- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Science can do many things but one thing it cannot do is prove a universal negative. This is why there is something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a positive claim. A positive statement is an affirmative statement about something (ex: the cat is grey) as opposed to a negative statement which counteracts a positive one (ex: the cat is NOT grey). To illustrate why the burden of proof rests on the one making a claim, a man by the name of Bertrand Rusell used an analogy. He stated that there's a Chinese teapot somewhere in between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Since there's no evidence AGAINST such a teapot, provided that it's too small to be detected by even the best telescopes, it only stands to reason that such a teapot exists. This is not to say that no claim can be proven. Rather, each claim must at least have some evidence to be taken seriously.
This concept isn't unique to the scientific community, it can be found in the American justice system. The burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. In civil courts, the evidence has to point towards guiltiness being more likely than innocence for a conviction. Criminal courts take it a step further, even further than the scientific community. In order to get a guilty verdict, the evidence pointing towards the guiltiness of the defendant must be beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have heard of this as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Now you might be wondering how this concept can apply to the political world. Well, laws that extend the government are based on the claim that government should do _____. Likewise, the people who say that government is too big espouse the belief that the government should NOT do _____. For example, the concept of single payer healthcare is based on the idea that the government should cover the costs of all patients, this is a claim that must be justified. Each government policy must have a justification. In addition to this, there must be evidence that said policy works. For example, if welfare does not actually reduce poverty, then welfare should be eliminated. In this regard, the negative effects of a policy should be taken into account. For example, the massive increase in incarceration can be attributed to "tough on crime" policies like three strikes and you're out and mandatory sentencing. And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated. Back to my example on universal healthcare, if the reason why American healthcare is expensive is because of overregulation, then the solution is to remove these regulations, this would actually save money and there would be no need to worry about politicians slashing funding or waiting times.
tldr version: For the sake of avoiding arbitrary laws, the burden of proof shall rest on the person seeking to increase the outreach of government whether it be increasing government spending, implementing gun control laws, waging a war on drugs or terror, raising the minimum age for X, or implementing any regulation.
The default side for the scientific community is the one making the claim.
The default side for the justice system is innocence.
The default side for the political community should be libertarianism.
Scale regarding economic policy:
Here's a general guide on the burden of proof regarding economic policy. Higher numbers have to produce better results than lower numbers. Subsidization, regulation, and public alternative can be combined, resulting in a higher number.
complete deregulation: 0
subsidization: 1
regulation: 1
public alternative: 1
government granted monopoly: 4
full blown nationalization: 5
This concept isn't unique to the scientific community, it can be found in the American justice system. The burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. In civil courts, the evidence has to point towards guiltiness being more likely than innocence for a conviction. Criminal courts take it a step further, even further than the scientific community. In order to get a guilty verdict, the evidence pointing towards the guiltiness of the defendant must be beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have heard of this as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Now you might be wondering how this concept can apply to the political world. Well, laws that extend the government are based on the claim that government should do _____. Likewise, the people who say that government is too big espouse the belief that the government should NOT do _____. For example, the concept of single payer healthcare is based on the idea that the government should cover the costs of all patients, this is a claim that must be justified. Each government policy must have a justification. In addition to this, there must be evidence that said policy works. For example, if welfare does not actually reduce poverty, then welfare should be eliminated. In this regard, the negative effects of a policy should be taken into account. For example, the massive increase in incarceration can be attributed to "tough on crime" policies like three strikes and you're out and mandatory sentencing. And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated. Back to my example on universal healthcare, if the reason why American healthcare is expensive is because of overregulation, then the solution is to remove these regulations, this would actually save money and there would be no need to worry about politicians slashing funding or waiting times.
tldr version: For the sake of avoiding arbitrary laws, the burden of proof shall rest on the person seeking to increase the outreach of government whether it be increasing government spending, implementing gun control laws, waging a war on drugs or terror, raising the minimum age for X, or implementing any regulation.
The default side for the scientific community is the one making the claim.
The default side for the justice system is innocence.
The default side for the political community should be libertarianism.
Scale regarding economic policy:
Here's a general guide on the burden of proof regarding economic policy. Higher numbers have to produce better results than lower numbers. Subsidization, regulation, and public alternative can be combined, resulting in a higher number.
complete deregulation: 0
subsidization: 1
regulation: 1
public alternative: 1
government granted monopoly: 4
full blown nationalization: 5