Board 8 > C/D: If you can't explain why someone else is wrong, then you're wrong.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I can't think of anything that explains why this is wrong. Does that mean I'm wrong?
---

Only a sith deals in absolutes
---

The last Sith is absolutely dead
---

Is the word "heterological" autological or heterological?
---

Nope. Just because you lack the knowledge to explain something does not mean you don't happen to be correct.

For example:

Person 1: "Gravity doesn't exist."
Person 2: "Yes, it does."
Person 1: "Prove it, bitch."
Person 2: "I am a fellow middle schooler and lack the depth of knowledge to explain why gravity exists. However, I am sure it does exist. Ask me again in a few years and I'll endeavor to acquire the requisite knowledge. In the meantime, get a job. Get a life."

Person 2 is not wrong. It doesn't matter that they can't explain why Person 1 is wrong.
---

SaveEstelle posted...

Nope. Just because you lack the knowledge to explain something does not mean you don't happen to be correct.

For example:

Person 1: "Gravity doesn't exist."
Person 2: "Yes, it does."
Person 1: "Prove it, bitch."
Person 2: "I am a fellow middle schooler and lack the depth of knowledge to explain why gravity exists. However, I am sure it does exist. Ask me again in a few years and I'll endeavor to acquire the requisite knowledge. In the meantime, get a job. Get a life."

Person 2 is not wrong. It doesn't matter that they can't explain why Person 1 is wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I had an argument yesterday with somebody who claimed that Steam was spyware, and demanded that we prove that it wasn't. Some people can't understand Russel's Teapot or the burden of proof.
---

SaveEstelle posted...

Just because you lack the knowledge to explain something does not mean you don't happen to be correct.

True that, but what if you have the knowledge and can't utilize facts to explain it? Your example does not contain any actual evidence from either imaginary middle schooler.

Let's say Person 2 looked it up and was able to explain that, without gravity, we'd be floating in space. Person 1 can't explain anything to debunk this other than petty "No it doesn't" retorts. That means they are wrong, right?
---

KujikawaRising posted...

SaveEstelle posted...

Just because you lack the knowledge to explain something does not mean you don't happen to be correct.

True that, but what if you have the knowledge and can't utilize facts to explain it? Your example does not contain any actual evidence from either imaginary middle schooler.

Let's say Person 2 looked it up and was able to explain that, without gravity, we'd be floating in space. Person 1 can't explain anything to debunk this other than petty "No it doesn't" retorts. That means they are wrong, right?

The fundamental nature of matter is of nearly infinitesimally small strings of energy vibrating in 11 dimensions.

You might exclaim "THAT'S BULLSHIT"

And you'd be right. But could you tell me why?
---

You're using "wrong" wrong. The person without words or explanation might be the loser in rhetoric or epistemology, but that doesn't make them actually incorrect.
---

The important part here is that Person 2 told Person 1 to get job, get life.
---

Deny
---

the ability of one human to explain or understand something does not decide reality.
---

Human arguments/perception have exactly 0 influence on actual reality.

But it's also the case that all we know of reality is filtered through human perception, so for "wrong" or "right" to be useful concepts, they need to take human perception into account. In that sense, what is "right" is only what we humans can perceive and be convinced is right. For example "electrons have a negative charge", "gravity is a wave", "the earth is round", are all dependent on approximations that humans invented to talk about reality (math, physics, etc). If you can't explain what "negative charge" or "wave" or "round" means, then you might very well be wrong when saying those supposedly true statements.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the ability of one human to explain or understand something does not decide reality.

thank heavens too
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Human arguments/perception have exactly 0 influence on actual reality.

