I've never heard that argument before.
I've definitely heard the argument that anti-choicers have the burden (not really of proof... but support, I guess?) since limitations on freedom need justification. Not the one you're arguing, though.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument
- Thread starter Falvlun
- Start date
I've never heard that argument before.
I've definitely heard the argument that anti-choicers have the burden (not really of proof... but support, I guess?) since limitations on freedom need justification. Not the one you're arguing, though.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I only remember hearing it once. The assumption was that abortion is right and moral since, after all, it is legal.
Lots of people confuse legality and morality, though. Everyone who (morally) opposes illegal drugs but approves of alcohol does that.
Which is defined only in macroscopic systems which are not in thermal equilibrium.
Ciao
- viole
"Once" is "a lot"?
I separated these responses as this half has more to do with the actual arguments for the existence of God, rather than the argument in regards to a skeptic's responsibility in a debate.
More relevantly, we all don't have the same abilities or tendencies. Some people are more artistic, some more athletic, some kids can learn to play instruments remarkably well, others remain mediocre, some people are more introspective, some prefer external stimuli, some people are dualists, some are monists, some are solipsists, some are realists, etc.
Because of these differences, I don't see how you can categorically claim that general experience does not or cannot indicate the existence of God.
Also, generally speaking, human experience does include God.
I really don't see how evolution meets either of your two criteria above. And yet, I would hope that an evolution-denier would be encouraged to analyze their position.
It does not prove it, nor should it be the only evidence accepted, especially if the claim is extraordinary (like UFOs). But it does warrant further investigation. It requires explanation.
Contrast this with only 3 people seeing those weird flashing lights. This is much easier to dismiss. Three people alone are not as credible as thousands.
What about when everyone tells you that the Bulls lost last night's game that you missed?
What about when no one else hears those voices that a schizophrenic claims to hear?
What about the often-cited support evolution has from the vast majority of the world's scientists?
As I said from the beginning, the reason that it's a fallacy is because our brain has adopted it as a shortcut towards figuring out what to believe and what not to. In general, if a lot of people believe it, the more likely it is to be true.
This isn't always the case, hence why it cannot be used as proof in a logical debate. However, this doesn't mean that it doesn't provide credibility.
Our designation of things as true/false depends on a lot of variables. It's a complex algorithm of various factors that our brain synthesizes in order to come to a conclusion as to the likelihood of something being true and whether we should believe it. The number of people believing something plays a part in that assessment.
In fact, your "general experience" argument takes this to an extreme. The fact that everybody doesn't believe/experience Gods is a mark against them in your assessment. Which means, if everyone believed/experienced Gods that would be a mark for them. All that is is an argument of majority taken to it's extreme conclusion.
Yes, lots of people believing in something can affect everyone. Not really sure why that's a further reason why they bear a burden of proof, though. (and it's not like their burden is in question anyway.) After all, a minority of people not believing something can also affect everyone (if they are in power).
I don't see how this is an important point. We don't know about evolution from birth either; this doesn't effect it's likelihood to be true or false. More relevantly, we don't know how to talk from birth either: it is an ability that comes with age. Animism is common among toddlers. I personally don't think that there is a default, though I do think that God-belief strongly appeals to the human psyche.
Again, not all share "evolution belief" either.
More relevantly, we all don't have the same abilities or tendencies. Some people are more artistic, some more athletic, some kids can learn to play instruments remarkably well, others remain mediocre, some people are more introspective, some prefer external stimuli, some people are dualists, some are monists, some are solipsists, some are realists, etc.
Because of these differences, I don't see how you can categorically claim that general experience does not or cannot indicate the existence of God.
Also, generally speaking, human experience does include God.
I don't find those terms very convincing. Our innate beliefs do not indicate the likelihood of something being true. And general human experience does include God. The fact that everyone doesn't experience God again does not indicate likelihood of something being true (or rational to believe) due to the wide variety of human beliefs, tendencies, and abilities.
It is being suggested that they need not know why they disbelieve in the existence of gods. I am arguing against this idea. I am not saying that people don't know; I am saying that they should know-- at least if they want to have a rational worldview.
I really don't see how evolution meets either of your two criteria above. And yet, I would hope that an evolution-denier would be encouraged to analyze their position.
I don't see this as an either/or. This is not "If atheists need to examine their position, this means that theists don't need to" and vice-versa. It is "Atheists and theists should both understand and examine their positions."
