Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. – Carl Sagan
Lately, I’ve run into a number of people who seem completely unable to comprehend that the burden of proof is on the one proposing some extraordinary concept such as “rape culture”, “social construction of gender” or an epidemic of “sex trafficking”; they seem to believe that their assertion that these things exist is enough, and that I am some kind of heartless monster for even daring to question their veracity. If I told one of these people that my waiter had spontaneously combusted during dinner, or that there had been a rain of toads on my property today, I daresay he would insist on proof despite the fact that these things have indeed actually happened in the past (though very rarely). Yet, I am supposed to accept his declaration that the laws of biology are suspended for human beings, or that the laws of logic and economics somehow do not hold when sex is involved, without any proof whatsoever…despite the fact that these things are roughly as credible as the claim that a group of six-headed lemurs from 61 Cygni has established a colony in downtown Hoboken.
So in order to have something very simple to link to when arguing with these people (or more accurately, in lieu of arguing with them), I have prepared the following little lesson in comic-strip form. Because my drawings would be distractingly bad I have decided to enlist the aid of Sir John Tenniel; I don’t think y’all will mind, and I know he won’t.
They’re really cute!
What many of the opposing side use and what is highlighted here are the following fallacies:
1) Ad hominem
2) Strawmen
3) Argument from authority
4) Burden of Proof
5) Appeal to Emotion
6) False Cause
7) Tu Quoque
8) Special Pleading
9) Slippery Slope
Etc. I could go on. The opposing side of the prohibitionists tends to lose ground in arguing against decriminalisation/legalisation, as they do when arguing against marijuana use, medically and recreationally.
So here’s a website that helps with all those little fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
While I agree that a lot of those arguments are fallacies … that website you provided doesn’t really tell the full story of each.
For instance … “Slippery Slope”. Here’s a “slippery slope” argument …
“If ObamaCare becomes law and citizens are FORCED to buy health insurance by their government – the government will then have the power to force citizens to buy ANY product simply by passing a law.”
I mean – I see no problem with that argument and no fallacies within it.
Another example of the slippery slope …
When they went after the cigarette companies, I and many others said that … “They’ll come back to get something YOU like”. We now have Bloomberg banning big sodas. The firearms manufacturers of the U.S. have been repeatedly assaulted with lawsuits reminicent of the tobacco litigation. The way in which the tobacco companies were “taken down” has become standard operating procedure for legal activists seeking to destroy other industries – even industries we need, like COAL.
Well the order of magnitude is similar in your examples. So the slope is not so slippery.
Hear is an example of what I would call a slippery slope argument. If the government can tell mining companies they cant flush the excess cyanide into streams, they will be able to force mining companies to do anything including only using union labor.
This type of fallacy is one I heard from libertarians. Rules against externalizing costs are attacked saying they are slippery slope to arbitrary rules.
This frustrates me for two reasons. First, externalizing costs leads to distortion in the market (essentially its a public subsidy). Second, it equates rules to prevent public harm and costs with arbitrary rules, giving shelter and comfort to those arbitrary rules.
Yeah I agree with you on a lot of this stuff but … the “slippery slope” does exist. If it did not – we would still have the “limited” federal government that the founders installed in this nation.
If the Founders “installed” it, then maybe we just need to reboot…..
Reblogged this on myatheistlife and commented:
Because, damnit, the moon is not made out of cheese!
Laughed out loud more than once. Just about perfect.
While a very serious subject, sure did enjoy the smiles this provided. Thanks Maggie.
I’ve also seen this:
Mouse: … And of course by cheese, I mean the particular type of rock the Moon is made out of.
Alice: You can’t just redefine words to mean whatever you choose!
Mouse: I feel I should be able to do that.
Later in the same conversation:
Mouse: Oh, when those astronauts get back from the Moon it will be the greatest cheese feast in history, I look forward to eating all the cheese that they bring back!
Alice: But you said earlier that cheese was just your word for a type of rock!
Mouse: I never said that. If I had said it, I would just have meant that I occasionally use the term rock to refer to fermented milk!
Oh, this is wonderful! It fits right in.
Thanks, I was hoping it did.
Humpty Dumpty did tell Alice that when he used a word, it meant what he wanted it to mean…
Yes, when people make arguments like this in real life, do you call them Ad Humpty Dumpty?
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”
”But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.
”The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
A conversation between Alice and the eggman. (Not the Beatles…)
I sure do like the comic.
I thought the moon was made of cheese 🙂
Brilliant, but still likely to go over some folks heads. I included a couple of my favorite quotes on true skepticism. I especially like the Emerson quote because it allows for both passion and an open mind.
“Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. ”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Self-Reliance”, 1841
“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'”
Stephen Jay Gould
The really infuriating thing is that most of this bushwa emanates from our Colleges and Universities … which are supposed to be bastions of scholarship. Sadly, Colleges and Universities have always harbored Correct Thought top one degree or another. Which is why many of the great thinkers of the late 18th century, like Joseph Priestly, were dissenters who were barred from attending Oxford or Cambridge because they wouldn’t profess Anglicanism. They hadn’t been brainwashed into the Accepted Mode.
