Avoid Being Sucked In And Ripped Off by Will Ross

[Cron]

"Avoid Being Sucked In And Ripped Off" by Will Ross
From
Avoid Being Sucked In And Ripped Off

--------------------------------------
Avoid Being Sucked In And Ripped Off

Sadly, there are many people in this world who will try to deceive you and take advantage of you. Politicians, salesmen, advertisers, preachers and psychics all employ devious means to get you to believe their tales. Fortunately, you can protect yourself from their skullduggery and nonsense. These two simple steps will help you avoid being sucked in and ripped off.

Politicians, salesmen, advertisers, preachers and psychics all make claims. A claim is an assertion that something is true or factual. Claims are always positive i.e., they assert that something is true, they don’t assert that it’s false: “There is a dog in my backyard” is a claim; “There isn’t a dog in my backyard”, is not a claim, it is the denial of a claim.

The Burden of Proof
People who make claims are called claimants. Claimants always have the burden of proof; it’s their responsibility to show that what they say is true. If you deny a claim (i.e. you say that a claim is false) you do not have to prove your point.

That the burden of proof falls on the claimant is an established principle in law and science. In criminal proceedings, the prosecution has to demonstrate that the defendant is guilty. The defense has nothing to prove. Similarly, a drug company must prove the efficacy and safety of a drug before it is released onto the market. Without the safeguard of placing the burden of proof on the claimant, we would all be at risk of being sentenced for crimes we did not commit, and of ingesting unsafe medicine.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
Suppose I told you that I kept a dog as a pet. Unless you had good reason to disbelieve me, my word should be sufficient reason for you to believe me. If I told you that I had a pet tiger, you might need more convincing. Perhaps you'd need to see an item on Sixty Minutes about a weirdo who keeps a tiger in his backyard. Or perhaps you have a friend who lives near me who could confirm my story for you.

But what if I said that I had a dinosaur in my backyard? What would it take to convince you of that? You know that Sixty Minutes sometimes airs hoax stories; you know that your friend could be pulling your leg to go along with my claim. Before you believed my story, you would need very convincing evidence. In fact, you'd be crazy to believe me unless you had watertight evidence that my dinosaur actually existed.

And so it is with all claims. Everyday claims (such as "I have a dog") don't require very stringent forms of evidence to be accepted. But as we move up the chain of improbability, we need more and more stringent evidence before we accept a claim as true.

Proof for a claim needs to be independent. A company brochure is not a reliable source to backup a claim. Nor are colleagues of the person making the claim.

Everyday Examples
Let’s look at two common examples to see how these principles work:

Suppose an evangelist tells you that there is a God in Heaven who loves you. It certainly sounds good, and it would be great if it were true. Many people believe for that reason alone; they want it to be true. But how does it stand up to our two principles?

Firstly, the burden of proof is on the evangelist. Being unable to prove that God does not exist is insufficient reason to believe that he does exist. Unless the evangelist can prove what he’s saying, you would be wise not to believe him.

Secondly, the claim that there is a god is far more out of the ordinary than the claim that I have a dog, so it requires much more stringent proof. The company brochure (in this case the Bible) is not proof, it is merely a repetition of the claim. Despite numerous attempts, by many believers, over many years, this claim has never been proven. Therefore, it is unworthy of belief.

Many people say that they have seen UFO’s, or spaceships from another planet. Many other people regard these claims as false. The burden of proof is on the claimants, those people who claim to have seen the UFO’s. The doubters have nothing to prove. Spaceships are not everyday items, so you would be wise to wait until you have extraordinary evidence before you believe the claimants.

If you decide that, from now on, you will keep these two principles in mind whenever you consider claims, you will be unlikely to be sucked in or ripped off.

© Will Ross Personal Development With Will Ross: Self-Help Ideas That Work!

[Keith]

Y'know, quotation marks would've prevented your subject line (and title) from being self-derogatory...

[Cas]

Haha, I read it as 'Avoid Being Sucked In And Ripped Off BY Will Ross' and I'm naturally scanning the thread for Will Ross and how he's trying to scam people. LOL. Nice article, though.

[Cron]

Thanks for the heads up typo guys! If you haven't I would like to suggest reading and commenting on the content of the post. I think you will find it (more?) interesting.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Cron

Thanks for the heads up typo guys! If you haven't I would like to suggest reading and commenting on the content of the post. I think you will find it (more?) interesting.

I read that too - I just had no comment to make.

It seems sensible advice. It does seem to fall back a bit heavily on the scientific view of 'only believe that which is likely or proven'. That's great for science, but in real life there are times when it's practical to have faith in the unprovable (and undisprovable).

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Keith

It seems sensible advice. It does seem to fall back a bit heavily on the scientific view of 'only believe that which is likely or proven'. That's great for science, but in real life there are times when it's practical to have faith in the unprovable (and undisprovable).

Interesting. When and how would it be practical to have faith in the unprovable?

[RT Wolf]

^ A belief in God. Whether you believe in god or not, believing in one gives you a sense of grounding, and assuming you feel that god is a kindred spirit, you would probably feel better. There's no empirical and conclusive proof that one exists, nor that one does not exist.

Pragmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia HOO!

Certain of my more ambitious goals might require the same kind of faith.

[Cron]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

There's no empirical and conclusive proof that one exists, nor that one does not exist.

