Burden of proof

[Spirit of Light]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

 

[SalixIncendium]

More simply, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

 

[Spirit of Light]

More simply, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

Yes, that I agree on

 

[PureX]

More simply, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

That's a misleading over-simplification.

I claim that I don't like spinach. No proof is necessary or expected.

I claim that spinach causes cancer. Proof would be expected. So it's not any claim or claimant that is expected to offer proof.

Also, "proof" is not the correct term, nor the correct expectation in response to a universal truth claim. Sufficiently logical reasoning is. Because rising to the level of 'proof' is a subjective condition not necessarily based on logical reasoning.

This is an important distinction because there are many here who use this ambiguity to place themselves in charge of what stands as acceptable logical reasoning, and what doesn't, by defining it as whatever is logical and reasonable to them. Which then nullifies the whole point of establishing universal applicability.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's a misleading over-simplification.

I claim that I don't like spinach. No proof is necessary or expected.

I claim that spinach causes cancer. Proof would be expected. So it's not any claim or claimant that is expected to offer proof.

Also, "proof" is not the correct term, nor the correct expectation in response to a universal truth claim. Sufficiently logical reasoning is. Because rising to the level of 'proof' is a subjective condition not necessarily based on logical reasoning.

This is an important distinction because there are many here who use this ambiguity to place themselves in charge of what stands as acceptable logical reasoning, and what doesn't, by defining it as whatever is logical and reasonable to them. Which then nullifies the whole point of establishing universal applicability.

Obviously, there are degrees of proof needed for different claims. It is not "all claims carry the same burden of proof", nor "every claim must be proven". It is simply that when one wishes to investigate the truth of a claim, the person whose job it is to demonstrate the truth of it is the person making the claim.

 

[PureX]

Obviously, there are degrees of proof needed for different claims. It is not "all claims carry the same burden of proof", nor "every claim must be proven". It is simply that when one wishes to investigate the truth of a claim, the person whose job it is to demonstrate the truth of it is the person making the claim.

But what you're saying is wrong. The expectation is to present logical reasoning for the universality of the truth claimed. If the claim is not universally true, no reasoning beyond personal experience or preference is expected or required. And even in the case of a universal truth claim, "proof" is logically irrelevant, as "proof" is a subjectively assessed state of conviction. All that is actually expected is a logically sound coarse of reasoning.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's a misleading over-simplification.

No, it’s not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But what you're saying is wrong. The expectation is to present logical reasoning for the universality of the truth claimed. If the claim is not universally true, no reasoning beyond personal experience or preference is expected or required. And even in the case of a universal truth claim, "proof" is logically irrelevant, as "proof" is a subjectively assessed state of conviction. All that is actually expected is a logically sound coarse of reasoning.

Logical reasoning is a form of proof. We're talking colloquially, not scientifically, where "proof" simply refers to facts or reasoning that support the claim.

As regards "universally true" claims, I feel you may need to elaborate. If someone is making a claim that is only subjective, the burden of proof is obviously different (i.e: if I claim "The Harry Potter books are bad" has a lower burden of proof, as an opinion, than "The Harry Potter books were written by Jesus Christ".)

Of course, nobody is required to provide any kind of proof for any position they hold, be it subjective or objective. This isn't really supposed to be a universal thing, just an important note, primarily for decorum and proper debate, when trying as a group to establish the truth of a claim when it is questioned.

 

[Sheldon]

That's a misleading over-simplification.

I claim that I don't like spinach. No proof is necessary or expected.

I claim that spinach causes cancer. Proof would be expected. So it's not any claim or claimant that is expected to offer proof.

Not really, since the burden would vary according to how trivial or extraordinary the claim is.

Also, "proof" is not the correct term, nor the correct expectation in response to a universal truth claim. Sufficiently logical reasoning is.

The term burden of proof is not generally meant as literal proof, most people understand that. It simply means to meet the burden of sufficiently justifying a claim, assertion, or belief.

This is an important distinction because there are many here who use this ambiguity to place themselves in charge of what stands as acceptable logical reasoning, and what doesn't, by defining it as whatever is logical and reasonable to them.

That's a pretty dubious assertion, since the principles of logic apply universally. I have noticed that some theists and apologists often seem to not know they are using known common logical fallacies though, one or two who don't even seem to care, at least one who has said so.

Which then nullifies the whole point of establishing universal applicability.

Not really, since anyone can point out when a claim belief or assertion is irrational, and they would then have the burden of proof to support that claim, and explain why, and of course if someone tries to support a claim assertion or belief that violates a principle of logic, by using a known logical fallacy for example, then the inference clearly is that said claim assertion or belief is irrational.

 

[Brian2]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

 

[Sheldon]

But what you're saying is wrong. The expectation is to present logical reasoning for the universality of the truth claimed.

What on earth is the difference between true and universally true? That sounds like nonsense to me.

If the claim is not universally true, no reasoning beyond personal experience or preference is expected or required.

Personal experience alone, evidences absolutely nothing to anyone beyond the person experiencing it, that is axiomatic, if it is related as subjective anecdote then it's unevidenced hearsay.

And even in the case of a universal truth claim, "proof" is logically irrelevant, as "proof" is a subjectively assessed state of conviction. All that is actually expected is a logically sound coarse of reasoning.

Ironically proofs are used on logic, and mathematics of course, not in informal reasoning, which is what we are talking about primarily in debate. Again I have no idea what "universal truth" even means. You'd need to accurately define what you mean by "universal truth" as I don't believe any such thing exists, your assertion about what is expected to support a claim assertion or belief is clearly just a subjective opinion, so others may not accepts claims based on your standard, and vice versa.

 

[Sheldon]

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

You do if you assert it in a debate forum. Though you may not care of course, which is not the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

In practical terms in discussions with others, the person who's trying to change someone else's mind is the one with the burden of proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

If you care whether your beliefs are true, then you have a burden to prove it to yourself.

 

[syo]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

I hate proof. It damaged society.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Christianity is true but I don't think I have a burden to prove that to anyone.

If it helps, I think "the burden of proof" is not the same thing as "the burden to prove".

 

[Audie]

Obviously, there are degrees of proof needed for different claims. It is not "all claims carry the same burden of proof", nor "every claim must be proven". It is simply that when one wishes to investigate the truth of a claim, the person whose job it is to demonstrate the truth of it is the person making the claim.

Like there's degrees of being tiresome!

 

[Nakosis]

The burden of proof lies with the one who claim to know, or claim his or her belief is the one true belief.

Ok, so how is one supposed to fulfill this burden of proof?
Especially in a philosophical discussion?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If it helps, I think "the burden of proof" is not the same thing as "the burden to prove".

True

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ok, so how is one supposed to fulfill this burden of proof?
Especially in a philosophical discussion?

It is not always possible to give proof