Again, it's not an either/or. The fact that it is very reasonable, or even more reasonable, for theists to examine their own beliefs does not negate the fact that it is also reasonable for disbelievers to examine their disbelief in something that is widely held to be true.
Nah, it's just common sense.
It lends credibility to a belief. If thousands of people claim to have seen weird flashing lights in the sky on Oct 11th, 2013, then that lends credence to the idea that there were weird flashing lights in the sky on Oct 11th, 2013.
It does not prove it, nor should it be the only evidence accepted, especially if the claim is extraordinary (like UFOs). But it does warrant further investigation. It requires explanation.
Contrast this with only 3 people seeing those weird flashing lights. This is much easier to dismiss. Three people alone are not as credible as thousands.
You've pointed out instances when the majority has been wrong. But what about when they have been right? Surely that outnumbers the times they've been wrong.
What about when everyone tells you that the Bulls lost last night's game that you missed?
What about when no one else hears those voices that a schizophrenic claims to hear?
What about the often-cited support evolution has from the vast majority of the world's scientists?
As I said from the beginning, the reason that it's a fallacy is because our brain has adopted it as a shortcut towards figuring out what to believe and what not to. In general, if a lot of people believe it, the more likely it is to be true.
This isn't always the case, hence why it cannot be used as proof in a logical debate. However, this doesn't mean that it doesn't provide credibility.
The part I bolded is a misrepresentation of what I am saying. I am not saying that the fact that the beliefs of a majority make God's existence true. I am saying that it provides credibility to the belief: it makes it a little more likely to be true.
Our designation of things as true/false depends on a lot of variables. It's a complex algorithm of various factors that our brain synthesizes in order to come to a conclusion as to the likelihood of something being true and whether we should believe it. The number of people believing something plays a part in that assessment.
In fact, your "general experience" argument takes this to an extreme. The fact that everybody doesn't believe/experience Gods is a mark against them in your assessment. Which means, if everyone believed/experienced Gods that would be a mark for them. All that is is an argument of majority taken to it's extreme conclusion.
Yes, lots of people believing in something can affect everyone. Not really sure why that's a further reason why they bear a burden of proof, though. (and it's not like their burden is in question anyway.) After all, a minority of people not believing something can also affect everyone (if they are in power).
Why does everyone seem to think that there can only be one burden of proof in any given argument?
The theists have a burden of proof for the claim that Gods exist.
The atheists have a burden of proof for the claim that the evidence is insufficient.
It's not either/or. It's not one or the other. It's not "if X has a burden, then Y cannot" or "If Y has a burden, that means we don't think that X has one anymore."
Everyone has a burden of proof for their own claims.
Proving something isn't the same as supporting your position. You don't have to prove it, but you should be able to support it.
Furthermore, we aren't just talking about 1 person claiming pink dragons. We are talking about over three-quarters of world since basically forever claiming there are pink dragons in their back yard.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But what matters is who is making the claim at that particular point. The post you quoted even says this:
"Sure, but the burden of proof is still on the believer at that point. They still need to prove their claim."
Stating that a claim hasn't met its burden of proof does carry a burden, but that burden can only be taken up once the claim is actually made. In order for any claim that evidence is insufficient can be made, evidence has to actually be presented that is to be assessed. It is not a default position to hold that evidence, before it is presented, is insufficient. It is the default position to hold an absence of belief with regards to the evidence until it is presented.
It's just a method of formal debate. If the prosecution has no evidence to present, the defence has nothing to refute or respond to. They can make counter-claims if they like, but with regards to the claims of the prosecution there is no burden on the defence until the prosecution presents a case that can be responded to.
Sure.
That's completely irrelevant.
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
'A lot' referred to the many times I've heard legality equalled to morality. One needn't defend 'the way things are'. It's presumed to be proper morality.
One time a Brit argued, seriously I think, that if he'd been a German citizen during Hitler's reign, he would have had a moral obligation to follow the law, whatever it was.
Last edited:
The burden is only on one side because we're talking about one argument with one conclusion. The burden of proof is a matter of a default position; by definition, there can only be one default.
It just gets tricky when we have nested arguments: if you want to reject an argument on the basis that some link in the logical chain is false (e.g. "Bob couldn't have committed the murder because he was at the movies when it happened!"), then you've created your own separate argument (i.e. that Bob was at the movies) with its own burden of proof. However, the person arguing that Bob is the murderer still has his original burden of proof as well.