I know you have practically banned me, but the research of Janet Shibley Hyde is certainly no hoax isn’t? It is very well substantiated!!! Men aren’t better at maths than women, and men have no better spatial insight. It is however true that men seem to be more visual when it comes to sexuality. And women are more critical when it comes to partner selection. But generally, men and women don’t seem to differ very much. I like you to offer proof to the contrary.
Sex trafficking is no fallacy. There really are people who are forced and exloited in prostitution. It would be a mad conspiracy if all these pimps who have been sentenced were innocently convicted.
The point is, the fact if women are forced into prostitution or men are better at driving cars could be researched, it is not a matter if jupiter is made of plywood.
I am angry.
Maggie never denied the existence of forced and exploited prostitutes (you need to read her articles more carefully). What she denounces as a fallacy is:
1) it’s not as common as opponents of prostitution say (far from it, because the numbers used are simply ridiculous)
2) making voluntary prostitution illegal will help solving this problem (quite the opposite, in fact)
3) the way any man connected with a prostitute in ay way other than being a client is described as a “pimp”
No, mouse, Alice will not offer proof to the contrary (see panel 5). She will, however, call your attention to this debunking of Janet Hyde; she has already debunked “trafficking” mythology in many places, a good number of which are linked here.
Hi, miss Alice. I collected a lot of evidence pertaining to the Netherlands on my blog.
I’m also planning to write a piece on my blog to debunk your claims. It will give me a purpose.
Sex trafficking is really a big problem.
Good luck to you. Because if you can actually prove that sex trafficking is a “big problem” … you won’t have to worry about your blog getting only 150 hits per day – you’ll be a worldwide celebrity because the people currently parroting trafficking non-sense are all out of arguments and have been stone-cold busted telling too many lies.
If you can use this comic of Maggie’s and provide the extraordinary evidence required – you will be be a made man (or woman – whichever applies).
Well, there is actually a lot of evidence. I think I don’t present it too well on my blog. And I believe I have a very unique view of prostitution. I support the position that prostitution is immoral but that it also should be legal. That won’t attract both the abolitionists and the sex positive people. They will both stay away. Either you are for it or against it. There is no middle ground.
What would convince you that a particular sex worker is not a slave?
It is possible that someone could insist that a provider that can reject clients; spend lots of money on herself; return to her homeland and build a business etc. is still subject to criminal coercion.
Lots of people, myself included, think adultery is immoral but wouldn’t want to criminalise it. Lets spell it out: a woman is only forced into prostitution if she is legally required to be a prostitute, physically coerced or threatened with physical coercion. Anything else is a choice. I chose not to be a prostitute but I have been made offers, which had I accepted would have been a choice. I didn’t much like studying law, I would have much preferred to study history but I wanted a career. I think Welfare Mums, who choose not to work but keep breeding and expect the tax payer to financially take care of their brood are irresponsible and immoral. Women who choose to be whores instead of drawing a welfare cheque ought to be applauded for being responsible and self-reliant business women. No one make’s the porn actresses screw dogs or horses — they do it for the money.
If we’re going on convictions for sex trafficking, it’s not a significant issue, and most accusations are plainly false. Moreover, most sex traffickings don’t involve forced prostitution.
This is one of the coolest things I have read in recent memory. Hurray for your communication skills, Maggie
Thanks for the kudos, everyone! 🙂
Who wrote the dialog balloons? Did you write them Maggie?
This was a pretty neat little comic. 😀
Yes, I wrote the dialog; my husband showed me how to do the word balloons in PowerPoint.
His computer kung fu stronger than that of the D&D Dutchess!
The only problem with this whole premiss is this: What, exactly, constitutes an “extraordinary” claim? The “burden of proof” fallacy has a flaw in that it supposes that there is an accepted fact and a challenging fact. If there is no clear accepted fact, then you cannot apply the burden of proof fallacy. It becomes difficult to use in an argument with two people, because there can be no accepted fact when both sides obviously have a different opinion on what is accepted.
I’ve already been very clear on my opinions about constructed gender- I think the whole argument is a ridiculous miscommunication crap storm. Some is clearly nature, and some is clearly nurture. Research much be done to draw lines one where nature ends and nurture begins beyond who has which body parts.
I actually generally disapprove of sex changes, because I see no reason why someone shouldn’t be able live their life in whatever gender roll they like, regardless what parts they have.
The problem with “Research must be done” is that experimental (as opposed to observational) research must necessarily come awfully close to being child abuse.
In any case, I think that the whole ‘gender construct’ argument is a cue of non-scientists appropriating scientific jargon to make their politics sound scientific. This happens a lot, and is hardly new. Ideas and styles that start in the sciences spread into the rest of the culture, often in distorted form. For example; an awful lot of late Victorian thinking is affected by a popular and distorted perception of the theory of evolution. Namely the common misconception that evolution is directional and linear. Marxism tries to don a mantle of scientific respectability by ‘theorizing’ that societies undergo a linear and directional progress from tribalism to Communism. This echoes the popular understanding of evolution, but has little or nothing to do with the actual science.
Child abuse? No, I think not- there have been dozens of very well done studies on “nature vs nurture” that were very non-invasive.
