Why the Burden of Proof is a Bad Argument

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I don't want to mischaracterize it, so I'll leave it here. My only point is that sometimes people assume that the minority position has the BoP, simply by virtue of being the minority opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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".

But disbelief in and of itself is not a claim. In a formal debate - or any debate on anything that actually hopes to go anywhere meaningful - the discussion has to start with a person making a claim, and then others responding to that claim. Someone has to carry the burden of proof - it cannot merely be shared equally at all times, or else debate falls down into a mire of meaningless, solipsistic drivel. It goes "Claim: reasons -> response to claim; counter-claim: reasons -> response to responses, counter-counter-claim: reasons". The burden passes from one to the other, but ultimately the entire debate hinges upon the burden of proof on of the initial claim because that is exactly what people are trying to decide whether to believe or not believe depending on the reasons presented.

You don't need any other reason to disbelieve a claim other than "no argument has been made". Any other additional reasons you may disbelieve a particular claim are open for discussion if you wish to make a claim of your own, but disbelief on its own does not require a burden of proof. In debate, itt doesn't matter what my reasons are for believing that bananas are vegetables until I decide to make the claim that they are vegetables. If someone opens up a debate and makes the claim "bananas are fruit" I do not suddenly have a burden because I happen to have an averse view that carries its own burden of proof, because my view is not up for debate - the view of the person making the claim is. In that debate, I need not justify my belief that bananas aren't fruits by claiming why I think they've vegetables, I only have to disbelieve the claim until I feel its burden is met, or else formulate a counter-argument once the evidence has been presented and I make the claim that the evidence is insufficient.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

It does if it is being used to claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

Furthermore, simply failing to be convinced is not indicative of the quality of the arguments presented, nor is it indicative of the rationality of the unconvinced person's position.

Why the person hasn't been convinced is important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Part of the point of the burden of proof is to overcome gut feelings. If a counter-intuitive argument meets its burden of proof, then we ought to dismiss our intuition as wrong.

Even if my concerns about an argument are vague, it's still the responsibility of the person making the argument to assuage them. Otherwise, we end up with a reverse burden of proof where we end up accepting the argument unless we can come up with a good reason not to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does if it is being used to claim that theists haven't met their burden of proof.

Furthermore, simply failing to be convinced is not indicative of the quality of the arguments presented, nor is it indicative of the rationality of the unconvinced person's position.

Why the person hasn't been convinced is important.

That depends.

I think it's worthwhile to look at the big picture. Imagine a hypothetical argument:

- we start thinking that X may or may not be true.
- Steve argues "A, therefore B, therefore C, therefore X is true."
- until we evaluate the argument, we reserve judgement: we still think that X may or may not be true.
- Julie looks at Steve's argument and says "Steve didn't meet his burden of proof!"
- we reserve judgement on this declaration along with the original one. We still think that X may or may not be true.
- Julie doesn't say anything to support her claim, so we set it aside. Still, X may or may not be true.
- we evaluate Steve's argument and can't determine whether it meets its burden of proof or not. Still, X may or may not be true.

At the end of the day, until we actually refute the claim "Steve hasn't met his burden of proof" - not just fail to accept, but actually conclude it to be false - overall, we're still where we started: X may or may not be true.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

No, you're making it too complicated. It's like this:

God exists.
Prove it.
I don't have to; you have to prove he doesn't exist.
No, you made the claim, so prove it.

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".

So you feel like you'd have to actually support your disbelief in a giant furry alligator with wings and who can speak English?

I think the difference is you're looking at it as "just because", where I'm looking at it as taking the skeptic's position until the thing is proven (reasonably so, at least).

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.

No, the debate isn't over the back yard; it's over whether or not some kind of dragon exists. As I said, those who claim the dragon exists don't agree at all on what the dragon is, much less what color it is. A minority of people make one particular claim about the dragon. So, regardless of which angle you want to take, the majority agrees in not believing in the particular belief you're bringing up.

 

[Willamena]

Part of the point of the burden of proof is to overcome gut feelings. If a counter-intuitive argument meets its burden of proof, then we ought to dismiss our intuition as wrong.

Even if my concerns about an argument are vague, it's still the responsibility of the person making the argument to assuage them. Otherwise, we end up with a reverse burden of proof where we end up accepting the argument unless we can come up with a good reason not to.

The principle of burden of proof is just about having a rational position from which to make a convincing arguement. If someone else's argument is counter-intuitive but its burden of proof is met, and so we dismiss our intuition as wrong, we have made an argument with ourselves. We have argued to dismiss our intuition. Successfully, I may add.

