Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[idav]

You have provided the evidence for your clearly defined concept of evolution. I still say "I am not convinced that evolution exists. You have not met your burden of proof".

What do you say to me?

Is this a fair response? Do I have any responsibility to explain why the evidence has failed to convince me?

Semantics. If we can't agree on what evolution entails then its hopeless. Like the micro macro debate . Or like me insisting that I have met my burden by positing the universe is god, why can't everyone see this....universe/god right in front of you.

 

[Falvlun]

Semantics. If we can't agree on what evolution entails then its hopeless. Like the micro macro debate .

We did agree. I agreed to your definition of evolution. And I rejected it along with your puny evidence. Mwaha.

Or like me insisting that I have met my burden by positing the universe is god, why can't everyone see this....universe/god right in front of you.

Is this different than insisting that a burden of proof hasn't been met and why can't everyone see this?

 

[idav]

We did agree. I agreed to your definition of evolution. And I rejected it along with your puny evidence. Mwaha.

If you don't agree evolution exists then we don't agree on what it is.

Is this different than insisting that a burden of proof hasn't been met and why can't everyone see this?

If you don't agree that the universe is god then we don't agree on what god is.

 

[Falvlun]

If you don't agree evolution exists then we don't agree on what it is.

If you don't agree that the universe is god then we don't agree on what god is.

I suppose that's one way to eliminate burden of proof completely. Kudos!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh! I'm sorry Peng. I meant to respond to your Gish Gallop question a couple of times but each time the post got buried and I forgot about it.

Here's a couple things that come to mind:

1. A gish gallop is basically like a fallacy of debating, or at least, it's not part of what's considered "polite" debating. In formal debates, it's not allowed. As such, I think it could be treated like any other fallacy, in that you point out the issue, and ask them to limit their arguments to what they find to be the strongest.

Except the Gish Gallop isn't actually a logical fallacy. I agree that it's not "polite", but until now you haven't suggested that the atheist's burden of proof - whatever it is - is contingent on the behaviour of the theist he's debating.

In the context of a formal debate with set time limits for arguments, the Gish Gallop can be a tactic to use up the opponent's time. In an informal debate, though, there's no time limit. The Gish Gallop is just a matter of one person presenting more arguments than the other person cares to respond to.

2. I don't think instances of bad debating can be used as a reason why we don't have the responsibility to support our claims in general. Just like the use of a strawman in an argument doesn't give us leave to use strawmans ourselves. (Or, even, the possible usage of of logical fallacies doesn't mean that we have no responsibility to present logical arguments.)

Hang on - I think you're presenting a bit of a straw man yourself here. it's perfectly valid to adjust our tactics based on what the other does. IMO, once it becomes obvious that the person I'm debating is arguing in bad faith, or is just immune to reason, I don't feel like I have any obligation to continue the debate.

3. Often, a single argument can be made to rebut a group of similar arguments. For example, if the gish galloper is giving you 10 different anecdotal stories, you could respond to them all by explaining why anecdotal stories are not convincing enough evidence.

And often, the gish gallop is a smorgasbord of different bad arguments.

4. And lastly, I do find it a bit strange that the possibility of drowning in theistic evidence is the defense against the responsibility of supporting the claim that "not enough evidence has been given." If there is so much evidence out there that it is too overwhelming to figure out why you reject it all, then I think there might be a problem with the premise that there's not enough evidence.

Not evidence; claims. And the fact that a person can do this isn't a point in favour of their position. We can make any number of bad arguments for any position, regardless of whether it's true or false.

 

[Bunyip]

Another dodge.

Answer the question and stop blustering.

You asked by what authority does science decide what to accept, and I said peer review. You are being rude for no reason, I answered your question.

 

[Falvlun]

Except the Gish Gallop isn't actually a logical fallacy. I agree that it's not "polite", but until now you haven't suggested that the atheist's burden of proof - whatever it is - is contingent on the behaviour of the theist he's debating.

The atheist's responsibility is to support his claim that insufficient evidence has been presented; it is to explain why he has not been convinced of the theist's claim.

In the context of a formal debate with set time limits for arguments, the Gish Gallop can be a tactic to use up the opponent's time. In an informal debate, though, there's no time limit. The Gish Gallop is just a matter of one person presenting more arguments than the other person cares to respond to.

