What constitutes 'proof' on JWN?

by besty 81 Replies latest jw friends

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    Band on the Run,

    What you write is completely valid from a perspective of jurisprudence. Where I would disagree with your presentation is in the idea that participants here forum should trust their gut and their own life experience.

    The part about trusting one’s own life experience is fine, for the individual. But the gut part gets us into trouble because it’s an emotional response rather than one based on objective processing of information.

    Learning and rigorously applying well-known and accepted conventions of logical argumentation leads to sound conclusions. This method introduces objectivity and is pretty much devoid of emotional reasoning so long as we are willing to put our argumentation out there for the heat of review and potential refutation, and then we engage that review and potential refutation.

    Best case scenario is we can form a solid deductive conclusion. If not, the next best is a solid inductive conclusion.

    Regardless, proof is something that’s verifiable. If the only means of verification is our personal experience then, to us, verification might be achieved. But we should not expect others to accept that alone as proof. To do so would reduce others to accepting something we assert because we assert it.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Marvin,

    We must agree to disagree. I never said to only trust your gut. The additional sentences that discuss try being aware of your biases and that your experience is limited were written deliberately. You must realize that I do this professionally and it carries over to other areas of my life, such as church.

    My college schedule could not accomodate the Rhetoric course. Some people suggested it was good to know for law. I wanted to take the course just to know the basics. Experienced lawyers, however, told me it was a waste of time. Law school will teach you what you need to know - if you are at a decent law school. The very bottom schools do not teach reasoning well. Well, I could no be where I was in the past or now without reasoning skills.

    During stints when I do not practice, I always try to learn formal logical and rhetoric. It is not that great in real life circumstances. No lawyer ever says if only I took Rhetoric. What I could use more fruitfully is more writing courses where my paper is returned with more red ink than blue or black ink on the page. The other essential thing I could use would be experience on presenting a play and tons of actual improv experience from a good acting school.

    I've never heard of any busy, successful lawyer carving out time to learn formal logic. When I read the intros to formal logic, I do it naturally. Lawyers do carve out time for hard core advanced writing coures which are expensive b/c the instructor must be much better than you. Writing keeps deteriorating in this country. Look at me. I write differently in prof'l life. Large law firms were forced to hire seasoned English profs from the most elite school to teach their associates from Harvard, Yale, etc. basic writing. Although I always received As in English, I had to work very hard to write properly. I am very conscious of what good writing can do. Sometimes I come across superb writing. Writing can seduce you. It can be a sheer joy to read.

    Besides writing, most serious litigators lose money to learn improv. and stage presentation for jury trials. It is hard to find a good improv group. Also, people tend to do things that are easy for them. Improv is hard work for many lawyers. I ask their opinion because I want to know if it is worth the embarssment, hardship, and money to do it myself. Everyone who has done is almost orgasmsic about the different it made in practice.

    In an ideal world, I would force people to learn Rhetoric. Sometimes, though, you know enough to get by without a formal course. Maybe I am wrong. There is enormous socialization in law school. Your brain changes. People swear they will never think that way no matter what. Never say never. The ones who swear never are the very ones who do it the most. No human can know everythiing about everything. We have time commitments. There is infinite knowledge but our brains are very limited. We can only know so many facts at one time.

    I agree with you in theory. My interests are diverse For many years, I saw no advantage to knowing art history when I do civil rights law. Fashion does not help you with history. Suddenly, I finally saw integration. All my interests helped me to do my job better in some way I could never imagine. During the Renaissance and for a long time in American history, educated people knew many subjects well. Technology changed that pattern. Now we tend to be specialists over narrow areas. Practice made me know a narrow area in great depth. I pray to God that a generalist exists to co-ordinate the different specialties. I saw no evidence that there was one. Bankers are generalists. Society today needs both kinds of people.

    I know my special areas very well. Nevertheless, I know in my core that I am clueless and know nothing about other areas. It terrifies me. The wonderful thing about humans is that we can barter information and skills. There is not enough time for me to learn all the skills and info that I need in my life.

    My fear with my education and experience is that someone might believe that education is a miracle worker. People consider me very bright in my narrow field. They don't consider me bright outside of my field. My perspective as a Witness is that we were brainwashed not to trust our guts. Yet, particularly for women, your gut can save you from rape and torture, perhaps murder. So many times in real life my gut told me something. I dismiss my gut b/c I grew up as a Witness and what do i know. I start thinking too much. What would another culture do in the same circumstance? Is there a historical precedent?

