久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

 
 
 

Burden of proof?

中國日報網 2013-07-09 10:46

 

Burden of proof?Reader question:

Please explain “burden of proof” in this statement: Those who promote a theory are, in the scientific method, bound by the burden of proof.

My comments:

To paraphrase, people who put out a theory have to prove that theory to be true scientifically.

In other words, it’s not enough for someone to claim something as such and so and just leave it there – assuming that others will all believe it as such and so. They have, instead, to go through all the trouble to prove to others that the theory is true, using the scientific method, that is, via vigorous tests and trials.

And all that trouble one has to go through is why it is called a “burden”.

“Burden” suggests that it’s a heavy piece of work, one that’s very difficult of accomplishment. Lifting 10 kilos of water in a jar up to the 5th floor, for example, might be OK for you if you’re ask to do it just once. But lifting 20 kilos all the way up to the 5th floor might be a burden, especially if you are asked to do it five times a day, seven days a week.

At least that’ll be burdensome.

Anyways, burden suggests it’s a difficult task. And if you’re bound by the burden of proof, you have to do it. Bound, as in duty bound. No escape. Without shirk. You have to do it.

The phrase “burden of proof” is originally a legal term, point to the fact that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove what it claims is true. If you accuse someone of stealing government money, for instance, you have to prove it in court via evidence. Not only prove it, but prove it, to use another legal jargon, beyond any reasonable doubt.

The accused, on the other hand, is not required to do any of the work – of proving that he’s innocent. He’s presumed innocent, until proven guilty. That’s the basic tenet of the modern legal system, especially in the West where the criminal court is independent of administrative government.

This helps, obviously, to ensure that people do not go around making groundless claims left, right and center.

It might be the case if they were not “bound by the burden of proof”.

In the courtroom as well as in the realm of science, necessarily, it makes sense.

Alright, here are media examples of “burden of proof”:

My comments:

1. Education institutions, like any other large employers, are likely, at some stage, to face discrimination claims from employees or former employees, and managers may be called upon to attend employment tribunal hearings. In the majority of discrimination cases considered by tribunals, there will be no clear-cut evidence that the alleged discrimination has taken place. Instead, there will typically be conflicting evidence reflecting the very different perceptions of those involved. This was recognised by the Court of Appeal in the leading judgment on this issue, which acknowledged that: “It is unusual to find direct evidence of sex discrimination. Few employers would be prepared to admit such discrimination, even to themselves. In some cases discrimination will not be an intention but merely based on the assumption that ‘he or she would not have fitted in’.”

As a result of this absence of clear-cut evidence, the test for establishing discrimination (ie, the “burden of proof”) will be central to any discrimination case.

A two-stage test

In order to address the evidential difficulties in discrimination cases, the tribunals have developed a two-stage test for proving discrimination. First, the claimant (usually the employee or former employee) must establish a case that, on its face, amounts to discrimination (a “prima facie” case). If he is able to do so, the burden of proof will then shift to the respondent (in most cases, the employer), who will have to show that it did not discriminate against the claimant.

At the first stage of this process, the tribunal will consider what inferences it could draw from the evidence presented and whether this could amount to discrimination. Such inferences may be drawn from, for example, an evasive or equivocal reply to a discrimination questionnaire, the breach of relevant code of practice or evidence from the employer’s equal-opportunities monitoring data. If the burden does move to the respondent then it must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was “in no sense whatsoever” on the grounds of sex, race, age and so on. A bare explanation for the allegedly discriminatory conduct will not be enough; it must be backed by evidence.

- Burden of proof in discrimination cases, TimesHigherEducation.co.uk, February 18, 2009.

2. The debate may largely be drawn along political lines, but the human role in climate change remains one of the most controversial questions in 21st century science. Writing in WIREs Climate Change Dr Kevin Trenberth, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role. In response to Trenberth’s argument a second review, by Dr Judith Curry, focuses on the concept of a ‘null hypothesis’ the default position which is taken when research is carried out. Currently the null hypothesis for climate change attribution research is that humans have no influence.

