[karpierz]

> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”.

What? Why? If this were true, you could:

1. Take the claim you want to assert

2. Claim the negation of the claim is false (the "no").

3. If anyone asks for facts, just say the burden of proof is on them to show the negation is true.

[CodeMage]

You misunderstood what the comment you replied to was saying, and you also seem to either misunderstand or simply not know about the burden of proof.

For my part, I find the original "no and no" reply perfectly adequate for the smug "I'm only asking questions" assertion-in-disguise that prompted it. Life is too short to debate trolls.

[vacuity]

I agree that parent seems to be trolling, but I don't agree on your assessment about the burden-of-proof point. Where is the misunderstanding?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36661671 (Other reply I made just now on the burden-of-proof thing)

[mistermann]

> I agree that parent seems to be trolling

You seem like an actually reasonable person (and thanks for the support)....do you think it's possible that there might be more to what it is I'm doing than "trolling"?

A way to think about it: do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls" (as opposed to realizing that they are correct, and may actually have an important point) might cause long term harm to a culture?

Another way to think about it: mocking Trump supporters and religious fundamentalists is both easy and fun, and therefore popular - but how much value is there in it? Now, contrast this to finding questions that ~everyone will fail on, including highly educated and genuinely smart people. How much value might there be in this (keeping in mind the numerous seemingly intractable problems we have going on on this shitshow of a planet)?

I'm asking you rather than the other guy because I think you can likely actually consider the question.

An interesting followup question maybe: what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas. I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way. And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved.

[vacuity]

> do you think it's possible that framing/perceiving those who are interested in accuracy as being "trolls"

I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though. Please accept my continuation of the discussion as...well, just that, actually.

> but how much value is there in it?

Mere mocking certainly isn't valuable. I think it's more that people believe they are definitely correct and they mock those who they view as definitely wrong because there's nothing to debate, but a lot of people seem too trigger-happy to conclude that they are definitely right and the other person is definitely wrong, without considering nuance. Then the questions they will field in actual debate are already selected by bias to be at least somewhat aligned in their views.

> what do you think about people (particularly smart people) who are not able to consider certain things, but seem to be trapped in a cycle of only being able heuristically process certain ideas.

I'm a proud person and I fancy myself a thinker; along these lines, I don't know if detest is quite the right word, but I don't view them positively in that aspect. I think I'd do fine (generally) not treating them differently because of that, but I do have strong feelings about critical thinking and its deficit in many people. I recognize that I'm not infallible either, yet I don't waver in typing this. I definitely have shown instances of being open-minded, but it's not like I know right now where I stand. Ha, I turned this into talking about me.

> I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way.

Agree.

> And if they've been made this way (or even if not), perhaps they can be improved.

I wonder about that. I don't think there's necessarily an upper bound of critical thinking/understanding, but in its place there are gaps between every person where understanding can only be achieved by...understanding. It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap.

[mistermann]

> I can't know for sure either way. I guessed that you were trolling since you brought up vaccines causing autism; if it was just the question about God, I might not have thought so much of the intent. It seems I misjudged you, though.

I revealed my motive though: these two particular questions are guaranteed to invoke errors in normative cognition, and often especially in intelligent people.

>> I am very suspicious that this is not a 100% naturally emergent aspect of our culture - I speculate that people have been made this way.

> Agree.

Well now I'm curious...any theories (wild and speculative is fine by me) on some candidate causes?

> It definitely happens at times, but there's no plane that can truly just airlift a person across such a gap.

Which was more than we could say about actual planes, before a couple of weirdos got off their asses and actually built one.

But it seems there's something about this problem that's different, almost like it doesn't allow itself to be analyzed, or even noticed. "Some day" humanity will reach the oft-discussed but never pursued world of widespread critical thinking seems to be the plan, without having even taken the first step towards it.

Noteworthy: I am far from the first person who has noticed this phenomenon.

[vacuity]

> Well now I'm curious...any theories (wild and speculative is fine by me) on some candidate causes?

Maybe we are an experiment by higher beings to see how well sparks of rationality can develop into an enlightened being or whatever. I wonder how they'd rate us so far.

> But it seems there's something about this problem that's different, almost like it doesn't allow itself to be analyzed, or even noticed. "Some day" humanity will reach the oft-discussed but never pursued world of widespread critical thinking seems to be the plan, without having even taken the first step towards it.

Put all elementary/middle children on Hacker News for fifteen minutes a day until they can demonstrate critical thinking in live debates. /s

Seriously though, I think fostering curiosity and critical thinking, as abstract as they are, is important to improving society as a whole. Parents probably need to be involved in this kind of education, and schools too. I think Hacker News has good examples of both great discussions with critical thinking and...suboptimal discussions. A lot easier said than done though.

[CodeMage]

The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions. The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions". Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device. It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro".

The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot.

[mistermann]

> The first misunderstanding lies in not recognizing that the comment that started this whole thread is, in fact, making two claims and disguising those claim as questions.

I absolutely love this comment, because it is literally and necessarily an opinion, but it explicitly claims that it is a fact.

This is what I was anticipating when I said: "The effect these questions have on even the very best minds is amazing, I wonder what will happen here..."

> The rest of the comment, i.e. the non-question parts, reveals the true nature of those "questions".

This one's great too - let me guess, you believe that in "the non-question parts, reveals the true nature" it is solely the words themselves doing the "revealing", am I right? Or, would you prefer to maybe not discuss that topic in detail? :)

> Implying that "even the very best minds" are somehow unable to discuss these questions is a cheap rhetorical device.

It is also true, and some might even say mean.

> It's what the Internet clumsily, but accurately, calls "debate me, bro".

Yup, and this is what keeps your culture permanently locked into Maya: the world as dream (like above where you literally can't distinguish between the necessarily subjective and objective - and this is under asynchronous conditions, imagine how you'd perform in realtime).

> The second misunderstanding requires fewer words to describe: Russell's teapot.

lol, what does this even mean?

By the way: Russell's Teapot is not a proof, but it certainly may appear as such to those afflicted by Normative Cognition.

[michaelmrose]

In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion.

If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo

If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.

[mistermann]

> In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion.

If you look up the definition on Wikipedia, you may notice that your articulation of it here is slightly off. You may also not be able to notice it, which is what makes "reality" so tricky.

> If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo

And Mother Nature will reward you accordingly for the quality of your thinking/delusion/indoctrination.

> If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.

Yep, you can literally do pretty much whatever you like, but don't whine when unintended consequences show up later ("Ooooooh no, climate change, why doesn't some do something!!!!!).

Best of luck with guessing your way through life, humans!