What constitutes 'proof' on JWN? (page 4)

Band on the Run

Defining what is proof by a preponderance of the evidence by only citing the Federal Rules of Evidence makes my point. There are countless definitons depending on state. Once upon a time, there was a definition that was British. It was simple. America's vastness and number of colonies then states makes the issue of definition very difficult. It varies from state to state. Besides the geographical variety, it varies by time. Many years ago you needed an advanced legal degree to understand the words used to explain the rule. Most lawyers did not understand the rule. I will publicly admit that I am one who still doesn't understand the rule.

Besides the language in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Civ. Pro rules, hundreds of cases further define the rule. No one can remember all the definitons. How a concept is worded makes a difference in practical application. When you read legal material, you should be aware that there is a point where normal life may change the rule.

I believe I have a sophsiticated understanding of the rules from years of reading and practicing. Do I understand it completely? No way. The only people who fully understand it are law students with no experience.

It is not good when normal business people, tenants, whatever have no clue what a law means. There are not enough lawyers to deal with the problem. Normal life requires understandable rules that every day people can comprehend. Not everyone needs an advanced degree in law to live life. Perhaps B.c I grew up in poor neighborhood I knew something when I was in junior high school. McCrory's, Woolworth, stationery stores sold forms for about one dollar. Many business people cannot afford the cheapest lawyer. An important segment of the economy functioned with no lawyers. The basic concepts are easy. There were some disasters but it functioned well for the most part. If I did not have that exposure when young, I would prob. argue not to leave your house without a lawyer. Law is complicated. Some lawyers are so bad you might be better without one.

A month ago I passed on some quick nuggets of info for graduating law students. In your personal life, don't spend hours researching the way you do in school or work. Just rhrow some general terms from first year. If you need more complexity, you can always go back and do the research. Why waste hours when you can have a good time? I can do U.S. Supreme Court landmark case, This was my school's strength. Complicated and important. I never was taught everyday law such as basic contracts, simple house closings. More people need help with the so-called simpler subjects. I love doing complicated work. Yet I bungle the simpler tasks. Someone from an elite law school is not the person to hire for basic life. We are terrible at it.

I was forced to learn how to not escalate, not research, not complicate matters. It was very hard for me. On the other hand, I don't think the lawyers who attended schools that specialize in basics could do advanced law.

Law works for law. It does not good for normal life.

OnTheWayOut

This is a discussion forum. We cannot expect proof of any allegations. As BOTR mentions, this forum is not a trial or appeals court.

Oh, we will look at the credibility of those that make accusations or refute them, as excellently discussed above by Simon. The JWN history of those involved helps us to narrow down whether to believe someone or not. If you don't know enough, you will probably just have to read with caution.

But really, if you are not the party involved in an accusation, don't expect proof to come your way. Even if you are the party involved, don't expect proof to come on JWN.

Otherwise, some excellent points have been made about filtering the information. We have newbies come on with the incredible stories all the time. Most times, our filters can decide how much to believe. But we proceed with caution and remember as BluesBrother says, it is only his assertion.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“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!”

Simon,

There’s nothing circular in what I said.

Circular reasoning is a particular form of fallacious argument. What you’re speaking to above of mine is not an argument. My remark you respond to is an observation of human nature.

A common antic is for a person to see something deserving complaint and complain accordingly. So far so good. But for whatever reason they want to drive in their complaint further than current evidence allows. What to do? The person embellishes and/or invents evidence that takes the complaint to a whole new level. That’s the point at which the person is attempting to gain traction for their own purposes by embellishment, if not complete fabrication. The “gain” for this person is to underpin the extent to which they want to push their complaint.

Take note that what I write above is not an argument. It’s an observation of the extent humans sometimes go to further an agenda.

“I don't think many really have reasons to make spurious complaints for no purpose.”

Maybe it happens often and maybe not. That fact is it happens, and it’s happened on this forum more than a few times over the years. Most of the time this sort of thing occurs in tandem with heated discussion over issues very personal to one or more participants. Sometimes it occurs because one person upsets another over something trivial. It happens. And, as said above, often it begins with a very valid complaint and ends up with an overstatement of evidence in an effort to make the complaint larger than evidence supports. Some people use a phrase to describe the concept saying, “You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill”.

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

In my world a counterclaim is usually a bad idea. If an accusation is made of me I insist the accuser prove their claim to the very extent they assert it. If they can’t then I merely point out that their accusation is unproven.

To make a counterclaim puts a person in a position to prove the counterclaim, and something doing this is impossible.

In any event, an uproven claim is nothing more and nothing less than an unproven claim. It has about as much value as a piece of common gossip.

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

In my book the appropriate process for assessing accusations is as I’ve already outlined in this discussion. It’s a rational approach, and one that can be supported and that others can examine for veracity. It’s not dependant on emotion or personal experience, including my own.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“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.”

slimboyfat,

I agree wholeheartedly with what you write above.

Presuming you think me one of the “very self-important” contrarians in the above scenario, you’d be wrong.

We both know what you’re talking about. I have no doubt that a certain web site caused problems for individuals. On the other hand, whether an individual suffered the harm of being disfellowshipped as a result of the web site is a wholly different question, one which your scenario above does not address. We have lots of evidence to support and corroborate the former. We don’t have such evidence in support or corroboration of the latter.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“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.”

Simon,

What you suggest above is a fallacious reasoning process called converting a conditional.

In form the fallacy looks like this:

Because “A” was done then “B” happened, therefore if we have report of “B” then it was caused by “A” being done.

It’s very similar to affirmation of the consequent, which is also a fallacious process of reasoning. A simple truth table demonstrates both these forms of reasoning are fallacy.

A person can believe whatever they want. But what can be proven true depends on whether a thing can be corroborated.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“This is a discussion forum. We cannot expect proof of any allegations.”

OnTheWayOut,

I agree we cannot expect proof. But failure to prove an allegation is a product of poor ethical standards and should not be tolerated by persons with good ethical standards.

Allegations made publicly deserve to be challenged publicly.

Allegations that are not proven true to the extent they are asserted as true deserve to have this pointed out.

Marvin Shilmer

Simon

Marvin. Never have I known anyone be able to use so many words while saying so little.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Marvin. Never have I known anyone be able to use so many words while saying so little.”

Simon,

My apology for giving reason.

Short version:

What you wrote is fallacy.

Does that suit you better?

Marvin Shilmer

iCeltic

I agree with slimboyfat.

And I agree with Simon, most times just using common sense is the answer. And sometimes we'll never know who is lying and who is telling the truth. You can generally tell a lot by someone's response, of just how argumentative they are or extremely pedantic.

ablebodiedman

A proof to me, is where the sheer number of published and easily accessable evidences reaches a point beyond coincidence and where any thought of scepticism becomes unreasonable.

On JWN it's a little different.

If a proof reaches the point where scepticism is unreasonable and the implication to the audiance is not convenient, the thread will be ignored and quickly sink away.

.

What constitutes 'proof' on JWN?

Share this