If the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim, then that means that the claim is not sufficiently supported. In other words, quibble of wording, synonymous meaning.
If the problem is that you don't understand the evidence, then you would only be able to say that you don't know whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient. You wouldn't be able to claim insufficient evidence; you wouldn't be able to claim that the burden of proof hasn't been met.
Those are the claims that are being made.
Does the researcher just guess as to what the problem is? Or does the person finding objection with the study have a responsibility to indicate where the study is weak, and why that weakness causes the entire explanation to crumble?
If you can't tell whether the theist has made an error or not then I don't see how the validity of the arguments can be assessed at all.
It would be like having a pie contest. Normally, judges taste the pie and determine which is bad and which are good. Your scenario is like a judge that can't eat the pie. You still want the judge to be able to say that the pie is not good enough, forcing the baker to make a new pie. But the judge can't make that claim about a pie he hasn't been able to eat, and it is ridiculous to place the judge's inability at the feet of the baker. The poor pie judge can only say "I don't know whether this pie is good or not". The baker then needs to find a judge that can eat his pie to determine whether it is delicious or not.
Not really. We have a small number who swear they've seen pink dragons but absolutely no other colours, a similar small number who swear there are blue dragons but absolutely not pink ones, another small group who swear they've seen green dragons and absolutely not pink or blue ones, and then large groups who pick their favourite dragon. Some of these people really believe that their favourite dragon-viewer (but none of the others, the lying ********) has made a good case. Sometimes they might even get a feeling that a dragon (of the correct colour, of course) is somewhere nearby. Others consider their dragon to be a metaphor for their inner fierceness (the "blue/pink/green dragon within") and not a literal dragon.
And then there's a small group in the corner arguing that there are only manticores, not dragons. Nobody pays much attention to them, even though they have just as much evidence as the dragon people.
I fail to see how your Bob explanation differs from what I've said.
That's still a far cry from "no dragons".
Well, I would classify that as a really bad burden of proof argument, then.
Shouldn't have to do with what the claim is about or who believes it. It's simply about claims. If you make one, you've got a responsibility.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
None of this counters anything I said. Yes, there is no real evidence for God, and believing in God is about faith. But this is about the only time people will accept that reasoning for believing in something. In almost all other instances, even god believers want a normal amount of evidence.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
But the ultimate burden falls to the person making the claim that is the whole reason for the discussion/debate. It's ultimately up to the person claiming God exists to prove that claim. It's not up to nonbelievers to claim God doesn't exist.
The idea of the "burden of proof" is support. The burden to support the claim falls to the one making the positive claim. "Burden of proof" is basically just short-hand for the idea of providing evidence.
Not really. We're talking about a large portion of the world's population claiming different kinds of dragons exist in their back yards, and most of the time their definitions of "dragon" vary wildly. If they were completely uniform in their claims, that would be one thing, but they're far from it. So, you have a majority of the world not believing in each individual dragon claim.
The burden of proof is ONLY taken on when we decide to refute the argument with an argument of our own. Merely saying that we haven't found the case for Bob's guilt convincing doesn't create a burden of proof in and of itself.
Ultimate burden?
It really seems like you guys are just making stuff up about burden of proof.
A burden of proof is simply the responsibility to support claims.
Okay, we are on the same page, then.
Back to your statement then: You maintain that people don't need to support their disbelief in something if no argument has been made for it. That's pretty alien to me: I disbelieve things for reasons. I don't disbelieve things "Just because".
We have a majority of the world claiming that there is some sort of dragon in their backyard.
As atheists, we are in the minority for not having any backyard dragons whatsoever.
Not really, because you still have a majority saying "no pink dragons", a majority saying "no green dragons", a majority saying "no blue dragons", and a majority saying "no manticores".
Whoever is right, it seems a lot of people are wrong. And once we recognize that there are plenty of people who believe in some variety of dragon without that variety actually existing, I don't think there's a pressing need to assume that the beliefs of any of them give weight to the idea that dragons are real.
If dragons were to be real, they'd have some sort of colour. Whatever that colour is, most people bemieve that THAT sort of dragon doesn't exist.
Except, of course, that there are reasons why a person hasn't found it convincing, whether or not they acknowledge them and whether or not they are capable of acknowledging them, and those reasons can be put in a context of argument. If they can't, then the argument being unconvincing amounts to no more than a gut feeling.