Please Cofty, keep in mind this is JWN. Believe it or not, you follow the same principles in proving your thoughts on evolution. Different books, different authors, same principle. However, I used above as examples to demonstrate how I would prove "truth," as opposed to the opinions of the WT. When a person makes 'real life' claims, one would want to believe him, until his claims are disproved. There I must admit, I can be gullible, for allowing the benefit of the doubt.
What constitutes 'proof' on JWN?
by besty 81 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“If a person decides to make an allegation in bad faith and then provides strong supporting evidence that has been assembled in bad faith eg fake emails etc, then where does that leave the questioner, and the community?
“If a person makes a 'true' allegation and then decides to withhold certain pieces of evidence, then what status does his claim have?”
- Proof is something that can be confirmed.
- Evidence is something that can serve as confirmation.
Anyone can post an alleged email to JWN and assert that it’s true as presented.
Whether that allegation can be proven true depends on whether it can be confirmed aside from the allegation.
A sample allegation could take this form:
“Henry was betrayed by Joe because one of his volunteers leaked confidential information about some folks, including Henry, without permission. Henry corresponded with Joe about this by email and Joe replied asking for more detail in order to nail down and fix the problem. A few email exchanges later, the problem persisted until it was too late. Henry lost his job as a result. And here’s the initial email… [date and email addresses redacted]”
There are at least two aspects of the above allegation. 1) That confidential information was leaked and 2) that an individual (Henry) suffered tangible harm as a result.
The email may be fabricated or it may be valid. By itself, the email is no more than a claim (an assertion, which in this case is an accusation).
Partial corroborating evidence could be another individual stepping forward claiming to have firsthand knowledge that a leak of confidential information occurred and that Joe’s staff was responsible. So long as there is reason to believe the second individual is not a sock-puppet then there is proof of the alleged leak. The more independent testimony of leaking confidential information the more solid the proof of leaking confidential information. But this does not confirm the allegation that any particular person actually suffered tangible harm as a result of the leak.
To then use the initial allegation and its partial corroboration as proof that a person suffered tangible harm would be unsound.
If there was evidence suggesting the leak of confidential information had potential to cause tangible harm to an individual then evidence confirming such a leak occurred would support an accusation that the release placed individuals in jeopardy of tangible harm. But, again, this would be short of proof that a person actually suffered tangible harm. It would only be evidence of possible—and perhaps probability of—harm.
So readers concerned about Henry (or others like Henry) would have to ask questions in order to measure the veracity of actual harm allegedly suffered by Henry. It could be that a chronology of events could offer help. So a person might ask for dates of email exchanges, but without demanding more confidential data. This would be, in my mind, a reasonable and safe request. If this were refused then concerned readers would be forced to wonder about this aspect of the original allegation.
Regardless, readers concerned about Henry would persist if they wanted to give the allegation every opportunity to be proven true. If they can’t get an answer to the question of chronology then they’ll likely turn to whatever details are given within the initial claim to measure those details for veracity. If they find any evidence of embellishment they are likely to think the entire initial claim was fabricated in order to bolster complaint of something that was/is real, which in this case would be the leak of confidential information.
So…
- If a person decides to make an allegation in bad faith and then provides strong supporting evidence that has been assembled in bad faith eg fake emails etc, a questioner who wants to draw a sound conclusion will ask precise questions designed to reveal forged claims if they exist and to otherwise offer opportunity to gauge what if any degree of probability the claim has. If an accusation is contrived then it will never have positive proof, but it could have evidence of possibility and even probability. A questioner would then have to understand that though the claim might be true, it’s still not positively proven. The claim should be responded to accordingly, and not as though the original claim is positively true.
- If a person makes a 'true' allegation and then decides to withhold certain pieces of evidence, then a questioner will do the same as above. If the accuser elects not to offer evidence beyond their initial claim then the accusation stands as an unproven assertion.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
When there is no possible way to truly investigate and identify which party is telling the truth or not, it comes down to this:
Does someone have anything to gain.
If Joe and / or his volunteers had already been shown to leak emails and had been warned previously about the email leaking and chosen not to do anything about it then whether the allegation is true or not doesn't need to be proven. It's already demonstratable behavior and one would imagine they have things to gain from lying about it whereas other people wouldn't.
Why would anyone make an allegation with nothing to gain? It's not like they are going to be awarded any damages ...
There is always the chance that someone just wants to ruin someone elses reputation, perhaps to further a quarrel or as followup for some previous disagreement. If this is the case then that is what Joe should point out. But he cannot 'prove' that Hanry is lying.
-
Terry
I take this approach. I'm under no obligation to believe. Unless something directly impacts my life or family, I simply listen and file it in my
"provisional" context. Neither T or F and not even a Maybe. It is just "there."
Fool me once; shame on you.
Fool me twice; shame on me.
The News Media outlets in the old days went from sun up to midnight and then signed off. Stories were reported and the policy was confirmation by
2 independent sources.
Today's News Media outlets are 24/7. A lot of empty space is filled. But, with what??
SPECULATION and pumping drama and mystery into an ordinary happening to give viewers titillations is commonplace.
The recent Trayvon Martin media circus turned into a riot of disinformation, misinformation, needless hype, speculation and gossip.
Why? The Media needed to fill air space and attract advertisers and viewers.
Next time you go on a splash page of your browser look at the teasers that appear to be curious News snippets.
NO ACTUAL INFORMATION is provided in the teaser.
All they are interested in providing is a CLICK by you!
When you get to the go-to page the "story" or "news item" is so common and fluffy you wonder why you keep falling for it.