Much of my protesting boils down to my understanding of gender- some of gender is a roll dictated by society (girls wear skirts and like sparkles and pink, boys wear pants and like dirt and blue) and some of gender is inborn (girls have girl parts and are behaviorally influenced by those parts, boys have boy parts and are behaviorally influenced by those parts)
I certainly don’t think the crazy proponents of “gender is a LIE made up by the evil PATRIARCHY” are correct, or even rational, I simply take issue with the arguments people use to dismiss the notion that preconceived notions about gender can have a negative impact on peoples lives.
Yes, this what I was talking about in my previous reply. I think that there are aspects that are socially mediated as well as those rooted in biology and (non-social) environment.
What are you talking about? Gender “rolls” or Gender “identification”. Are you arguing that societal influence plays a role in gender identification?
P.S. I HATE “gender” discussions. They make me want to take a shower because, when I was growing up, the word “GENDER” was used as a grammatical distinction between masculine, feminine, and neuter words.
It was liberals in the form of nanny-state patriarchs and matriarchs – like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who started confusing a previously very unconfusing definition of the word “gender”.
Now we have things like “Women and Gender Studies” – WTF is that? Aren’t women a “gender” under the new liberal definition of the word? Why isn’t it just “Gender Studies” or … “Women and Men Studies”?
I don’t consider wearing pink a female “gender role”. I don’t consider operating a barbeque grill as a male “gender role”. Why get hung up on temporal things that change very quickly? Skirts – yeah, women wear them – and Scottish Highlander MEN used to wear them and some still do.
Exactly the same for me. I’m forced to use it but I still hear “der, die, and das”. I’d prefer to use the word sex and acknowledge the variability in the two sexes.
First, kilts are manly. They look like cut up tablecloths for manwerk.
Second, you don’t consider pink female or grills male, but people who make policy decisions do and for whatever reason, something in how people experience their own existence may in fact tilt them in either direction or somewhere in between.
Gender is what society expects based on your visible sex.
Sex is what biology gave you.
Identity is your active ability to negotiate between these two endpoints tempered by your own awareness.
Identity isn’t a label. It is a thing in flux that eventually settles into repeatable patterns.
This is all derived from the assumption of free agency (attention) not free will (action). If free agency is false none of this matters. If free agency is true then all of these subtleties are necessary to preserve its expression.
The full statement of the principle is “the burden of proof is upon he who asserts the positive.” There is no ambiguity there. So if I say “god exists” I am making a positive knowledge claim and it is my burden to substantiate that claim. This is because nothing follows from non-existence so a demand to “prove” a negative is invalid. This is why we used to have the legal doctrine of innocent until proven guilty – nothing follows in reality from your inaction. What denying the onus of proof attempts to accomplish is to place arbitrary assertions on the same epistemological level as those statements that have evidence behind them. In Maggie’s example this is what the mouse is trying to do with cheese vis a vis Alice’s statement of silica with rocks and astronauts offered as evidence against Mouse’s mere say so. I can assert that the universe was created by a conclave of invisible green gremlins on Mars, but that does not constitute a valid argument and my commanding you to prove that it isn’t so and your subsequent failure to disprove that statement does not operate as an evidentiary defense of that same assertion.
You might have more wiggle room with the extraordinary claims point, but that is shorthand as well. The full idea is that extraordinary claims – those that contradict the broad base of present knowledge – require more explanation than those that do not particularly in regard to context and circumstance. An example would be Einstein’s point that light doesn’t always travel in a straight line in a vacuum. It took an expedition to a total solar eclipse locale and comparison of parallax of the same starlight when not passing close to a large gravitational body before his extraordinary claim was accepted. It took the validation of a positive, not a truculent demand to prove the negative to make his hypothesis part of our knowledge base.
What I was really taking issue with was her universal application of the fallacy, especial in the case of complicated controversies, such as social construction of gender. In that case, you can easily phrase the argument “Gender rolls are not inborn” vs “Gender rolls are not socially constructed”- both statements are negative (the fact that they are idiotically over simplified is also a problem, but a different one), and both now require proof.
Certainly gender roles are a complicated question. And I think that precision in what is exactly being debated would help. I think – and it is only an opinion – that such things do have more than one root but as you get closer to fundamental actions that generally biology has more sway than environmentor socialization. But this Iis a generalization and is subject to exception in much the same manner as the statement that most men are physically stronger than most women. Exceptions can be found by pairing individuals outside of the belly of the bell curve but that statement generally holds. So in the absence of strength mediating technology, gender roles in regard to strength would probably normalize around biological differences rather than social ones. Even in those cases where women exercised politicalpower, the exercised the physical aspects through male proxies, generally speaking. I think other aspects of gender roles could be better evaluated through such separation and consideration.
Honestly, I think some of the problem is the sheer amount of baggage any honest discussion of gender differences has to go through.
Aside from the fact that there are numerous examples of female politicians in history being physically active in their rolls (a Russian princess whom I can’t remember the name of (I came across her in an investigation of women riding astride before the invention of the modern side saddle) and Joan of Arc come to mind) I think its a rather irrelevant argument- In the world of today, do any physical differences really matter? I mean, its not like, for example, war, or construction, actually requires barbarian muscles any more. It doesn’t take all that much strength to work a fork lift, or fire a weapon. The prevalence of tools make a difference in physical strength between male and females academic in the same way wider hips or broader shoulders is an academic difference.