    We are animals,not computers. Hard experience that I will not reveal taught me to appreciate my gut. Sometimes it was wrong. 98 percent of the time my gut knew better than my intellect. When emergencies happen, you do not have time to reason the situation out. You need to flee and immediately flee. I suspect that many Witnesses and born-ins, in particular, pay a very high price for not trusting their gut. Why should we honor our gut more? It is not our fault. The WTBTS crippled our gut and brain connection. We must be aware that your gut feelings are important. I was two or three years old and my gut told me the Witnesses were serious bad news. My gut told me before I was old enough to reason.

    Also, you may not be aware but rape prevention experts go around and tell women not to use their reason b/c it can cripple you. Trust your gut is the basic message I have heard for decades. I don't think that most decent, good men have any clue how women fear rape and how pervasive the constant fear is. Men only experience the same threat in prison. Women and men have different body strengths. Reality is reality. Martial arts may give you confidence. In normal encounters a man can win almost any time. I had to study this for professional reasons. Feminists do not suggest learning how to take down a man. There are obvious ways. When women are faced with rape, they must decide for themselves a host of things n a few seconds. Your very life depends on it. Many times being raped is better than fighting. Women can reconstruct a life after rape. It will never be the same life as before the rape. When you are murdered or mutilated,however, there is no life to resconstruct.

    I don't disagree with you. My hope was to shed some light on what I learned from hard experience and many years of school/extra training. I value academia so much. Indeed, I worship it. Academics cannot function with carpenters, subway workers. Education does not make you better. You learn some skills at the risk of not developing other skills. The best way is to balance your life. I pay so much because of specializing. Before my education, I knew some carpentry, more housekeeping, etc. Don't underestimate the value of thosse skills.

  • zed is dead
    zed is dead

    Marvin likes absolute proof. His "hypothetical" scenario is thinly veiled. Most people can decide things by preponderance of evidence.

    "According to 2 CFR 180.990, “preponderance of the evidence” means proof by information that, compared with information opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.

    Preponderance of the evidence is "such evidence as, when considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in your minds belief that what is sought to be proved is more likely true than not true."[Williams v. Eau Claire Pub. Sch., 397 F.3d 441, 446 (6th Cir. Mich. 2005)]"

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/preponderance-of-the-evidence/

    zed

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    Band on the Run,

    My object was to neither agree nor disagree with what you said from the perspective you said it. That said, I did state my agreement with what you said from the perspective it’s shared from. Hence the term “would” in my second sentence.

    Your contributions here are valuable. I’d say, very valuable.

    When you say you’ve never heard of any busy, successful lawyer carving out time to learn formal logic I believe you. Though more than one attorney at law has disputed this with me, my observation is that lawyers make fallacious arguments on a nearly routine basis in order to appeal to emotions and, more importantly, because various legal standards do not require strictly logical argumentation. Successful lawyers rarely have to depend on hard logical alone to make a case. For example, what makes or breaks a trial lawyer’s case is usually the question of how a reasonable person would view the evidence. A decent student of formal logic knows that a reasonable person does not mean a person who knows and applies logically sound reason, but rather the term “reasonable person” is a casual term (a legal fiction, if you will) denoting individuals possessing average judgment.

    The point of my prior posting was only to express that participants here at JWN do have an objective means of evaluating claims made, and that objective means is the well-known and respected conventions of logical construction and refutation. If there was a single piece of advice I could offer to anyone here or elsewhere—and among Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular—it would be to learn logic as a life-skill.

    Logic is devoid of bias. There is no better tool to help us look beyond our own biases than this one.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “Marvin likes absolute proof. His "hypothetical" scenario is thinly veiled. Most people can decide things by preponderance of evidence.”

    No. What I look for is [logical] soundness.

    Sound conclusions do not require absolute proof. Sound conclusions require proof to the extent those conclusions are asserted as true. Said another way, if you assert a conclusion as a possibility then it needs only to be proven as a possibility. Said yet another way, if you assert a conclusion as a likelihood then you have to prove it beyond possibility to the point of probability. Only when a conclusion is asserted as absolutely true does it need absolute proof.

    Hence it would be unsound to assert a conclusion as absolutely true or probably true if it had only been proven as a possibility.