But it's also the case that all we know of reality is filtered through human perception, so for "wrong" or "right" to be useful concepts, they need to take human perception into account. In that sense, what is "right" is only what we humans can perceive and be convinced is right. For example "electrons have a negative charge", "gravity is a wave", "the earth is round", are all dependent on approximations that humans invented to talk about reality (math, physics, etc). If you can't explain what "negative charge" or "wave" or "round" means, then you might very well be wrong when saying those supposedly true statements.

gravity isnt a wave
---

obviously not. you could be right by accident or lucky guess. or you could have been told by someone else, who is more knowledgeable and could explain it if asked. or you could just be bad at articulating yourself.

KujikawaRising posted...

Let's say Person 2 looked it up and was able to explain that, without gravity, we'd be floating in space. Person 1 can't explain anything to debunk this other than petty "No it doesn't" retorts. That means they are wrong, right?

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?
---

Gatarix posted...

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?

Fair enough. I guess I am wrong, then, since I can't debunk that.

So this is only true in like witness accounts, I guess, where perception IS reality.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

Gatarix posted...

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?

Fair enough. I guess I am wrong, then, since I can't debunk that.

So this is only true in like witness accounts, I guess, where perception IS reality.

what? that couldn't be farther than the truth
---

NFUN posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

Gatarix posted...

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?

Fair enough. I guess I am wrong, then, since I can't debunk that.

So this is only true in like witness accounts, I guess, where perception IS reality.

what? that couldn't be farther than the truth

What he's saying is that in stuff like eye witness accounts, if their account can't be proved wrong, potentially inaccurate, etc., then it's taken as correct.
---

NFUN posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

Gatarix posted...

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?

Fair enough. I guess I am wrong, then, since I can't debunk that.

So this is only true in like witness accounts, I guess, where perception IS reality.

what? that couldn't be farther than the truth

Since you're not explaining why I'm wrong, does that make you wrong? :P

Seriously, though, a jury's going to side with a witness if they can't be proven wrong.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

NFUN posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

Gatarix posted...

let's suppose that Person 1 is creative, and proposes that we don't float into space because of invisible elves using a complex system of magical, intangible pulleys and strings. (the elves themselves don't float off into space because elves fly, duh) Person 2 can't think of anything to debunk this other than saying "That's dumb. You're dumb." so Person 2 is the wrong one now?

Fair enough. I guess I am wrong, then, since I can't debunk that.

So this is only true in like witness accounts, I guess, where perception IS reality.

what? that couldn't be farther than the truth

Since you're not explaining why I'm wrong, does that make you wrong? :P

Seriously, though, a jury's going to side with a witness if they can't be proven wrong.

Eyewitness testimony is almost absolutely worthless and in most cases if that's the only evidence then the defendant should be found not guilty.

Burden of proof again
---

NFUN posted...

Eyewitness testimony is almost absolutely worthless and in most cases if that's the only evidence then the defendant should be found not guilty.

Burden of proof again

I mean, maybe that's how it should work, but that's certainly not how it does work.

The burden of proof is never on the eyewitness unless there are inconsistencies in their account. The burden of proof is almost always on the defense to prove what the witness says they saw didn't happen/they couldn't have seen it/etc.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

Seriously, though, a jury's going to side with a witness if they can't be proven wrong.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of ways to attack a witness even if you can't directly disprove his account of events. You could say he had an inadequate opportunity to observe (maybe he was mugged at night and wouldn't have been able to see the guy's face clearly; maybe it was a drive-by shooting and the witness fled as soon as he saw the gun -- did he really get a good look at the shooter's face?). You could say the witness had a motive to lie (maybe the defendant is a member of a rival gang; maybe the witness was a police officer who might have been covering up his own misconduct). You could say the identification procedures used by police were overly suggestive (it was a "show-up" of one guy in handcuffs in the back of a police car, rather than a more neutral lineup of 5-6 guys).

(Having said that, a lot of defendants are convicted purely on eyewitness testimony, with no physical evidence linking them to the crime. I'm generally suspicious of these cases when it's an identification of a stranger with limited opportunity to observe. But that's how it is. I guess a lot of jurors think like you -- they put too much trust in eyewitness testimony if it's not "disproven.")
---

StealThisSheen posted...