Let me put it this way- do you really get hung up over the gender differences between dogs, or cats? Do you ever think “Oh, I can’t to this with my pet, because its a girl” over anything other than making babies with it? Does anyone ever question a female cat or dog’s ability to hunt just as well as a male cat or dog? There are obvious (when you know what to look for) differences in behavior and body structure besides their genitals, but it rarely matters, you know?
The only reason a real feminist (as opposed to a neo-feminist) would bring up socially constructed gender is to point out “who give a flying **** what the differences are, because all things considered, a person should be evaluated based on their own merits, not on constructed expectations”.
Basically, boys can wear dresses and call themselves ladies if they want to, and it really doen’t hurt anyone at all. Boys don’t need to have the girly genitals to be in girls scouts when girl scouts and boy scouts are WAY different (I’m referencing that controversy over a kid with boy parts who identified as a girl wanting to be in girl scouts). I wanted to be in boy scouts and go camping and learn wilderness survival, but I have girls parts and I identify as a girl, so I got to sell cookies and learn to knit. That is socially constructed gender rolls at their worst(ish).
Do you work behind a desk?
Here – let me inform you on a few things – from a guy who’s worked with his hands most of his life and has military experience.
Hell yeah – physical strength still matters. While labor unions have “dumbed down” the standard lift to around 50 pounds – let me tell you, there’s a lot of times I find myself and my team in places without heavy lifting equipment – and I end up hauling 200 pound items onto a platform … or carrying them over a fairly long distance. This has nothing to do with male / female – hell, when this happens it’s usually MEN standing around with me saying … “Well I can’t lift that.” What?! Are you serious? So I end up lifting this stuff – which I don’t mind if women are watching but if it’s just a bunch of beta males it pisses me off.
Fire a weapon? How about throwing a grenade. A good strong throwing arm required for that you know. How about Marine Corps Scout Sniper – much strength and endurance required for that role. I could go on and on and on with this. Hell yes, physical strength makes a difference … JUST ABOUT EVERYWHERE in combat.
Barbarians didn’t have big muscles – they didn’t have the plentiful protein sources to support them. An analysis of Roman Gladiators indicated most of them were short and stocky – and wore BODYFAT for “armor”.
This de-emphasis on physical strength just irritates me to no end. Of course a couch-potato doesn’t think he needs much physical strength but he’s not living in a world of reality – more like “pretend” reality. When the shit hits the fan in the form of a hurricane like Katrina – Mr. Couch Potato is going to be hard pressed to find ways to survive without crying to his Mommy and Daddy in Washington, DC.
Have to go with you again on this too. I would give it four criteria: size; strength; stamina; and judgement. I’ll ignore skill for now.
When off-loading or on-loading 5″ rounds from a tight compartment we went with strength and judgement. A really big guy could easily drop a round by hitting his arms; a guy with poor judgement stayed out of the compartment (we had an E-4 in WEPS that wasn’t allowed anywhere near us when handling rounds). There were no women on cutters at the time, but if there were and we knew she couldn’t keep up she wouldn’t be there. I had a station for unrep and the deck officer was wise to have me sit next to him. I had the strength, stamina and judgement. Didn’t have the skill.
Most of these jobs devolve into best fit, which has it’s issues in a co-ed military because as a whole between men and women, men still end up being depended on to do the heavy lifting.
I was all of 5’9″ and 150 soaking wet in the USCG, it irked the hell out of me when I was moving weight that a 6’1″ guy couldn’t.
It really isn’t male/female except for pool.
Jaysus …
Don’t hurt no one until the balloon goes up and suddenly there’s no government and no law enforcement – and it’s every man and woman for him / herself. No … I’m sorry … skirted males who insist on being identified as “ladies” will not be welcome in my little survival band. I’ll have jobs for the men – and they will consist of dirty jobs and fighting – which will be necessary to survival.
Like ART … “Gender Identification” is a LUXURY that humans have only when they aren’t fighting for survival.
Did you make that statement up? Girl Scouts have almost always done some form of wilderness survival. I refer you here … to the Outdoor Survival Badge for Junior Girl Scouts …
http://www.girlscoutsindiana.org/imagesCDS/outdoorsurvivalbadge.pdf
Brownies even have a hiking badge. So you are not characterizing the differences in their true context. I was a Boy Scout – I remember being taught how to cook. I also did some bad-ass paper mache for my artsy projects.
And … selling cookies is a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE MONEY MAKER for the Girl Scouts. There is nothing “feminine” in selling cookies. I happen to know Wally “Famous” Amos. Dude made a fortune selling cookies and, although he’s a whacky guy – he’s not effiminate in my opinion. By the way – Boy Scouts sell stuff too … Popcorn is one of the biggies – yeah, they don’t have quite the name recognition as the Girl Scouts do with their cookies.
And by the way – the Girl Scouts was founded by women and most of the adults associated with it are women. So it’s WOMEN who are selecting the things that need to be taught to these little girls – not the “ebil patriarchy”.
I had a “Den Mother” when I was a Cub Scout.
pigSheesh. For someone who hates talking about gender, you sure do have a lot to say!