Ok. I still don't see why you couldn't ask the theist to pick out his strongest arguments in order for a debate to remain under control.

I also don't see how this very specific tactic undermines the idea that in general, an atheist has the responsibility to defend his contention that the theist has not met his burden of proof.

Hang on - I think you're presenting a bit of a straw man yourself here. it's perfectly valid to adjust our tactics based on what the other does. IMO, once it becomes obvious that the person I'm debating is arguing in bad faith, or is just immune to reason, I don't feel like I have any obligation to continue the debate.

Sure. And the same is true of the theist. A theist has no obligation to continue a debate if he's just being attacked or if his opponent is arguing in bad faith.

Doesn't change the fact that in general a theist has a responsibility to defend his claim that gods exist.

And often, the gish gallop is a smorgasbord of different bad arguments.

Precisely. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why you think it would be such an overwhelming burden for the atheist to respond to.

Not evidence; claims. And the fact that a person can do this isn't a point in favour of their position. We can make any number of bad arguments for any position, regardless of whether it's true or false.

I don't dispute this.

But, how do you know they are bad arguments? Just sayin'.

 

[Bunyip]

The atheist's responsibility is to support his claim that insufficient evidence has been presented; it is to explain why he has not been convinced of the theist's claim.


Ok. I still don't see why you couldn't ask the theist to pick out his strongest arguments in order for a debate to remain under control.

I also don't see how this very specific tactic undermines the idea that in general, an atheist has the responsibility to defend his contention that the theist has not met his burden of proof.


Sure. And the same is true of the theist. A theist has no obligation to continue a debate if he's just being attacked or if his opponent is arguing in bad faith.

Doesn't change the fact that in general a theist has a responsibility to defend his claim that gods exist.


Precisely. Which is why I'm puzzled as to why you think it would be such an overwhelming burden for the atheist to respond to.


I don't dispute this.

But, how do you know they are bad arguments? Just sayin'.

I disagree, if there were reliable evidences for god there we would not be atheists. There is no need for atheists to continually be obliged to address over and over again argumejts and evidences that have never been demonstrated to be sound. The evidence for god is wanting, that is why Christianity is called a faith.
That there is insufficient evidence for the existence of god is simply a fact, look through the science journals - if the existence of god had been demonstrated it would be the most important discovery in history and would be published.
We know that they are bad arguments because they have failed to persuade science.

 

[Sir Doom]

You asked by what authority does science decide what to accept, and I said peer review. You are being rude for no reason, I answered your question.

Wrong. That is not what I asked AT ALL.

YOU are not 'science'. Hence when I asked, "By what authority do YOU decide the standard?" I was obviously not asking you about 'science' (as if its some entity or organization :sarcastic).

Further, when I asked, "By what authority do THEY [decide the standard]?" The context of the conversation should have been a big clue that I wasn't talking about 'science' but rather the 'religious groups' we've been discussing this entire time.

The authority I am asking about is the authority to decide the standard of what can or cannot be included in science curriculum (as that is EXACTLY what your previous statement had done). You say it should adhere to the same standards as a science journal. Some religious groups obviously disagree with you. How do WE decide who gets their way?

I have no hope of you actually answering this question, so I'm going to do it for you since it was rhetorical anyway.

The answer is by political authority. The power granted to elected and appointed officials by consent of the populace. No scientific standards whatsoever (unless, of course those elected and appointed deem it necessary, which some obviously do and some obviously don't).

Now, lets apply this backwards across the conversation so you can understand why I'm asking in the first place (because I'm certain you haven't the faintest clue as that would require remembering something you said DAYS ago AND that actually had any investment in your statement to begin with).

The authority to decide the standard for science curriculum is political authority.
Therefore, in order to influence the standards for science curriculum, one must influence the political authority.
The way one might influence political authority is by exercising one's civic rights.
Thus, no religious group (or any group for that matter) is required to prove ANYTHING AT ALL in order to influence education/public policy or the law, contrary to the statement you made that brought me into this to begin with.

I bet you didn't even realize I was still on that, did you?

So, in conclusion, your statement...

I do not believe that theists have to prove anything, unless of course a religious group wishes to influence education/public policy or the law.
In which case you need to establish the existence of the god in question with empirical evidence.