If you can't think of objective criteria for proving something false that means evidence is irrelevant to the claim and that the claim cannot be proved as true.

[Mark Lapierre]

I'll grant that. As long as a belief in God isn't taken to extremes. And certainly belief that a medicine will work even if there is no active ingredient in the "medicine" can have benefits.

However Will Ross does have a point; unquestioning belief in unfounded claims can be entirely impractical. Unfounded claims include those which are supposedly backed up but haven't been verified by you (i.e., a reference to a scientific journal is useless if that journal doesn't exist. Verify references). And that's what it comes down to for me, being able to verify that extraordinary claims are valid.

Some extraordinary claims can be easily tested by an individual. E.g., 30-day trials of proposals where all the information needed is freely available. But some can't be tested without shelling out a significant amount of cash. Situations like that is where there is danger of being ripped off.

[Angela]

Here's a claim contained in this article which I reject, because it's false:

Originally Posted by Cron

Claimants always have the burden of proof; it’s their responsibility to show that what they say is true.

If I make a claim to you, I have (and feel) absolutely no responsibility to show you what I say is true, unless it's a transaction of some kind. If it's a transaction, then I would feel a legal or moral responsibility to back up my claim. Not every claim involves a transaction.

If this guy is trying to give you some strength in resisting a transactional claimant, and it's valuable to you, great. But the examples he cites are not necessarily transactional claims. A preacher who claims there's a god in heaven who loves you, or someone who claims he's been abducted by an alien, or tells you he has a dog, has no responsibility to prove anything to you. If you feel there's a transaction involved (preacher asking you for money or to commit your immortal soul, abductee wants you to buy his book, dogman wanting to sell you puppies) then it's up to you to solicit, request, demand, or research your own proof and if you feel you've been wronged, to seek redress in a court of law or public opinion, where you may be vindicated.

A promiser has a responsibility to live up to his promise. But a claimant has no responsibility to provide you with anything.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Angela

If I make a claim to you, I have (and feel) absolutely no responsibility to show you what I say is true, unless it's a transaction of some kind. If it's a transaction, then I would feel a legal or moral responsibility to back up my claim. Not every claim involves a transaction.

That is an outstanding point.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Interesting. When and how would it be practical to have faith in the unprovable?

For example, when starting a new business it would be good to have faith that your business will succeed, even if statistically 9 out of 10 fail. If you're grossly obese then the odds are against you - if you weigh up the odds rather than getting stuck in and dealing with the problem!

Steve wrote this insightful blog post on the topic.

Originally Posted by Cron

If you can't think of objective criteria for proving something false that means evidence is irrelevant to the claim and that the claim cannot be proved as true.

True, but beside the point. The point is that it's sometimes wise to believe things even if they seem unlikely to be true.

I find the Christian God incredibly implausible. But that doesn't prevent believers being inspired by faith to perform feats that they wouldn't have otherwise even attempted. "True" is irrelevant.

P.S. What Angela said.

[ArthurHung]

Originally Posted by Angela

Here's a claim contained in this article which I reject, because it's false:



If I make a claim to you, I have (and feel) absolutely no responsibility to show you what I say is true, unless it's a transaction of some kind. If it's a transaction, then I would feel a legal or moral responsibility to back up my claim. Not every claim involves a transaction.

If this guy is trying to give you some strength in resisting a transactional claimant, and it's valuable to you, great. But the examples he cites are not necessarily transactional claims. A preacher who claims there's a god in heaven who loves you, or someone who claims he's been abducted by an alien, or tells you he has a dog, has no responsibility to prove anything to you. If you feel there's a transaction involved (preacher asking you for money or to commit your immortal soul, abductee wants you to buy his book, dogman wanting to sell you puppies) then it's up to you to solicit, request, demand, or research your own proof and if you feel you've been wronged, to seek redress in a court of law or public opinion, where you may be vindicated.

A promiser has a responsibility to live up to his promise. But a claimant has no responsibility to provide you with anything.

Very nice way of putting it. So a preacher is essentially a salesman claiming his product is quality, you can research into it and buy it if you'd like to, it's your choice. If more athiests thought this way they would probably no longer identify themselves as athiests; instead on focusing on what they are not they would focus on what they are or can become. Become Taoists or believe in Subjective Reality, for example.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

If more athiests thought this way they would probably no longer identify themselves as athiests...

Theoretically, yes. Religious leaders and other believers often make transactional and interventionist claims, though.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

Very nice way of putting it. So a preacher is essentially a salesman claiming his product is quality, you can research into it and buy it if you'd like to, it's your choice. If more athiests thought this way they would probably no longer identify themselves as athiests; instead on focusing on what they are not they would focus on what they are or can become. Become Taoists or believe in Subjective Reality, for example.

Note: By 'atheism' I'm referring to 'weak atheism' - the idea that "maybe there's a good but it seems unlikely and I'm not going to believe it until I see some serious proof".

Intrinsically atheism is no more an identity than "person who doesn't watch TV gameshows" is an identity - it's just not subscribing to religion.

Unfortunately society tends toward an assumption of Christianity, so atheists often end up arguing against Christianity to justify their right to not believe. Here's an (admittedly non-atheist) example. (Fortunately that particular case ended well).

P.S. It's spelt "atheism". Thinking of "theology" may help with remembering the spelling.

P.P.S. Personally I believe religion should be taught at schools in a 'comparative religion' manner, but that's another kettle of fish...