If the world ends, I hardly think you’ll be worrying about what cloths people are wearing and you’ll take all the help available to you, skirt wearing or not. Also, I hardly thing “if the world ended tu’morrow, ever’thin’ would be different” is a useful contribution.
I’ll defer on the manual labor argument as we’ve discussed that before and its kinda besides the point here. Suffice to say physical strength has never limited me in what I can and cannot do, just in how I go about doing it.
Lastly, no I did not make that up- there were no troops in my area (and I live in eastern MA, not exactly an unpopulated area) who were willing to camp, or hike, or anything “dirty” and its was so unfair.
You don’t need to make sarcastic “patriarchy” comments at me, cummon, what have I done to deserve that? I never said sexism was limited to men, women are equally bad, if not worse (especially neo-feminists). I’m complaining about the sexism, not targeting a specific group of sexists!
Actually though, I think “Boy Scouts of America” is actually a rather close minded and pig headed organization.
I’ve been in combat and I know some people can be a liability to the whole. Quantity doesn’t necessarily trump Quality. So you’re wrong about that. You’re also wrong about the “world ending” … the world doesn’t have to end for civilization to take a devastating blow. An economic collapse of sufficient magnitude will do it. Why don’t you go to Zimbabwe or East Timor and see how the people live there … where civilization is extremely tenuous. This is the vice of the Westerner – we think civilization is permanent – visit a few third world countries.
By the way – I’ve also been in situations where both sexes were present – where the environmental conditions were extremely harsh. I’ll say this – the women of the groups never had a problem in assuming traditional female roles in order to support the group (like cooking and doing laundry). Not only did they not have a problem but they suggested the arrangement themselves – leaving the hard physical work to the men.
Using you own argument, why on earth would being transgendered automatically reduce the quality? Maybe the transgender boy is just as strong as the other guys? Or the transgender girl is a better, more capable organizer than half the other women. I’m going to have to assume that means you think that being transgender automatically makes a person an incapable buffoon. Which is bigoted, but that’s your right, I guess.
All I have to say is, of course they suggested it! You let them do it! Why on earth would they wanna do the hard work when you’d readily let them off with the easy stuff? The only people who would choose a harder job over an easier one are people who are out to prove something! (this goes for guys too, who will often pick the “tough” jobs to prove that their not gay, or something)
“Suffice to say physical strength has never limited me in what I can and cannot do, just in how I go about doing it.” But that’s the rub, most women will go about doing the heavy lifting by depending on a man, so yes lack of physical strength is no limitation for those women.
As an aside, like I wrote I was 5’9″. In college I had a room mate who teased me about being 5’9″ versus his 6’4″. It took him about six months to realize I never needed a step stool because I had him. And boy was he had.
Storm Daughter,
You do accept that any organization has the right to be both close-minded and pig-headed (the latter to maintain the former)? This clause in the 1st implies it: ” or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even if it didn’t, who would you give the right to determine how you, and like people, should think, act, and associate? The guy down the street you disagree with?
Personally, I wouldn’t join a group that wouldn’t have my friends as members. I am not sure I would join a group that would have me as a member. Ultimately, groups that exclude too many, and thus the friends of that too many, die from irrelevance, but have every right to go into that night unimpeded.
I am really testy about not being able to join my Tribe because I’m one generation too far: can’t join the Aryan Nation because I’m not white enough, primarily because I’m too vocal about not getting into my Tribe, but secondarily because they consider me a mutt; and the Black Student Union won’t even look at me because I’m not black (though I haven’t looked back far enough to really find that one drop).
Really, if a group excludes me, I don’t get all butthurt and try to force them to change for precious me, I go find another group. Still looking, but I blame Groucho for setting my too perfect standard.
Of course I acknowledge a private organization’s right to be stupid- that doesn’t stop me from wanted to tell them how stupid they are.
I mean, I feel better when I do, you know?
Not to mention, I can tell other people how stupid said group is.
Your statement says far more about you than any organization you might criticize. WTF do you even CARE about an organization that doesn’t affect your life? Next time you want to tell someone they’re stupid, start by looking in the mirror.
Gah.
My brother trains dogs. Dogs play different gender roles in the pack and have different abilities, so male and female dogs will be suited to different tasks. My sister-in-law recently told me that female protection dogs can often form a quasi-sexual relationships with their male handlers and respond very badly to human females, particularly female sexual partners.
Gender role ≠ gender. They are not the same thing, and never were. Gender roles ARE socially constructed, because they are just that: roles. Gender is NOT socially constructed, any more than the heat cycle or genitalia are. Half of the so-called “controversy” derives from the neofeminists’ willful confusion of the two different concepts.
Exactly, I’m a female, and I like being female, which is just as well because I no choice in the matter. I also like fencing, shooting, spear-fishing, hunting, driving fast, riding motorcycles, and jet-skiing. I also like fashion, ballet, cooking, and shopping.
My kind of girl, woman, female, other sex. Trying to cover a lot of bases to cover my ass.
Riding motorcycles gets a “hot” all by itself. Can’t do the fishing though once I became an aquarist.
Thanks, I’m okay with girl, woman, female, sticchiu or figa. I’m Sicilian so I love eating and cooking fish, especially if I’ve speared them myself. I love riding a motorcycle around mountain roads and I like being in leathers too.