...is false. And should remain false in any free society.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. That is not what I asked AT ALL.

YOU are not 'science'. Hence when I asked, "By what authority do YOU decide the standard?" I was obviously not asking you about 'science' (as if its some entity or organization :sarcastic).

I have no idea why you are so hostile, but will answer as best I can.

By what authority do I decide the standard? A: I do not decide the standard.

Further, when I asked, "By what authority do THEY [decide the standard]?" The context of the conversation should have been a big clue that I wasn't talking about 'science' but rather the 'religious groups' we've been discussing this entire time.

Well religious groups make such judgements depending upon their unique interpretations of scripture. Hence my opinion that a more objective process would be more desirable.

The authority I am asking about is the authority to decide the standard of what can or cannot be included in science curriculum (as that is EXACTLY what your previous statement had done). You say it should adhere to the same standards as a science journal. Some religious groups obviously disagree with you. How do WE decide who gets their way?

Generally school science curriculums are defined by bodies of educators and scientists working in collaboration. That the science being taught is reflective of real peer reviewed scientific knowledge should be a given. The standard I would set would be that only real science should be taught as science.

I have no hope of you actually answering this question, so I'm going to do it for you since it was rhetorical anyway.

The answer is by political authority. The power granted to elected and appointed officials by consent of the populace. No scientific standards whatsoever (unless, of course those elected and appointed deem it necessary, which some obviously do and some obviously don't).

Now, lets apply this backwards across the conversation so you can understand why I'm asking in the first place (because I'm certain you haven't the faintest clue as that would require remembering something you said DAYS ago AND that actually had any investment in your statement to begin with).

The authority to decide the standard for science curriculum is political authority.
Therefore, in order to influence the standards for science curriculum, one must influence the political authority.
The way one might influence political authority is by exercising one's civic rights.
Thus, no religious group (or any group for that matter) is required to prove ANYTHING AT ALL in order to influence education/public policy or the law, contrary to the statement you made that brought me into this to begin with.

I bet you didn't even realize I was still on that, did you?

So, in conclusion, your statement...



...is false. And should remain false in any free society.

You still appear to be gleefully beating your own strawman. The education dept and school curriculum is generally independant of political parties,as it should be. The power of political lobbies to influence science curriculum is one of the issues I was addressing, not the point you appear to imagine that I was missing.

 

[Thief]

Unless somebody can provide some type of empirically measurable or testable evidence for the existence of the god they claim exists, then they haven't met their burden of proof regarding its existence. This is sufficient justification for an atheist rejecting their claim, without any further "responsibility" on the part of the atheist. Person A claims something exists, yet they have no empirical evidence for this claim: burden of proof hasn't been met on their part.

That is supposedly the point of this thread?

No proof....not going to happen.

Faith goes on ....such a heavy burden it is!!!!!!

 

[Sir Doom]

I have no idea why you are so hostile, but will answer as best I can.

I drink a lot of Rockstar.

By what authority do I decide the standard? A: I do not decide the standard.

Yes, you do. So do I. So do religious groups. Same authority in all three cases.

Well religious groups make such judgements depending upon their unique interpretations of scripture.

Actually, it is by their political authority that they decide what the standard is. Just like you. Just like me.

Hence my opinion that a more objective process would be more desirable.

And I encourage you to exercise your political authority to that effect.

Generally school science curriculums are defined by bodies of educators and scientists working in collaboration. That the science being taught is reflective of real peer reviewed scientific knowledge should be a given.

It is a given.

The standard I would set would be that only real science should be taught as science.

And various religious groups disagree with you. They have influence. You have influence. Influence granted by political authority of the people. You did not gain your influence by proving anything. Neither did they. Nor should either of you. Hence, the reason I am participating in this discussion.

You still appear to be gleefully beating your own strawman. The education dept and school curriculum is generally independant of political parties,as it should be.

No, I'm not beating a strawman. No one said anything about political parties until just now. I'm not talking about partisanship. We're talking about religious groups influencing education/public policy and the law. Which, regardless of the fact that educational departments and school curriculum are non-partisan bodies, does not remove the political influence you and I and the religious groups have over education. Which is as it should be.

The power of political lobbies to influence science curriculum is one of the issues I was addressing, not the point you appear to imagine that I was missing.

Oh. Lobbying. I didn't think of that...