    When a person speaks in terms of preponderance of evidence, whether they realize it or not, they are trying to build an inductive conclusion rather than a deductive conclusion. Though inductive conclusions are useful, they are not as solid as the deductive.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Simon
    Simon
    In the example case of Henry and Joe, the one making an accusation has something to gain by fabricating an incident. The most likely reason for fabrication would be to bolster their own position/complaint when they’d be better off proving their complaint without fabricating a story to bolster it. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve known this to happen in online discussion forums.

    Wait? What? They have something to gain from making a complaint and the thing they have to gain is that it bolsters their complaint?

    I think you have a bit of circular reasoning going on there Marvin!

    If making the complaint distracts from some behavior that they want to negate then they have a reason for it ... I don't think many really have reasons to make spurious complaints for no purpose. I'm not saying it never happens, I know from first hand experience that some people are idiots and like to play games but typically it is because of something and an attempt at retaliation for something (whether justified or not).

    I get iot all the time usually if someone has had a post edited or removed and they take exception to it. Some want a 5 minute rant, others keep up animosity literally for years (yes, there are some crazyeeee people out there).

    That's why you don't provide people who may want to cause trouble a believable reason how you may have caused them harm.

    On the other hand, and again to the example case of Henry and Joe, the accused has something to gain by refuting or minimizing the alleged incident. The most likely reason would be to protect or otherwise salvage reputation. In this case the best moral and ethical response would be to admit and apologize for any untoward action, if any. If there is something about an accusation that’s false then request for proof is reasonable and if that proof is not forthcoming then the accused can point out this unproven aspect and, if possible, they may offer refutation of it.

    And if they cannot prove their counter-claim then we're really no nearer forward are we?

    So we're back to "gain vs loss" and why it's important to have good processes as a protection.

  • Rocky_Girl
    Rocky_Girl

    Besty: Do I understand your question correctly? Are you asking what is needed as proof of personal experiences people post about on this forum?

    So, for example, say I came on here and wrote a long, sad story about how the wt ruined my life and how I'm trying to leave and have included emails from my family and things said by elders to me to back up my assertion. How do you know if what I say is true? What proof should I provide?

    If this is what you mean, I would say that my word is enough.

    We all know there have been posters that have gone on and on with unbelievable stories looking for sympathy and attention. If I feel someone is being dishonest about how they are being treated, I just don't respond to them. I don't waste energy trying to pick apart their story because it doesn't matter. If they break forum rules and ask for money, Simon & Co usually put a stop to it fairly quickly.

    If you are talking about posters accusing other posters of misdeeds, it can get a lot messier. But I think that, unless there is something against forum rules, it is just out there and you have to ignore it. I believe that calling out another poster in a topic is against the rules, so report it and get on with your life.

    We are all here to heal, or help others heal. We can't demand proof. We just have to decide what action we will take. You can believe what they say and try to help them out in whatever way you find best. You can respond and accuse, which only reinforces the "victim" complex and rallies those who believe the person to defend them. Or, you can ignore them and hope that the lack of attention moves the post into oblivion. At the end of the day, you have to decide if it is really worth your time and energy to force honesty from an anonymous person you met online. Hint: It isn't...

    Just my 2 cents...

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    How do I decide what to believe of what is written here? Very subjectively, I have to say. There's currently a very popular thread running at the moment for example, that I don't believe a word of e story is true. But it's entertaining nonetheless. And I might be wrong, so what does it matter?

    Leaving that to one side.

    Some things are really not all that hard to get to the bottom of. When you have half a dozen or more longstanding posters, with no apparent axe to grind, stating matter of factly that a certain website has caused them problems, there is no real reason to doubt what they say. And if there are a couple of very self-important people on the other side claiming there is "no proof" for this and that, then their motives are pretty transparent too.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Marvin: If you see someone covering something up that you know happened and then claiming that it didn't happen and that everyone is lying about it and then someone else makes another claim about a very similar incident which this time you cannot verify, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who you should believe - it just takes some down to earth common sense.

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    It depends a lot on what is being discussed. If I say that mid level corporate accountants in the Seattle area earn an average salary of $45,750/yr that is an easily verified factoid. I can say my wife and I mailed our DA letter on March 18, 1989 and that is true but unverifiable because I have no idea where my copy of the letter is. Or even if it still exists. People will have to believe or disbelieve that as suits them. If I say that poster "x" called me a stupid Republican people who know something of both me and poster "x" will form their own opinions based on what they know of us - and those opinions may tell you more about the people forming them than it will about me and poster "x."

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit