The Burden of Proof

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

People often try to put the burden of proof onto others.
In reality, if you are the one that wants to know something,
its only you who can carry that burden.

I cannot carry the burden of proof for someone else.
That person is responsible for his own misgivings.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

People often try to put the burden of proof onto others.
In reality, if you are the one that wants to know something,
its only you who can carry that burden.

I cannot carry the burden of proof for someone else.
That person is responsible for his own misgivings.

If it is only what I wish to know, I agree. You've misunderstood what this thread is about, which is that when we wish to convince others to accept what we think we know -- then we own that burden of proof, not them.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

Sort of. Your example is apropos, but add a couple details like..neither man is from around here, and as such have never seen this store, the burden falls upon the one claiming it exists.

However simple directions how to get there would provide some fairly irrefutable evidence for said proposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

Regarding your grocery store examples: there have been at least two times in my life that a grocery store suddenly ceased to exist:

- when I was a kid Toronto, a natural gas explosion levelled most of a plaza in the west end, including the grocery store.

- a few years back, I went to my local grocery store, only to find a notice on the door saying that they had gone out of business and the space was being converted to something else.

Is the "default" conclusion that the grocery store has continued to exist since the last time you checked? Because sometimes this isn't the case.

If the response isn't the outright claim "that isn't a grocery store" but merely "I'm not convinced that a grocery store is there", who has the burden of proof then?

 

[Nous]

"Factoring in what was then unknown solves the program of Mercury"? What do you "factor in" to Newton's equation in order to correctly predict Mercury's precession? Show it.

Space time.

Can't do it?

 

[ChristineM]

Can't do it?

Space time.

You have problems reading?

 

[Logikal]

Sort of. Your example is apropos, but add a couple details like..neither man is from around here, and as such have never seen this store, the burden falls upon the one claiming it exists.

However simple directions how to get there would provide some fairly irrefutable evidence for said proposition.

No, it is nonsense to ALWAYS require the guy that says the positive claim to prove everything. If you believe x does not exist YOU HAVE the burden because that is the claim you take as a TRUTH claim.

WHOMEVER is making a TRUTH claim be it positive or negative has the burden of proof.
If I say I can prove God exist then I absolutely have the burden.
Likewise if I blurt out God does not exist and I have proof, then once again I have the burden.

Rational folk cannot escape the burden EVER; this is because rational folk need to justify their beliefs and this requires true claims to be made by the rational person.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, it is nonsense to ALWAYS require the guy that says the positive claim to prove everything. If you believe x does not exist YOU HAVE the burden because that is the claim you take as a TRUTH claim.

WHOMEVER is making a TRUTH claim be it positive or negative has the burden of proof.
If I say I can prove God exist then I absolutely have the burden.
Likewise if I blurt out God does not exist and I have proof, then once again I have the burden.

Rational folk cannot escape the burden EVER; this is because rational folk need to justify their beliefs and this requires true claims to be made by the rational person.

Ok, say I claim to have super strength and x-ray vision, but also claim I am under orders from Lord xenu to never use those powers.

Are you saying it would be irational for you to make the counterclaim that I am full of it?

 

[Valjean]

No, it is nonsense to ALWAYS require the guy that says the positive claim to prove everything. If you believe x does not exist YOU HAVE the burden because that is the claim you take as a TRUTH claim.

How does one prove a negative? Nothing is the default state, it's a blank slate. It's not till something's written on it that there exists anything to prove or disprove.

WHOMEVER is making a TRUTH claim be it positive or negative has the burden of proof.
If I say I can prove God exist then I absolutely have the burden.
Likewise if I blurt out God does not exist and I have proof, then once again I have the burden.
Rational folk cannot escape the burden EVER; this is because rational folk need to justify their beliefs and this requires true claims to be made by the rational person.

Agreed -- provided you're actually making a claim and claiming evidence thereof.
This would be more than just a statement of disbelief due to lack of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it is nonsense to ALWAYS require the guy that says the positive claim to prove everything. If you believe x does not exist YOU HAVE the burden because that is the claim you take as a TRUTH claim.

WHOMEVER is making a TRUTH claim be it positive or negative has the burden of proof.
If I say I can prove God exist then I absolutely have the burden.
Likewise if I blurt out God does not exist and I have proof, then once again I have the burden.

Rational folk cannot escape the burden EVER; this is because rational folk need to justify their beliefs and this requires true claims to be made by the rational person.

A position that has no burden of proof would be something like "I won't speak to whether God exists or not, but I've seen no reason to conclude that he does."

This position is generally incompatible with most forms of theism and absolutely incompatible with any position that claims justified belief in God.

It's also the position of many atheists.

 

[Logikal]

A position that has no burden of proof would be something like "I won't speak to whether God exists or not, but I've seen no reason to conclude that he does."

This position is generally incompatible with most forms of theism and absolutely incompatible with any position that claims justified belief in God.

It's also the position of many atheists.

This response is a cop out simply because you ARE NOT MAKING A CLAIM. You are doing the INDIRECT SUBLIMINAL claim. In this way you can never be held accountable.

Nice!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This response is a cop out simply because you ARE NOT MAKING A CLAIM. You are doing the INDIRECT SUBLIMINAL claim. In this way you can never be held accountable.

Why are you shouting?

I agree that it's not a claim; I disagree that it's a cop-out. "I'm not convinced" is a reasonable answer to many claims.

Edit: "held accountable" for what?

 

[Logikal]

A rational person requires you to explain how do you know this. How would you expect others to just believe whatever you say? Objective claims are true regardless of what people think. There are cases where the claim is true and you won't have the means to prove it. What then?

You must explain how you went from no thought to the thought you have.

 

[Logikal]

How does one prove a negative? Nothing is the default state, it's a blank slate. It's not till something's written on it that there exists anything to prove or disprove.

Agreed -- provided you're actually making a claim and claiming evidence thereof.
This would be more than just a statement of disbelief due to lack of evidence.

The proving a negative thing is a mathematician slogan. It makes no sense in the real world. Any proposition in philosophy can refer to real world existence. I take it the non philosophical people have never herd of a logical concept of supposition.
This distinguishes how mathematics teaches logic and how philosophy proper teaches logic. They are not the same.

Look into supposition and then rethink your question.
You can prove negative propositions if you know what propositions are. There are ways to prove affirmative or negative propositions. You just drank the kook aid without question from your mathematical authority.
Are you suggesting a blank set can not be false? Can a blank sets ever be true?

I suggest you understand the correct concepts first.