Hacker News Reader

> Parroting Christopher Hitchens: what is presented without proof can be dismissed without proof

This is nonsense that assumes an antagonistic purpose to a discussion, and not actually an attempt to reach a higher understanding.

Isn‘t this the burden of proof under a different name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Is this a thing that is discussed in philosophy, except that Christopher Hitchens recently claimed it to be?

A burden of proof applies to law, by convention, but not to the truth of a situation.

If I say "513x217=111321", it's true whether I prove it to you or not. My statement of it does not obligate me to prove it.

If I say there's gold buried at certain coordinates, that's also true independent of whether I prove it. The point is that the quote is a heuristic that works because most of the by the time you hear that claim, most of the statistical work has been done, hidden in the premise in a way that skips your intuitions a bit (the kolgomoroff comolexity of my phrase is a lot higher than yours, even though they're of about the same length, even though the number of bits needed to verify each is about the same).

>that's also true independent of whether I prove it.

This is so different from my point that I'm not sure how it relates.

I am confident there is literal treasure near to where I live, because I've seen very convincing evidence of dredging from multiple sources. In my mind, it is proven. But, I'm not acting on that because I don't find it worthwhile.

On the other hand, if a stranger told me there was a police traffic stop in a particular direction, I'd probably take a detour - even if there was a complete lack of proof.

Proof doesn't guide my action at all - I don't require a burden of proof in order to act.

Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a philosophical one.

You're acting based on your priors and new evidence. You have a high prior for police stops existing in general, and a low one for people randomly lying about it, so a stranger saying there's one that way is compelling evidence to you. You have a high prior on the existence of treausure nearvy, but a low one of the existence of treasure worth the effort of finding, so me telling you you could get rich quick isn't compelling evidence to you.

This no longer has anything to do with 'burden of proof', which I continue to reject as a concept (maybe you are agreeing with me?).

I'm saying you're taking as if it were some sort of ontological model or normative rule of discourse, when really it's a verbalisation of a heuristic you've already admitted to using. You're using something like 'burden of proof' as an algorithm, even if you consciously reject it as a verbal tool.

That's not a 'burden of proof'.

Yes, and the same applies to that.

> But noo, we have to have a boogeyman to build a network of cultural changes. This particular mechanism of hijacking a natural disaster for control is embarrassingly transparent.

It might be a side-effect in many local politics right now (never let a good crisis to waste), and many of them act incompetent (or maybe they're always incompetent but now we see it clearer when they're in the spotlight), but I don't think that was the point GP was making. It also assumes a conspiracy of actors that want to change the world by "building a network of cultural changes..." (Occam's razor)

The 'conspiracy', i.e. the organised group, is the media coupled with a grassroots authoritarian ideology that pays it to keep reporting as 'pleases' it. Just lots of individuals and institutions acting according to their memes and incentives, no (non-obviously existing) cabal needed.

> can be managed with scientific tools we have had forever

The most important ones aren’t even particularly scientific. If you’re feeling ill, stay home. Wash your hands. Don’t hang around elderly or other vulnerable.

But these are simple and require no exceptional growth of state power and usurping of the right of free people to exercise their labor.

All these pro-labor types have no problem making scientists, politicians, etc. your effective boss.

Rich people deciding they must micromanage their doltish compatriots.

And once we isolate these ‘vulnerable and elderly’ people, who will care for them? Robots?