Month: February 2005

The Burden of Proof

Down yonder, I wrote:

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the
claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the
person you disagree with.

Following, which a reader wrote:

Jimmy,

You wrote:

"the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with."

Which struck me as being, well, simply wrong: if it were true, then
in every disagreement (where both sides disagree with each other), both
sides would have the burden of proof. So what did you mean?

And another reader wrote:

Jimmy, I think you might be being facetious here. But the real
reason the burden of proof is on them, of course, is that they are
making an accusation that the pope conspired with an industry and
established binding laws of multitudes of Catholics in order to
financially benefit that industry. The burden of proof is always on the
people making an assertion of fact!

If someone accuses me of conspiring, the burden of proof better be
on them! If not, I’ll have to materialize some sort of proof that I
*didn’t conspire*! In most cases that wouldn’t even be possible.

Sorry, guys.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant . . .

YOU SHOULDER THE  BURDEN, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

. . . if you’re trying to convince someone who disagrees with you. The nature of the claim doesn’t matter.

Kudos to the reader who took up and defended the proposition I was advancing!

Don’t Forget To VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

. . . in the Cyber Catholics 2005 blog awards, that is.

Last chance!

Voting ends at noon  Eastern this morning!

Here are my recommends:

  • Apologetics: <blush>JimmyAkin.Org</blush>
  • Political: Southern Appeal
  • By a Man: Mark Shea.
  • By a Woman: Amy Welborn
  • Insightful: Secret Agent Man
  • Creative: Curt Jester
  • Bizarre: Saintly Salmagundi

ENTER THE VOTING BOOTH.

"My Car Has A Virus . . ."

. . . that’s what you may be saying in a few years.

Technofolks are concerned that the computer virus problem will begin spreading rapidly among computer-chip-implanted devices including cell phones and automobiles:

Watch out for viruses that spread to mobile phones, handheld computers, wireless networks and embedded computers which are increasingly used to run basic automobile functions, the 2004 year-end "Security Threats and Attack Trends Report" report warns. Then again, the readiness of individuals and companies to confront these challenges has also evolved, the study said.

IBM’s report draws on data from 500,000 electronic devices.

It details a range of challenges that computer users faced in 2004 and extrapolates from early warning signs what sort of new threats electronics users are likely to face this year.

Known computer viruses grew by 28,327 in 2004 to bring the number of old and new viruses to 112,438, the report said. In 2002, only 4,551 new viruses were discovered.

Of 147 billion e-mails scanned by IBM for customers in 2004, one in 16, or 6 percent, contained a virus. During 2002, just 0.5 percent of e-mail scanned had viruses.

The average amount of spam circulating on global networks was 75 percent, the survey found. But during peak periods, spam accounted for as much as 95 percent of e-mail traffic.

As the average new car runs 20 computer processors and about 60 megabytes of software code, the opportunity for malfunctions, wireless attacks and other security threats was multiplying, he said.

What I’d like to know is just how a virus would get into your car’s chips.

Oh, well . . .

GET THE STORY.

“My Car Has A Virus . . .”

. . . that’s what you may be saying in a few years.

Technofolks are concerned that the computer virus problem will begin spreading rapidly among computer-chip-implanted devices including cell phones and automobiles:

Watch out for viruses that spread to mobile phones, handheld computers, wireless networks and embedded computers which are increasingly used to run basic automobile functions, the 2004 year-end "Security Threats and Attack Trends Report" report warns. Then again, the readiness of individuals and companies to confront these challenges has also evolved, the study said.

IBM’s report draws on data from 500,000 electronic devices.

It details a range of challenges that computer users faced in 2004 and extrapolates from early warning signs what sort of new threats electronics users are likely to face this year.

Known computer viruses grew by 28,327 in 2004 to bring the number of old and new viruses to 112,438, the report said. In 2002, only 4,551 new viruses were discovered.

Of 147 billion e-mails scanned by IBM for customers in 2004, one in 16, or 6 percent, contained a virus. During 2002, just 0.5 percent of e-mail scanned had viruses.

The average amount of spam circulating on global networks was 75 percent, the survey found. But during peak periods, spam accounted for as much as 95 percent of e-mail traffic.

As the average new car runs 20 computer processors and about 60 megabytes of software code, the opportunity for malfunctions, wireless attacks and other security threats was multiplying, he said.

What I’d like to know is just how a virus would get into your car’s chips.

Oh, well . . .

GET THE STORY.

Evil Ad-Speak

Y’know how you sometimes run into maddeningly overused cliches in advertising?

For example, when was the last time you read a restaurant menu that described something as being made with "tomatoes"? That’s it: just "tomatoes."

I’m betting it’s been a while.

For Madisson Avenue has apparently decided that the word "tomatoes" cannot go unaccompanied. It must be chaperoned by two adjectives.

And not just any two adjecives. Saying "juicy, delicious tomatoes" ain’t enough. It has to be two specific adjectives: "red" and "ripe."

Yes, that’s right. Because of some evil adman sitting, cackling in his office somewhere, you now can no longer pick up a menu with a straight-forward description of a food as being made with "tomoatoes." It has to be "red ripe tomatoes."

Every.

Single.

Dang.

Time.

And that’s not the only ubiquitous advertising cliche. How about "farm fresh eggs," which is likely justifiable only in the sense that the eggs were at one time on a farm (likely an industrial farm) and they were at that time fresh. Now, they’ve been in cold storage for who knows how long, yet the evil adman wants you to believe that they have been whisked to your table fresh from under the hinder of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm’s favorite laying hen.

Restaurants aren’t the only place that use such deceptive cliches. How about when you’re at the end of a TV episode and the announcer tells you to watch some clips from next week’s "all new!" episode, despite the fact that next week’s episode is a clip show!