Voting
Public speaking
Seeking office
Lobbying
Creating TV commercials
Handing out fliers
Protesting/demonstrations

OH! YES I DID!!

In any case, my disagreement with you stands. I do not think political lobbies run by religious groups need to provide any kind of proof of anything at all before doing what they do. Nor should they ever have to. Nor should any governing body being subjected to said lobbying be required to hold any lobbying group to any standard beyond what they feel is necessary.

 

[Desert Snake]

I believe the burden of proof argument, as deployed by many atheists, is a bad argument, both ethically and philosophically.

The burden of proof argument claims that because theists have failed to adequately prove the existence of god, atheists need no further reason, evidence, or explanation for their own position of non-belief.

I do believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I do not deny that theists do have a larger burden in order to prove their claim. I simply do not think that this completely erases the need for an atheist to be able to support and defend their own position.

To begin with, ethically:
I believe that every person should be able to articulate why they do or do not hold particular beliefs (or, at the very least, beliefs that they spend time debating.) To me, this is an integrity thing. I can't imagine simply rejecting something, especially something that is widely held to be true-- whether it be evolution, or photosynthesis, or the existence of god-- without having an understanding of why I don't accept it.

Next, philosophically:
It seems to me that the burden-of-proof argument has been misused, or at least, not very well thought out.

Some background: The burden of proof is historically placed on the person making a positive claim. Thus, theists certainly have a burden of proof, as they claim that gods do in fact exist.

Many atheists have gotten around their own burden of proof by claiming to merely have a "lack of belief" in the existence of gods. They are not making a claim themselves; they are merely refusing to accept the claim of another.

Or are they?

The argumentation often goes like this: Theists have not met their burden of proof, therefore, I need no reason to not believe in the existence of gods.

Seems reasonable on the face of it, no? And it has been a convincing one, at least, to many atheists.

But look more closely. The atheist is making a claim: The claim that theists have not met their burden of proof.

Who decides this? There is no objective arbiter. Why should we, or the theist, accept the assertion that the burden of proof has not been met?

Is this not a claim that requires it's own proof?

So, how would you go about evidencing the claim that theists have not met their burden of proof?

You would need to go through various arguments made for the existence of gods and explain why they fail to provide sufficient evidence.

And yet, this is precisely what one would need to do in the first place, before burden of proof is even evoked: If a theists asks an atheist to support their position, the atheist could simply explain why the various arguments for the existence of gods has failed to convince her.

Which seems to me to make the whole burden of proof argumentation not only unethical, but useless as well.

Great post, couldn't agree more.
Many atheists create an arbitrary strawman right off the bat.

 

[Bunyip]

I drink a lot of Rockstar.

Then maybe you need to stop if you can't drink it without acting out.

Yes, you do. So do I. So do religious groups. Same authority in all three cases.

Actually, it is by their political authority that they decide what the standard is. Just like you. Just like me.

Nope, ideally neither science nor social policy are defined by the political authorities. An independant scientific community and judiciary are fundamental componants of free democratic states.

In any case, my disagreement with you stands. I do not think political lobbies run by religious groups need to provide any kind of proof of anything at all before doing what they do. Nor should they ever have to. Nor should any governing body being subjected to said lobbying be required to hold any lobbying group to any standard beyond what they feel is necessary.

Sure, we disagree - that doesn't equate to you having refuted my argument. I maintain my position that educational curriculum and social polocy should be as independant from political influence as possible. And that if a lobby group wished to influence science curriculum it should be held to the same standards as mainstream science in validating it's claims. Other than a great deal of bluster, you have not made a case to demonstrate otherwise.

If you are interested, there is a long tradition of solid political and philosophical theory behind the seperation of politics from education and social policy, the Hegelian dialectic discusses it thoroughly and the Forum on Public Policy published a brilliant article on 'The Influence of Politics on Education and Religion: How much is too much' by Lewis and Harris in 2006 which explores the intersections of education and politics in great depth.

 

[Bunyip]

Great post, couldn't agree more.
Many atheists create an arbitrary strawman right off the bat.

Would you please identify the strawman you believe atheists are creating?

 

[Sir Doom]

Then maybe you need to stop if you can't drink it without acting out.

Or, maybe I'll take my own advice on how to act? Let's see what happens...