“Humans are changing our climate. There is no doubt whatsoever,” said Trenberth. “Questions remain as to the extent of our collective contribution, but it is clear that the effects are not small and have emerged from the noise of natural variability. So why does the science community continue to do attribution studies and assume that humans have no influence as a null hypothesis?”

To show precedent for his position Trenberth cites the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that global warming is “unequivocal,” and is “very likely” due to human activities.

Trenberth also focused on climate attribution studies which claim the lack of a human component, and suggested that the assumptions distort results in the direction of finding no human influence, resulting in misleading statements about the causes of climate change that can serve to grossly underestimate the role of humans in climate events.

“Scientists must challenge misconceptions in the difference between weather and climate while attribution studies must include a human component,” concluded Trenberth. “The question should no longer be is there a human component, but what is it?”

- The human cause of climate change: Where does the burden of proof lie? EScienceNews.com, November 3, 2011.

3. It was Liz MacKean – the BBC reporter on the Newsnight Jimmy Savile investigation that never aired – who said that the broadcaster “should trust its journalists”. Except, of course, nobody seems to trust reporters very much, BBC bosses included – with research from Ipsos Mori showing that the proportion of the public who trust in journalists has averaged about 17% since it first began measuring such things in 1983. Recent events – well, phone hacking – might have further dented the public perceptions - but it is not just the behaviour of a minority that has led us to this point.

David Walsh, the Sunday Times writer who did his best to expose Lance Armstrong’s drug-taking, found himself unable to defend his journalism in the British courts back in 2005. The admitted drug-taker was able to avail himself of the best legal advice (Schillings in this case) and the Sunday Times could not prove its case. That’s partly because the burden of proof in libel rests on the publisher of the allegations – and partly because the evidence on which Walsh relied was not conclusive. Walsh had information from a masseuse, Emma O’Reilly, who told him about the disposal of “empty syringes” – the type of evidence that high court judges concluded was capable only of “imputing either ‘guilt’ (in the sense of having taken such drugs) or, at the least, that there were reasonable grounds to suspect him of taking drugs”.

With the burden of proof on the journalist Walsh would have needed a direct confession (now available on Oprah Winfrey’s network) or covert filming to prove his story in court. So because the claim could not be backed up, and because the evidence offered implied guilt, the Sunday Times folded, paying £1m in damages and costs to Armstrong. The paper even had to state in court that it “never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs”.

Yet, of course, we know Walsh turned out to be right. It was just that the judges didn’t believe him, because the burden of proof had been raised so high. A similar point might have been made about Jimmy Savile too – the man we now believe to be a serial rapist and sexual abuser also used lawyers to stop journalists telling stories about him: according to his son, the late George Carman, the legendary silk, warned off the Sunday Mirror from publishing a story in 1994 about alleged abuse by Savile at Duncroft Approved School for troubled girls in Staines, Surrey. Any newspaper editor would have known that relying on 20-year-old evidence from once-vulnerable women could easily have been demolished in court; and once again the newspaper would have been shown to be “proven wrong” when, in fact, the women’s story and the journalist’s instincts were right.

Nor should one just blame the libel laws. Corporate pressures play their own part. There are now 22 Sun journalists who have been arrested as part of Operation Elveden, investigating corrupt payments to public officials. At the Sun from its inception, paying for news was the way the newsroom did business: the public were invited to sell stories by ringing the newsdesk. It is one thing to suborn a public official – but arguably quite another to agree a £300 tip fee to a soldier or prison officer.

Nobody warned journalists at the time that what was seen as “doing one’s job” might be illegal. Yet now – with evidence handed over after the phone-hacking crisis – some reporters wait months on bail before the police decide what to do about the payments made.

Of course, there’s no doubt that journalists make many mistakes too. But when they’re caught in the crossfire of the law and flawed institutions, there are other reasons why trust in the trade is so low.

- Why the burden of proof weighs heavily on journalists, Guardian.co.uk, January 20, 2013.

Related stories:

Political horse trading

Joined at the hip?

Jack of all trades?

Penny wise, pound foolish?