AAAAARGH!

<hyperbole>I think it’s time for Madison Avenue to get an "all new" vocabulary before I give an evil adman such a thumping with my "farm fresh" fists that he becomes a "red ripe" pulp.</hyperbole>

Share your own evil ad cliches in the comments box.

Actually, That Warn't Me

A reader writes:

I watched the Luther movie last week and then heard your comments on it during the CA show last week.

You made a comment when Tetzel said ‘ that for money, he would forgive any man who ravaged the virgin Mary herself.’ that Tetzel probably never said that.

You were right.   It was Martin Luther who said it.

In his book Table Talk (1569), section CCCCLI, Luther writes "Had one ravished the Virgin Mary, or crucified Christ anew, the pope would, for money, have pardoned him."

Much obliged for the primary source!

Actually, though, it warn’t me who said that. It was Mr. Decent Films, Steven Greydanus. (You can tell when it’s him speaking on the show ’cause he dasn’t use words like "warn’t.")

To tell you the truth, I remembered reading Luther alluding to one ravishing the Virgin Mary, but I couldn’t remember in what context he was using the phrase in. Even when a devout Protestant, I found his very use of the phrase repulsive. Don’t know if it was a phrase he used a lot or just in this case. Also don’t know if it was unique to him or if others of his age also used it.

I do know that Luther was regarded as a remarkably crude fellow by other in his day.

You should see some of the cartoons he had drawn.

(Maybe I’ll scan them and post them sometime.)

Actually, That Warn’t Me

A reader writes:

I watched the Luther movie last week and then heard your comments on it during the CA show last week.

You made a comment when Tetzel said ‘ that for money, he would forgive any man who ravaged the virgin Mary herself.’ that Tetzel probably never said that.

You were right.   It was Martin Luther who said it.

In his book Table Talk (1569), section CCCCLI, Luther writes "Had one ravished the Virgin Mary, or crucified Christ anew, the pope would, for money, have pardoned him."

Much obliged for the primary source!

Actually, though, it warn’t me who said that. It was Mr. Decent Films, Steven Greydanus. (You can tell when it’s him speaking on the show ’cause he dasn’t use words like "warn’t.")

To tell you the truth, I remembered reading Luther alluding to one ravishing the Virgin Mary, but I couldn’t remember in what context he was using the phrase in. Even when a devout Protestant, I found his very use of the phrase repulsive. Don’t know if it was a phrase he used a lot or just in this case. Also don’t know if it was unique to him or if others of his age also used it.

I do know that Luther was regarded as a remarkably crude fellow by other in his day.

You should see some of the cartoons he had drawn.

(Maybe I’ll scan them and post them sometime.)

"Fish" Fridays

A reader writes:

I got hit by the old line that eating fish was related to boosting the fishing industry.  The sad thing was the guy said he heard if from a seminarian.  I went to EWTN and looked at some posts but wasn’t real happy with what I saw there.

Do you have (at Catholic Answers) or on some simple but documented history of eating fish?

This is one of those things that is hard to verify because of how backwards the situation is. Every year people claim that eating fish on Fridays was introduced to help the Italian fishing industry, but nobody ever comes up with primary source documents to estabish this.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making this claim. Unless they can produce an original source document saying this, it isn’t worth giving any credence to.

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.

It seems to me that the following is far more likely to account for the situation:

  1. Church law is written in Latin.
  2. In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
  3. In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
  4. Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
  5. Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
  6. The practice of eating fish became widespread.
  7. People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
  8. The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
  9. Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
  10. Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
  11. The rumor spread far and wide because people still have a sinful streak whereby they want to attribute selfish motives to others and, in particular, to the pope.

If there were a requirement that people eat fish on Friday (there ain’t) then one would have a better case for the fishing-industry story, but in the absence of a requirement or any primary source document to the contrary, the above seems to me to be the more likely way to account for the matter.

“Fish” Fridays

A reader writes:

I got hit by the old line that eating fish was related to boosting the fishing industry.  The sad thing was the guy said he heard if from a seminarian.  I went to EWTN and looked at some posts but wasn’t real happy with what I saw there.

Do you have (at Catholic Answers) or on some simple but documented history of eating fish?

This is one of those things that is hard to verify because of how backwards the situation is. Every year people claim that eating fish on Fridays was introduced to help the Italian fishing industry, but nobody ever comes up with primary source documents to estabish this.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making this claim. Unless they can produce an original source document saying this, it isn’t worth giving any credence to.

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with.

It seems to me that the following is far more likely to account for the situation:

  1. Church law is written in Latin.
  2. In Latin the thing we are forbidden to eat on (today certain) Fridays is carnis.
  3. In Latin, carnis means the flesh of warm-blooded, land-dwelling animals.
  4. Since people couldn’t eat carnis, they looked for things similar to carnis to eat on Fridays.
  5. Tofu burgers not having been introduced in the West, people started eating fish.
  6. The practice of eating fish became widespread.
  7. People who didn’t know Latin started looking for an explanation of why fish is eaten but not the flesh of land animals.
  8. The sinful streak in human nature made them want to attribute some kind of self-interested motive to the Church in allowing fish.
  9. Somebody noticed that forbidding meat on Fridays would have the effect of economically benefitting the fishing industry.
  10. Somebody attributed the allowance of fish to an attempt by the pope to economically benefit the finishing industry.
  11. The rumor spread far and wide because people still have a sinful streak whereby they want to attribute selfish motives to others and, in particular, to the pope.

If there were a requirement that people eat fish on Friday (there ain’t) then one would have a better case for the fishing-industry story, but in the absence of a requirement or any primary source document to the contrary, the above seems to me to be the more likely way to account for the matter.