And the rest from it being reduced to an argument between two false positions.
A given individual has both unique biology and unique experience. And yes, the burden of proof for that affirmative is mine. Let me know if you need evidence.
So anyone who claims some behavior is mostly biological or is mostly social makes an affirmative statement. The burden of proof is on them.
But the gender of an individual alters their experience (again the burden of proof is on me) so it’s hard to get good statistics that cleanly split the two factors.
“A given individual has both unique biology and unique experience.” Given unique as “existing as the only one or as the sole example”, the way I generally use it, I think you trivialize unique in both cases. We exist in ranges (more ranges in a matrix than linear) of both biology and experience. If each biology was truly unique, drugs would be an impossibility; if all experience were truly unique, we would have no common ground. I think your evidence may fall short.
I have to agree with what Maggie wrote “Gender roles ARE socially constructed, because they are just that: roles. Gender is NOT socially constructed, any more than the heat cycle or genitalia are.” Though for a fleeting moment I thought she was writing about Carnot rather than estrus by “heat cycle”. I would have preferred the word sex for gender. I’m with krulak, gender irks me. We aren’t genders, we are sexes.
As an aside, I always knew when my wife was ovulating, her libido went up. Noticeably. She was a heat engine, but not Carnot’s. I doubt she was unique, but if so I am one damn lucky man.
“But the gender of an individual alters their experience (again the burden of proof is on me).” No, it isn’t unless we all have to go back each time and prove a circle is made by a constant radius. The sex of an individual profoundly affects their experience, not only because of the roles society pushes, but because of the very biology. To be graphic, I don’t bleed every 28
days, and it goes from there. On the other hand, she doesn’t get erections every 30 minutes or so throughout the day.
We are still working on the brain differences between humans with estrogen based hormonal systems and testosterone based ones. We know the obvious physical (skeletal, muscle mass, reproductive, etc.) but the brain is still being explored. It may be slight, it may be profound, but it is still only what it is to be human.
I agree with you about the word “gender”. In my experience and in the experience of people I talk to a lot, “gender” refers to a complex combination of social roll, biology, and behavior. That’s why I’m always careful to specify the undeniable existence of sexually dimorphic “parts”.
Behavior is a rather messy subject, because hard data is hard to come by, and we (as a species) have only been studying it scientifically for a scant few generations. Brain and behavior go hand in hand, so yeah, more research is needed.
As an aside, its less than every 28 days. More like 21-25 (it generally goes on for a few days) 😀
No, it’s on average every 28 days. Some women have longer cycles.
Right, so you do know most women bleed more than one day, yeah? So if you bleed 3 days, you have 25 days till the next time you bleed. If you bleed 7 days, you have 21 from the last day you bleed to the next time you bleed.
However, your sub par intellect has already been made clear by your troll comment above. Why are you even here?
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit is translated as the burden or proof lies with he who affirms. So using your example if I say “God exists” the burden of proof lies with me but if you were to say “God does not exist” the burden of proof lies with you. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So the burden of proof can change on points of law during criminal proceedings, Whereas ostensibly the burden of proof on the matter of guilt doesn’t change. .
Stefi,
I realize the point you are making by “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But such phrases have application in some areas and not others.
In a court case, which has a specific temporal length, that makes all sorts of sense, but in other areas of human knowledge it doesn’t in this way: a continual absence of evidence means there is evidence of absence. Science operates on that by finding what has evidence, but gives it weight through degree of certainty.
Your particular example of “God exists” versus “God does not exist” has that very problem. “God” has a very specific meaning in Abrahamic religions, and their proof is faith, which is untestable. There is no proof otherwise. “Shiva exists”, and Hindus are really adamant about him/her, is just as untestable, and has as much weight if only because it gave Oppenheimer a really memorable moment.
I can only conclude that if God exists so must Shiva. And no, Shiva isn’t just an attribute of the Abrahamic God. However, the Flying Spaghetti Monster may be both, with Brahma and Buddha (now that sects of Buddhism has given him pseudo-god status) thrown in. There is absence of evidence that FSM exists. Please take the burden of proof to prove FSM doesn’t exist since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Unicorns = x. I say x exists. You deny x, and we have the same burden of proof? This last would have saved bandwidth.
The statement “God exist” is an affirmation of the existence of God, the statement “God does not exist” is an affirmation that God does not exist. There’s no ifs or buts about this both of these affirmations would require proof. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, otherwise we believe there are no undiscovered planets or stars in the universe. If you say that a unicorn exists the burden of proof is upon you and if you can’t prove it I don’t have accept they exist, but if I assert the opposite is true the burden lies with me. Hence:
a) if unicorns exist stefi knows they exist
b) stefi doesn’t know unicorns exist
.’. unicorns Unicorns don’t exists
Is a logically valid argument but the first premise is flawed.
Hi, Steffi,
Ah, words are so much fun. Yeah, “God does not exist” is an affirmation, if only because it is blunt, but born from the assertion that “God does exist” where no proof is there to affirm the assertion. The pivot is “proof”, which means something different to “God does” and “God doesn’t”. I still think Shiva should be given equal worth. Just “I am become Death, destroyer of worlds” is worth acknowledging Shiva.