NFUN posted...

Eyewitness testimony is almost absolutely worthless and in most cases if that's the only evidence then the defendant should be found not guilty.

Burden of proof again

I mean, maybe that's how it should work, but that's certainly not how it does work.

The burden of proof is never on the eyewitness unless there are inconsistencies in their account. The burden of proof is almost always on the defense to prove what the witness says they saw didn't happen/they couldn't have seen it/etc.

I meant that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. And eyewitness testimony shouldn't cut it.

In any case, I was arguing against the claim that "perception is reality". If you're talking about subjective reality, sure, if I'm tripping balls and see a unicorn jump through my window then I saw a unicorn jump through my window, but that's getting tautological. And memory is far from infallible.
---

Gatarix posted...

KujikawaRising posted...

Seriously, though, a jury's going to side with a witness if they can't be proven wrong.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of ways to attack a witness even if you can't directly disprove his account of events. You could say he had an inadequate opportunity to observe (maybe he was mugged at night and wouldn't have been able to see the guy's face clearly; maybe it was a drive-by shooting and the witness fled as soon as he saw the gun -- did he really get a good look at the shooter's face?). You could say the witness had a motive to lie (maybe the defendant is a member of a rival gang; maybe the witness was a police officer who might have been covering up his own misconduct). You could say the identification procedures used by police were overly suggestive (it was a "show-up" of one guy in handcuffs in the back of a police car, rather than a more neutral lineup of 5-6 guys).

(Having said that, a lot of defendants are convicted purely on eyewitness testimony, with no physical evidence linking them to the crime. I'm generally suspicious of these cases when it's an identification of a stranger with limited opportunity to observe. But that's how it is. I guess a lot of jurors think like you -- they put too much trust in eyewitness testimony if it's not "disproven.")

To be fair, in practice, those are ways to disprove the account, so you guys aren't really disagreeing.
---

NFUN posted...

I meant that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. And eyewitness testimony shouldn't cut it.

Eh, I disagree in practice.

It's much easier to get physical evidence thrown out by dubious means than it is a witness, so sometimes witness testimony may be the only thing you have to go along with the basics like motive, lack of alibi, etc.
---

Witness testimony may be rarely thrown out, but I feel they carry very little weight to a jury/judge.

If it did then a lot more people would get convicted of sexual assault/rape
---

StealThisSheen posted...

NFUN posted...

I meant that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. And eyewitness testimony shouldn't cut it.

Eh, I disagree in practice.

It's much easier to get physical evidence thrown out by dubious means than it is a witness, so sometimes witness testimony may be the only thing you have to go along with the basics like motive, lack of alibi, etc.

I'm arguing purely about ideology and epistemology.
---

incorrect

I am a prime example of this, I'll know the headline to something but wont know the substance to explain.
---

NFUN posted...

I'm arguing purely about ideology and epistemology.

Fair enough. I see your point.
---

No. Other people don't become more correct as I become dumber.
---

NFUN posted...

gravity isnt a wave

See what I mean?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

NFUN posted...

gravity isnt a wave

See what I mean?

Go away
---

From an ideological perspective I think eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict, if it's reliable. I just have doubts about its reliability in many circumstances.

Like, I saw a case where a guy shot up an arcade. Afterwards, three people saw him leaving the scene of the crime, still holding the rifle. Each of the three people recognized him as someone they knew from the neighborhood, with a distinctive gait, and they positively identified him by name to the police. That guy is 100% guilty, lock him up.

But I also saw a drive-by shooting case where several friends are hanging out on their front porch at midnight. Car drives up, the passenger says "what's up," then pulls out a gun and starts firing. Everyone scatters. Later, two of the surviving victims identify defendant as the shooter. Defendant is convicted. That I don't buy at all; even assuming the witnesses are perfectly genuine and honest, I don't trust a glimpse of a stranger's face for a couple seconds at night.
---