Nope, ideally neither science nor social policy are defined by the political authorities.

Are we talking about science itself, now?
Are we talking about social policy as opposed to public policy?

I don't remember those things coming up before. Perhaps you can stay on track, eh?

An independant scientific community and judiciary are fundamental componants of free democratic states.

Are we talking about the scientific community, now?
And the judiciary is non-partisan but its not independent of political authority by any means. Most especially not in a free society where the political authority lies with the people.

Sure, we disagree - that doesn't equate to you having refuted my argument.

To be fair, when I said it had been refuted it was after you had dismissed the list I presented. Now that you've gone ahead and picked something from the list... we can rewind to there, can't we? So, it is much more like a disagreement than a refutation, as you say. Of course... the post ain't over!

I maintain my position that educational curriculum and social polocy should be as independant from political influence as possible.

And I maintain that this is already the case, and that any further removal of political influence from either would have to be the result of the removal of civic rights which should never even be considered because of the precedent it sets.

And that if a lobby group wished to influence science curriculum it should be held to the same standards as mainstream science in validating it's claims.

Wrong, if a lobby group wishes to influence science curriculum it has only to lobby towards that end. Therefore, if you wanted to hold said lobby group to the same standards as mainstream science you would have to restrict their ability to lobby based on that standard. Which is a violation of their rights. And cannot and should not be allowed. If you have no intention of advocating such a restriction, then you should probably stop holding such an opinion because its the only way your dream comes to fruition.

Other than a great deal of bluster, you have not made a case to demonstrate otherwise.

Sure I did, you just hadn't read it yet.

If you are interested, there is a long tradition of solid political and philosophical theory behind the seperation of politics from education and social policy, the Hegelian dialectic discusses it thoroughly and the Forum on Public Policy published a brilliant article on 'The Influence of Politics on Education and Religion: How much is too much' by Lewis and Harris in 2006 which explores the intersections of education and politics in great depth.

Not really interested at all. I can't debate any of these people. I can debate you, though! Do you remember any especially relevant quotes? I'd be happy to read and judge at my leisure.

 

[Desert Snake]

Would you please identify the strawman you believe atheists are creating?

a.The need for "proof" of deity
b.That proof judged by ...lol....non-theists..
talk about a kangaroo court.

 

[Bunyip]

Or, maybe I'll take my own advice on how to act? Let's see what happens...

Are we talking about science itself, now?
Are we talking about social policy as opposed to public policy?

I don't remember those things coming up before. Perhaps you can stay on track, eh?

Are we talking about the scientific community, now?
And the judiciary is non-partisan but its not independent of political authority by any means. Most especially not in a free society where the political authority lies with the people.

To be fair, when I said it had been refuted it was after you had dismissed the list I presented. Now that you've gone ahead and picked something from the list... we can rewind to there, can't we? So, it is much more like a disagreement than a refutation, as you say. Of course... the post ain't over!

And I maintain that this is already the case, and that any further removal of political influence from either would have to be the result of the removal of civic rights which should never even be considered because of the precedent it sets.

Wrong, if a lobby group wishes to influence science curriculum it has only to lobby towards that end. Therefore, if you wanted to hold said lobby group to the same standards as mainstream science you would have to restrict their ability to lobby based on that standard. Which is a violation of their rights. And cannot and should not be allowed. If you have no intention of advocating such a restriction, then you should probably stop holding such an opinion because its the only way your dream comes to fruition.

Sure I did, you just hadn't read it yet.

Not really interested at all. I can't debate any of these people. I can debate you, though! Do you remember any especially relevant quotes? I'd be happy to read and judge at my leisure.

I'll just disengage thanks. There are plenty of people I can talk to here who are a lot more polite.

 

[Bunyip]

a.The need for "proof" of deity
b.That proof judged by ...lol....non-theists..
talk about a kangaroo court.

I don't think that atheists demand proof. The issue is that atheists are being obliged to disprove the unproven. Why should atheists bear a burden of proof unmet by theism?

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think that atheists demand proof. The issue is that atheists are being obliged to disprove the unproven. Why should atheists bear a burden of proof unmet by theism?

I would like to agree with you, but I think science has also gotten ahead of itself in this regard as well. The 'need' to disassociate with religion is greater than the honest debate of theism/atheism...it basically ain't gonna happen.