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, otherwise we believe there are no undiscovered planets or stars in the universe.” Thank you, because the real point, using what you’ve written, is that science actually went from what you wrote to the Milky Way as the Universe, then, no, the Universe is made of galaxies, and now we have the technology (I’m going to avoid cyborg references) to detect planets to the point of telling mass and water content. That’s what science does, but it doesn’t and can’t deal with the supernatural. Using what can be “proven” ( I use scare quotes because science isn’t about certainty but asymptotic probability) by science doesn’t address the syllogism.
You syllogism is different than mine.
Mine was:
A) I say x exists
B) You deny x exists
C) neither can be proved
D) Therefore the burden to prove either is equal.
E) Really?
Not classical, certainly. C to D is a real leap, and E is just rhetorical, given the assumption in D. My “You deny x, and we have the same burden of proof?” may have been confusing, I hope I cleared it up with C,D, and E.
I question that D, and used unicorns as an example because, well, most of us know unicorns, as defined, don’t exist. Asserting something exists has a greater burden of proof than asserting that that thing doesn’t when there is no proof it does exist.
“a) if unicorns exist stefi knows they exist
b) stefi doesn’t know unicorns exist
.’. unicorns Unicorns don’t exists
Is a logically valid argument but the first premise is flawed.”
I used “say” rather than “know”, and “deny” rather than “know” for a reason. I also avoided “if”. As you wrote, I would agree, as I wrote (knowing and admitting I left out the implied C and really, D, came from you), I don’t.
Ariel, your argument isn’t a syllogism. We’re talking about rules of logic. It is a fallacy to assert that something is not from the lack of evidence that it is, unless it can be logically deduced rather than inferred through inductive reasoning. For example, an empty bottle of beer can’t be a full bottle of beer, but you can’t infer there is no beer because your bottle of beer is empty.
“Asserting something exists has a greater burden of proof than asserting that that thing doesn’t when there is no proof it does exist.”
That’s simply untrue. In fact, any statement that is incapable of verification is necessarily illogical. And even In life where we don’t always apply the rules of logic, there are many things we can’t prove with evidence but we might nevertheless still believe to be true or at least reserve judgement on.
Evidence is not about logic, but about probability.
There are infinitely more stuff that does not exists, than which exists.
Since existence is less likely, there is a greater burden of proof.
That which exists exists, independently of whether it’s existence is known. So you can’t know that infinitely more exists than does not exist.
Leaving aside that non sequitur, the burden of proof lies with he who affirms. It matters not whether you affirm a positive or negative, and you can’t use probability to assert existence or non-existence. You may in court argue the evidence suggests that something is more probable than not (the evidential burden in civil proceedings) but that certainly doesn’t make it so any more than failing to establishing the same makes it not so.
No.
Something of low probability,
such as something extraordinary, or something random,
needs more evidence to raise its probability over 50%.
In other words, it needs extraordinary evidence to counter its low probability.
This is fundamental probability theory.
If someone knows something extraordinary,
then they must also know about the corresponding extraordinary evidence.
If they do not know about any extraordinary evidence,
then they do not know that extraordinary something,
and are making an unjustified claim.
This is why the one delivering the extraordinary claim should also bring the extraordinary evidence.
My proof is about this kind of stuff.
Probability theory is a mathematical theory, it does not apply to epistemology. Probability can never be the basis of a justified true belief. It is a manifest LIE to say that formal logic requires different proofs for different statements. Therefore it is logical absurd to suggest that different statements require different degrees of proof. But believe what you want.
Epistemologically, he who asserts first has the most burden. I can assert anything, but having done so the burden isn’t shifted to those who must prove me wrong because I asserted. It is mine to prove right, otherwise I can assert anything and demand you prove me wrong.
“and you can’t use probability to assert existence or non-existence.” Which negates science, as it is all about probability.
Different realms of knowledge creates a friction. Friction is good.
“Epistemologically, he who asserts first has the most burden.”
LOL. You’ve never studied philosophy let alone epistemology.
If you had you would be aware that in epistemology one can only be said to know that something is true if one has a “Justified True Belief”. Please don’t bother arguing because this is not debatable.
You would also be aware that there is no “he who assert first” because a philosophical argument is a proposition drawn from it’s own premises, and not a debate between two or more parties as you seem to think.
Hi, Stefi,
That was the point. D and E kill the syllogism. But D is yours and E is my rhetorical response. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion of existence. I have no burden to disprove, I can simply ignore, but if I do you have not proven existence. You can only prove existence by the positive, you can’t prove it by the negative. (I’ll grant that law in our system has a slightly different logic, but it’s based on a premise that has no bearing here.)
“It is a fallacy to assert that something is not from the lack of evidence” but it is a greater fallacy to assert something “is” from lack of evidence.
“In fact, any statement that is incapable of verification is necessarily illogical.” No, it is only not verifiable, but that does not lead to illogicity, it leads to “it can’t be verified”. And the latter, ignoring the supernatural, just takes time.
The assertion of God is no different than the assertion that trolls live under bridges. Personally, I don’t like trolls as there is no great works of Religion or Philosophy from trolls. Yet, by my very assertion of “trolls” I’m left unable to prove there are not trolls. I’ve asserted there are trolls, your assertion there are not has no more than equal weight, if that.