-
BluesBrother
Lets remember that this is the internet - a free and open source of knowledge, and sometimes disinformation. If somebody wants me to believe his assertion he needs to show the source of his information. If he does not, then I consider it and view it as interesting (maybe) but only his assertion.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
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.
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.
When it comes to an accusation, it’s most often the case that each side has something to gain hence looking to see who has something to gain is not very definitive, if at all.
If there is no possible way to investigate a claim then the claim is unproven. End of story.
“There is always the chance that someone just wants to ruin someone else’s reputation, perhaps to further a quarrel or as follow-up for some previous disagreement. If this is the case then that is what Joe should point out. But he cannot 'prove' that Henry is lying.”
The burden to prove an accusation true is something rightly borne by the accuser. If the accuser cannot prove their accusation as it is presented then the accusation is unproven. That doesn’t make the accusation false. It only makes it unproven. But an unproven accusation is not much—if anything—more than gossip.
If the accused were to assert an allegation as a lie then that would be an accusation in itself, thus in need of proof. Whether this secondary accusation can be proven true would be determined by corroborating evidence. If there’s no corroboration then the secondary accusation is unproven. End of story for that accusation.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Vidiot
I try and avoid using the word "proof"; I find it kind of loaded these days.
-
Oubliette
Interesting thought. The fact that this forum is PUBLIC has many advantages. However, the fact that almost all participants are also ANONYMOUS raises legitimate questions regarding the reliability of statements made.
So, if there is a particular reason to doubt the veracity of anything posted here, the simple solution would seem to be this: Is it independently verifiable?
-
Band on the Run
I wish people here would start realizing that legal terms have precise definitons and histories. Lawyers can't explain beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no one definition that works. It all depends what outcome you want.
This is not a court of law. It is a forum of exJWs. Simon cannot decide proof. No committee of eminent posters with a long history here can rule on what is proof here. The concept does not travel to ther fields. Besides, there are many benefits to usiing loose language. Don't think I write the way I do here in working life. Members here have different interests and world views. To make proof stick, Simon would have to hire an arbitrator with extgensive knowledge of JWs. Not very likely at any price. The alternative would be a military force.
Besides, something happened here to me that illustrates my point. From my personal experience and education, I was utterly convinced that someone here was evil. I was certain of certain key facts about the poster. I mentioned my outrage to someone I respect with a different background. She assumed a totally different set of facts. We have no way of ascertaining what is correct.
Well trained and moral people can read the same written documents and come to very different conclusions. This is why juries are not one person groups. When cases go before juries, seasoned lawyers start talking to people on the street, mail room employees, etc. fervently. They cannot reveal details b/c of confidentiality and tackiness. They know they are clueless about normal life. Juries are normal life people. They understand the judge but not the jury. Jury consultants screw up. It is not only lawyers. I've seen Paul McCartney do it.
No one knows everything. There is no neutral view because we are human. If dogs could read, we would only substitute a dog view which may different from a cat view. I don't always suceed but I try to be conscious of my biases and how experience limits me. This is why it is good to cultivate diverse friends and associate with various socioeconomic backgrounds. No group knows it all.
Only a few countries use British law. We think everyone does b/c America was/is a British colony. Most countries follow civil law or Napoleonic Code. I regret not taking the course in law school. Because of globalization, you need it to practice today. Civil law countries don't think ordinary people can tell truth from falsehood. Civil law judges find facts and law. They undergo extensive training in how to detect liars through body language, speech patterns, etc. If American/British/Canadian, etc. judges took specialized courses in truth, they would be removed from office. It is a different way of viewing the world. No way works well all the time.
If I were charged with a serious crime or faced massive damage awards in a civil suit, sometimes I would beg for a judge. Most of the time I would want a judge. They understand better and are rational. On the other hand, I can imagine other circumstances where I would absolutely demand a regular jury.
Does anyone want to spend years reading old posts to ascertain a poster's world view and level of candor from previoius posts to make a decision? What is at stake? An opinion, not fact. No one is facing prison or millions of dollars of fines. This a forum not the NAACP or ACLU. Don't be overly impressed by law or the ACLU. For what we need, this forum is better. Don't fall for glitz and celebrity.
This forum is not a trial or appeals court. There are benefits to casual experiences. I would never explain legal info the way I do here to a class of high school students or college students. Perhaps I fail but I try to explain things in every day terms. Some law students who are not lawyers are shocked by my writing and my lack of citations. Well, I am older and more experienced. The way I write is a conscious decision. Real life intrudes on an academic brain. What good is a fancy education if you can't explain basics to normal people? Lawyers who talk with regular people the way they talk to each other have no clients and will lose their homes, etc.
When lawyers and corporate ceos interact, it is humorous. CEOs know how to play squash with lawyer brains. They so civilly and politely mess with the brains in the middle of serious and intricate decisions. They don't care what the lawyers thinks the CEO should do. Lawyers do not excel at running large businesses. It takes a different personality. They just want legal memos for files. Also, they don't care what happened in the Middle Ages or your experiences in the law library or on Lexis. They want to know the risk. Lawyers can't tell these people whether to assume the risk. The MBA with experience decides. Lawyers are risk adverse. Society would stop if only lawyers ruled the world. You need many people who can tolerate prudent risk.
Trust your gut and your own life experience. Don't replicate your JW here with proof. Filter the info through your own brain. Truth is rarely objective. It is a variable concept. Be aware that your own experience is your experience and may not be valid for the rest of the world.
-
Vidqun
Well said Botr. Now I know why I will never survive on "Survivor." I am not a good judge of character. I am not good at ascertaining motive. I'd rather stick with what I know and what I enjoy doing.