Let nature take its course

Pick their poison?

Go to Zhang Xin's column

本文僅代表作者本人觀點,與本網立場無關。歡迎大家討論學術問題,尊重他人,禁止人身攻擊和發布一切違反國家現行法律法規的內容。

About the author:

Zhang Xin(張欣) has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

上一篇 : Not in her league?
下一篇 : Striking distance?

 
中國日報網英語點津版權說明:凡注明來源為“中國日報網英語點津:XXX(署名)”的原創作品,除與中國日報網簽署英語點津內容授權協議的網站外,其他任何網站或單位未經允許不得非法盜鏈、轉載和使用,違者必究。如需使用,請與010-84883561聯系;凡本網注明“來源:XXX(非英語點津)”的作品,均轉載自其它媒體,目的在于傳播更多信息,其他媒體如需轉載,請與稿件來源方聯系,如產生任何問題與本網無關;本網所發布的歌曲、電影片段,版權歸原作者所有,僅供學習與研究,如果侵權,請提供版權證明,以便盡快刪除。

中國日報網雙語新聞

掃描左側二維碼

添加Chinadaily_Mobile
你想看的我們這兒都有!

中國日報雙語手機報

點擊左側圖標查看訂閱方式

中國首份雙語手機報
學英語看資訊一個都不能少!

關注和訂閱

本文相關閱讀
人氣排行
搜熱詞
 
 
精華欄目
 

閱讀

詞匯

視聽

翻譯

口語

合作

 

關于我們 | 聯系方式 | 招聘信息

Copyright by chinadaily.com.cn. All rights reserved. None of this material may be used for any commercial or public use. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. 版權聲明:本網站所刊登的中國日報網英語點津內容,版權屬中國日報網所有,未經協議授權,禁止下載使用。 歡迎愿意與本網站合作的單位或個人與我們聯系。

