to the discussion.
As for what makes counter-claims different from regular claims, it's simply that the burden of proof lies first with the original claim. A counter-claim has no responsibility to prove their claim until such time as the original claim presents evidence supporting itself
It seems like a silly double standard for only one side to have a burden to prove their claim, but the other gets to claim the negation is true with no burden of proof.
For example, if you say "2+2 is 4" and my response is "NO IT IS NOT. IT IS 3! I REFUSE TO PROVE IT THOUGH", not only will I be wrong in a classical arithmetic sense but I have presented no argument for why you ought to believe my new counter claim to your original claim. It would make no sense to believe me without more info in such a case.
The problem with that is I at least in theory could have looked up the tax code, remembered it, and then told you it correctly. Sure, I could have lied or remembered wrong, but it was 100% within my capacity to give you the accurate information, and even show you where I got the information from. With a claim about God's existence, that's impossible for either side of the debate as far as we know, and since the original claim was "God exists", that side is, possibly forever, stuck holding the burden of proof.
The fact that you can look up tax code is not really a problem for my hypothetical example. It is not particularly hard to come up with hypotheticals where you just can't easily obtain the answer. We could rephrase the context, perhaps we are stranded on a desert island? We could rephrase the question, perhaps it is about what some obscure historical figure had in their pockets on the day they died?
To be clear, I'm not trying to argue for or against the existence of god. My issue is that there should be a burden of proof for the CLAIMS "god exists" and "god does not exist" if somebody is claiming either is true. I don't think there's any kind of burden for believing some random claim without proof, but I think it's silly to commit to the negation of a claim without proof unless you have a reason to believe the negation. You can always just not commit and say you don't know in such a case, rather than believing the claim or its negation.
It doesn't. But, "God doesn't exist" is not a claim, it is a counter-claim to the claim "God exists".
I'd agree that at least sometimes it is a counter claim, but I don't agree that counter claims aren't claims themselves. The wording "counter claim" seems to me to indicate that "counter claims" are just claims of a particular type?
"God doesn't exist" is surely a statement right? If I tell you "god doesn't exist" (in response or not to something you've said), this feels like I am claiming the statement "god doesn't exist" is true.
The very concept of a higher power didn't even exist until people started claiming without evidence that it did exist, and it's been many branching games of telephone of that original unproven claim since then that has resulted in basically every major religion.
I absolutely agree with you on this point.
The counter-claim of "God doesn't exist" needs no proof beause it is countering a claim that also has no proof. If and when the original multiple millenium old claim of "God exists" actually has some proof to back it up, then the counter-claim would need to either have actual proof as well to support it, or debunk the "evidence" if possible. But again, the original claim is literally thousands of years old and still has absolute bupkis to prove it, so... I'm not too worried.
I don't think we need proof to reject a claim like "god exists". There's no real good evidence for it and all attempts at proofs of this in the history of the philosophy of religion have been analyzed and critiqued to death in some pretty convincing ways.
But, there is to me a difference between rejecting the truth of a claim vs excepting the truth of its denial. So, for example if you tell me tax code says X, that is not a proof of what tax code says. It would make sense for me to not outright believe you (since we are strangers), but you could be telling the truth, so it seems equally silly for me to immediately jump to believing tax code doesn't say X too.
My issue here is with what I perceive as bad argumentation, double standards and general ignorance to the field of study where these sorts of questions are applicable on the part of the person I am replying to.
Edit: I want to be clear that I'm not saying you are doing that. I am referring to the other people I have been replying to.
No it doesn't go both ways.
If something exists it should be easy to prove. There should be some form of sign of it.
This is absolutely not true. Things can exist without being accessible to you directly in a manner that makes it easy to prove their existence.
On the other hand it is hard to disprove the existence of anything at all. How do we know there is not some teapot in outer space?
Proving non-existence is not always hard. If we were arguing about the food in your fridge and I were claiming you had food in your fridge when you did not you could easily prove me wrong by just showing me the contents of your fridge.
More importantly, why does the hardness of doing a thing give you special status to make claims without proof? Seems like you are artificially constructing rules here solely because they benefit your position.
We can't. But that is no reason to believe there is one.
The universe is massive. There are teapots here. Why is it not plausible to believe some other alien race would not also construct some kind of teapot? Also, consider the fact that all teapots here on earth are literally teapots in "outerspace" in some sense.
If you are claiming something doesn't exist you should prove it. Why should I take your argument seriously without proof? You see how this goes both ways?
Despite millenia of disproven lies about a non existing almighty being, you still believe this being indeed does exist
There is a whole area in Philosophy called Philosophy of Religion that would really like your disproof of the existence of such a being. They have atheists and theists alike.
Why should the government support someone's bad eating habit when they don't support someone's alcohol habit, or cocaine habit?
I'm not a doctor at all, but for certain addictions, people can die from the withdrawls that occur if they just stop. I'd imagine in those cases rehab and treatment requires supporting the habit via the drug itself or a safer analog in order to keep the individual alive so that they are able to draw down and eventually quit whatever the source of their addiction is.
For example:
Yeah, true. No Euclidean distances implicit to this problem. Oh, wait...
My mans looks like an actual ghoul in this thumbnail. Has anybody checked if he has an actual pulse yet?