“I question that D, and used unicorns as an example because, well, most of us know unicorns, as defined, don’t exist.”
This is an intuitive belief. I can’t prove unicorns don’t exist but I intuitively believe they don’t. In every day life we use intuition more than logic.
But they do exist! They are also known as rhinoceros! (or narwhal) 😀
Well there you go, so there are unicorns after all. That’s why belief and knowledge are different. Beliefs can be wrong. 🙂
Stefi,
Knowledge is ephemeral. Prior to 1995, planets were known to be rare. Now they’re known to be common. Birds weren’t descended from dinosaurs until they were.
Neither belief nor knowledge are exempt from being wrong. It’s just harder to prove a belief wrong.
Which is amusing, if only from which legends so arise, but not germane. If narwhales walked the land, and Rhinoceros were easily mistaken for horses, Unicorns would exist.
Mermaids are of course from a Florida mammal, though mermaids were myth long before the discovery of the New World.
Mermaids have been asserted, the absence of proof is no proof of absence.
No, Stefi, you don’t intuit Unicorns don’t exist. You go by evidence, and the evidence sorely lacks. It’s an assertion made in a much earlier time that is easily dismissed, unless one wants to maintain unicorns did exist then but not now. There be dragons…
SD’s first paragraph makes a good point.
The “extraordinary claims” principle (which I’ve seen in the writings of both Descartes and Mill) is usually applied to matters of the physical sciences, where any doubt can in principle be disposed of by lab testing. But in the global warming debate, each side has its own legion of alleged scientists who say the other group are frauds, and answering the question by experiment (such that both sides will believe it) will take at least decades if it can be done at all. Examining how well each side actually follows scientific method will probably be more fruitful.
Back to the question of human trafficking — there, which side’s claim is “extraordinary” depends on what you start out believing, and the question is not exactly one that experiments can answer. But Maggie’s method of asking the alleged victims what *they* think is certainly the one I would follow. (At the very least it may force the prohibitionists to admit that their definition of trafficking does not depend on the “victim” believing she is a victim at all — and at that point anyone whose opinion I’d respect will say, case closed.)
Asking someone who is being logically inconsistent for an explanation usually has amusing, and occasionally productive, results. 😀
The truth is the Moon IS made of cheese, but unfortunately it’s processed American cheese food, and therefore inedible.
Both NASA and Mouselissa Foolie are involved in a conspiracy to cover this up.
American “process” cheese is good! And cool!
The process of turning milk into American cheese doesn’t “defoodify” it anymore than cooking things “defoodifys” said food. If you look at the increments, its usually “milk, salt, coagulant” which is the same as any other cheese, essentially.
That’s not to say “processed foods” in general aren’t non-food. Just American cheese.
Stormdaughter,
I sold chemicals to one of the largest makers of American process cheese (McDonalds was their customer, among others). American process cheese is not cheese, it’s cheese-like, which is why the “American process cheese”.
I like bricks of real cheese.
The comic only needs the first panel.
That cartoon is so spot on!
These days I tend to short circuit this typical argument by proving the rat is an idiot, which they of course never believe. 🙂
The rats also deny that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I made a real mathematical proof that this is true. Of course they deny this too, but not as often, and many of them get confused. Here it is:
http://kim.oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
What kind of other evidence for the existence of a rape culture do you need? it is like saying I need evidence that racism exists. I mean say what?
Uh….no, it’s not like that AT ALL. The “rape culture” dogma holds that our ENTIRE CULTURE somehow encourages and condones rape, in a way it does not do for any other crime (the racist equivalent would be something like “lynching culture”). The very concept is absurd, and there are far better explanations for things feminists claim as evidence of such a “culture”. So yes, there needs to be very compelling evidence for such a thing if you expect any rational person to believe in it.
Yes, as I am male and I’m all for rape. Rape my wife, my sister, my daughter, and I’ll just applaud. Rape my wife’s friend, my sister’s friend, or my daughter’s friend, I’ll just applaud.
On the other hand, I may beat you bloody and turn you over to the police. If you are a member of my family, I may beat you bloody and then turn you into the police. If any members of my family support you, I may disown them and forever tell them to eff off. If I didn’t care about life in prison, I would likely kill you, especially when you molested my 6 year-old daughter.
I am male. I support the rape culture.
But only if it’s rape-rape, as Whoopi so delineated for Polanski.
There’s a real difference claiming “a rape culture” versus racism. The two are different categories and the existence of one doesn’t prove the other. You likely mistake anti-miscegenation laws as the same as opposition to same-sex marriage. One category error begats another.
I love my wife, my sisters, my daughters, as well their female friends. I would and will hurt they who hurt them, and you would know that if you looked at what males do when girls and women are sexually abused. But only if males abuse, if women do we, men and women, seek excuses.
As another point, racism will always exist. You keep seeing it so it must.
My wife, white, and her friend, black, got really bad service at a restaurant. It was racism.
I hate to sound prejudiced, but every conversation I’ve ever had with a mouse has been like this.
Or was that cats?
Dear Sailor B, it was CATS and we both know why…LOL.
Brilliant!
Comics is brilliant. Could I translate it into Russian and post in my LJ?
Please, be my guest! 🙂