電話:8610-84883645

傳真:8610-84883500

Email: languagetips@chinadaily.com.cn

久久久无码人妻精品无码_6080YYY午夜理论片中无码_性无码专区_无码人妻品一区二区三区精99

    日韩精品一区二区免费| 色91精品久久久久久久久| 欧美一级xxxx| 1024av视频| 男插女免费视频| 久久久久久香蕉| av影院在线播放| 午夜视频在线瓜伦| 99热亚洲精品| 久久久一二三四| 好男人www社区| 妞干网在线视频观看| 超碰在线免费观看97| 欧洲熟妇精品视频| 男人日女人视频网站| www亚洲国产| 自拍偷拍一区二区三区四区| 午夜肉伦伦影院| 久艹在线免费观看| 日韩不卡一二区| 中文字幕22页| 人妻丰满熟妇av无码区app| 国产成人永久免费视频| 波多野结衣三级在线| 日本超碰在线观看| 无码人妻精品一区二区三区66| 日韩激情视频一区二区| 国产在线拍揄自揄拍无码| 国产又黄又猛的视频| 一级片视频免费观看| 黄色一级二级三级| 青青草原av在线播放| 拔插拔插海外华人免费| 免费网站在线观看视频| 伊人再见免费在线观看高清版 | 国产极品尤物在线| 精品国产一区二区三区无码| 六月婷婷激情网| 污视频在线观看免费网站| 91人人澡人人爽人人精品| 欧美私人情侣网站| 国产aaa一级片| 日韩精品一区中文字幕| 日本一本二本在线观看| 黄色a级片免费| 久久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国产免费黄色av| 国产美女主播在线播放| 男人用嘴添女人下身免费视频| 成人在线观看你懂的| 国内性生活视频| 国产真实乱子伦| 精品日韩久久久| 国产精品自拍视频在线| 国产无遮挡猛进猛出免费软件| 夜夜夜夜夜夜操| 中文字幕55页| 国产精品igao激情视频 | 一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 日日碰狠狠丁香久燥| 天天色综合天天色| 99九九精品视频| 日本美女爱爱视频| 久久99久久99精品| 黄色片视频在线免费观看| 免费看国产黄色片| 亚洲制服在线观看| 亚洲 欧美 综合 另类 中字| 日韩欧美一区三区| 色综合手机在线| 夜夜爽久久精品91| 日韩精品视频在线观看视频| 无码人妻h动漫| 日韩av片免费观看| 免费人成自慰网站| 久久精品视频91| 亚洲一级免费在线观看| 麻豆视频传媒入口| 凹凸国产熟女精品视频| 天天操天天干天天做| 欧美乱做爰xxxⅹ久久久| 六月丁香婷婷在线| 天堂在线一区二区三区| 妞干网视频在线观看| 少妇黄色一级片| 日本免费黄色小视频| 91免费视频网站在线观看| 亚洲第一色av| 欧美精品久久久久久久久久久| 手机看片福利日韩| 国产成人一二三区| 国产精品一区二区羞羞答答| 欧美性受xxxx黑人猛交88| 精品中文字幕av| 中国 免费 av| av天堂永久资源网| 中文字幕乱码免费| 亚洲成熟丰满熟妇高潮xxxxx| 婷婷激情小说网| 亚洲色成人一区二区三区小说| 99999精品| 老熟妇仑乱视频一区二区| 中国一级大黄大黄大色毛片| 十八禁视频网站在线观看| 国产激情在线看| 在线观看的毛片| 国产3p露脸普通话对白| 五月天婷婷影视| 免费观看精品视频| 超碰10000| 亚洲免费av一区| 日韩av片在线看| www.国产亚洲| 中文字幕久久av| 免费日韩中文字幕| 欧美这里只有精品| 99中文字幕在线| 99草草国产熟女视频在线| 很污的网站在线观看| 性久久久久久久久久久久久久| 欧美日韩在线成人| 国产成人无码a区在线观看视频| 99精品视频国产| 热久久精品免费视频| 国产黄页在线观看| 国产一二三区在线播放| 亚洲一级片免费观看| 色婷婷综合网站| 韩国一区二区av| 九一国产精品视频| 一卡二卡三卡视频| 视色,视色影院,视色影库,视色网 日韩精品福利片午夜免费观看 | 九色porny91| 国模无码视频一区二区三区| av在线com| 手机福利在线视频| 亚洲自拍第三页| 最新天堂中文在线| 激情 小说 亚洲 图片: 伦| 国产黄色特级片| 久久久精品在线视频| av免费观看国产| 日本精品久久久久久久久久| 欧美日韩激情四射| a级片一区二区| 亚洲激情免费视频| 在线观看视频黄色| 日本丰满大乳奶| 黄色污污在线观看| 中文字幕在线乱| 一级性生活视频| 乱熟女高潮一区二区在线| 成年在线观看视频| 精品国产一区二区三区无码| 高清无码视频直接看| 久久天天东北熟女毛茸茸| 米仓穗香在线观看| 国产天堂视频在线观看| 男的插女的下面视频| 9久久9毛片又大又硬又粗| 丰满少妇被猛烈进入高清播放| 欧美黄色免费影院| 三级4级全黄60分钟| 日韩在线第三页| 污视频网站观看| 搡的我好爽在线观看免费视频| 中文字幕av导航| 日韩美女爱爱视频| 欧美色图色综合| 欧美黄色一级片视频| 黄色aaa级片| 亚洲黄色片免费看| www.国产亚洲| 激情五月宗合网| 国产免费999| 色男人天堂av| 欧美日韩福利在线| 日韩中文字幕二区| 国产成人美女视频| 欧美在线观看视频免费| 国产精品后入内射日本在线观看| 人妻有码中文字幕| 国产免费中文字幕| 久草视频这里只有精品| 欧美视频第一区| 亚洲网中文字幕| 免费超爽大片黄| 亚洲色图久久久| www.黄色网址.com| 亚洲精品无码久久久久久| 中文字幕22页| 国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 黄色一级二级三级| 手机在线免费毛片| 成人在线免费观看av| 日韩肉感妇bbwbbwbbw| 国产91沈先生在线播放| 久久久久久三级| 4444在线观看| 91蝌蚪视频在线观看|