There are some subtleties to this particular topic that are worth mentioning. I would be careful to distinguish between constructing vs defining here.
The usual definition of the irrationals works roughly like this:
You have a set of numbers R which you call the real numbers. You have a subset of the real numbers Q which you call the rational numbers. You define a real number to be irrational if it is not a rational number.
This is perfectly rigorous, but it relies on knowing what you mean by R and Q.
Both R and Q can be defined "without" (a full) construction by letting R be any complete ordered field. Such a field has a multiplicative identity 1 by definition. So, take 0 along with all sums of the form 1, 1+1, 1+1+1 and so on. We can call this set N. We can take Z to be the set of all elements of N and all additive inverses of elements of N. Finally take Q to be the set containing all elements of Z and all multiplicative inverses of (nonzero) elements of Z. Now we have our R and Q. Also, each step of the above follows from our field axioms. Defining irrationals is straightforward from this.
So, the definition bit here is not a problem. The bigger issue is that this definition doesn't tell us that a complete ordered field exists. We can define things that don't exist, like purple flying pigs and so on.
What the dedekind cut construction shows is that using only the axioms of zfc we can construct at least one complete ordered field.
So its a case of it not working on irrational numbers, its just that we cant prove it because we cant calculate the multiplication of 2, right?
The issue is the proving part. We can't use repeated addition trickery (at least not in an obvious way) to show a product of two irrational negative numbers is positive. It's definitely still true that a product of two negative numbers is positive, just that proving it in general requires a different approach.
Somehow, my mind has issues with the e*pi = ke. Id say that ke = e * pi is impossible because k is an integer and pi isnt, no? It could never be equals, i think.
Yes this is correct. The ke example is for a proof by contradiction. We are assuming something is true in order to show it forces us to be able to conclude something ridiculous/false. Since the rest of our reasoning was correct, then it must have been our starting assumption that was wrong. So, we have to conclude our starting assumption was wrong/false.
Multiplying two negative irrational numbers together will still give you a positive number, it's just that you can't prove this by treating multiplication as repeated addition like you can multiplication involving integers (note that 3 is an integer, 3 is not irrational, the issue is when you have two irrationals).
So, for example with e pi, pi isn't an integer. No matter how many times we add e to itself we'll never get e pi.
Try it yourself: Assume that we can add e to itself k (a nonnegative integer) times to get the value e pi. Then e pi = ke follows by basic properties of algebra. If we divide both sides of this equation by e we find that pi=k. But we know k is an integer, and pi is not an integer. So, we have reached a contradiction and this means our original assumption must be false. e pi can't be equal to e added to itself k times (no matter which nonnegative integer k that we pick).
Copy pasted from my other comment:
This doesn't work if you have to deal with multiplication of numbers that are not integers. You can adjust your idea to work with rational numbers (i.e. ratios of integers) but you will have trouble once you start wanting to multiply irrational numbers like e and pi where you cannot treat multiplication easily as repeated addition.
The actual answer here is that the set of real numbers form a structure called an ordered field and that the nice properties we are familiar with from algebra (for ex that a product of two negatives is positive) can be proved from properties of ordered fields.
This doesn't work if you have to deal with multiplication of numbers that are not integers. You can adjust your idea to work with rational numbers (i.e. ratios of integers) but you will have trouble once you start wanting to multiply irrational numbers like e and pi where you cannot treat multiplication easily as repeated addition.
The actual answer here is that the set of real numbers form a structure called an ordered field and that the nice properties we are familiar with from algebra (for ex that a product of two negatives is positive) can be proved from properties of ordered fields.
Don't confuse the wording "set of real numbers" here, this is just the technical name for the collection of numbers people use from elementary algebra on through to calculus.
Machine learning techniques are often thought of as fancy function approximation tools (i.e. for regression and classification problems). They are tools that receive a set of values and spit out some discrete or possibly continuous prediction value.
One use case is that there are a lot of really hard+important problems within CS that we can't solve efficiently exactly (lookup TSP, SOP, SAT and so on) but that we can solve using heuristics or approximations in reasonable time. Often the accuracy of the heuristic even determines the efficiency of our solution.
Additionally, sometimes we want predictions for other reasons. For example, software that relies on user preference, that predicts home values, that predicts the safety of an engineering plan, that predicts the likelihood that a person has cancer, that predicts the likelihood that an object in a video frame is a human etc.
These tools have legitamite and important use cases it's just that a lot of the hype now is centered around the dumbest possible uses and a bunch of idiots trying to make money regardless of any associated ethical concerns or consequences.
You also said: "A nonexistent almighty being". Did you mean no gods exist, or did you mean all the gods people claim to exist so far have been debunked?
More importantly, for the claim "no god exists" specifically, I disagree that no proof is required in general. There needs to be an actual proof as much as there needs to be a proof of the negation, that "a god exists", for either to be worth accepting. If neither can be proved, why commit to believing the truth of either?
Additionally, disproving particular examples doesn't prove the general rule. Having no documented sign pointing to the existence of a god does not confirm the absence of a god anymore than having no documented signs of a gas leak in your home confirms the absence of a gas leak in your home. Perhaps the detector you are using is broken, perhaps the type of gas leaking in your home is not detectable by your detector.
It would also be incredibly hard to design any kind of empirical test to confirm or disconfirm the existence of gods in general (not just the christian flavored ones).