The burden of proof for demonstrating their argument warranted lies with the theist, only because if they have a rational position from which to argue, that burden has already been met, for them.

 

[Willamena]

But disbelief in and of itself is not a claim. In a formal debate - or any debate on anything that actually hopes to go anywhere meaningful - the discussion has to start with a person making a claim, and then others responding to that claim. Someone has to carry the burden of proof - it cannot merely be shared equally at all times, or else debate falls down into a mire of meaningless, solipsistic drivel. It goes "Claim: reasons -> response to claim; counter-claim: reasons -> response to responses, counter-counter-claim: reasons". The burden passes from one to the other, but ultimately the entire debate hinges upon the burden of proof on of the initial claim because that is exactly what people are trying to decide whether to believe or not believe depending on the reasons presented.

You don't need any other reason to disbelieve a claim other than "no argument has been made". Any other additional reasons you may disbelieve a particular claim are open for discussion if you wish to make a claim of your own, but disbelief on its own does not require a burden of proof. In debate, itt doesn't matter what my reasons are for believing that bananas are vegetables until I decide to make the claim that they are vegetables. If someone opens up a debate and makes the claim "bananas are fruit" I do not suddenly have a burden because I happen to have an averse view that carries its own burden of proof, because my view is not up for debate - the view of the person making the claim is. In that debate, I need not justify my belief that bananas aren't fruits by claiming why I think they've vegetables, I only have to disbelieve the claim until I feel its burden is met, or else formulate a counter-argument once the evidence has been presented and I make the claim that the evidence is insufficient.

Not claims, but posits, though the terms have been used interchangably in argument in the thread. Disbelief doesn't happen except by internal dialog, which has presented us with posits, ones that we already believe, to contrast with what we're hearing from the other person. Disbelief is the big exclamation/question mark in the head--it doesn't happen "just because," else we reject claims/posits irrationally. "No arugment has been made," is a judgement that can only have been made by running through the arguments for arguments.

The burden of proof lies with the person making posits, but it also lies with each and every posit made, and belief is the investment in the truth of posits--a bank of investments that we each carry around with us and which inform our worldviews, our actions and our positions in arguements on debate forums. Even if our view isn't voiced, it has been informed by posits that we believe.

Often, someone will present a new idea and say that it must be accepted because it cannot be disproved. This is insufficient because without evidence there is no reason to accept an idea, even if there is no contrary evidence. One example is that of a simulated reality, which proposes that the human race does indeed live in The Matrix and we are a computer simulation. There is no evidence against this idea, in fact, it may be impossible to fully disprove, but as there is no real evidence for it there is no reason to accept the idea as real. Another famous example is the teapot proposed by Bertrand Russell, the existence of which cannot be disproved.

The highlighted part represents the burden.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not claims, but posits, though the terms have been used interchangably in argument in the thread.

They're the same thing in any formal debate. Use whatever word you prefer.

Disbelief doesn't happen except by internal dialog, which has presented us with posits, ones that we already believe, to contrast with what we're hearing from the other person.

I disagree. Disbelief doesn't have to come from an internal dialogue, it can come from intuition, emotion, or even ignorance. Disbelief is a state of not accepting a claim, and a person who is unaware of something's existence - even when they are unaware of even the claim of that thing's existence - holds a position of disbelief with regards to that claim. There is no internal dialogue required to disbelieve a claim.

Disbelief is the big exclamation/question mark in the head--it doesn't happen "just because," else we reject claims/posits irrationally.

It's not irrational to reject a claim that has been presented without any evidence or any other reason for you to accept it as being true. That's the whole point of the null hypothesis and the burden of proof. It is perfectly rational to reject a claim for which you have no good reason to think that it is true.

"No arugment has been made," is a judgement that can only have been made by running through the arguments for arguments.

This is just meaningless word salad.

The burden of proof lies with the person making posits, but it also lies with each and every posit made, and belief is the investment in the truth of posits--a bank of investments that we each carry around with us and which inform our worldviews, our actions and our positions in arguements on debate forums. Even if our view isn't voiced, it has been informed by posits that we believe.

The highlighted part represents the burden.

So, are you saying that every individual thought of every single person who has any kind of reaction to any single aspect of the claim in any conceivable way should be brought forward in every single debate and be forced to meet a burden of proof before we can proceed in any way to investigate the claim being made?

How is that even remotely sensible or practical in any kind of formal debate?

 

[Willamena]

So, are you saying that every individual thought of every single person who has any kind of reaction to any single aspect of the claim in any conceivable way should be brought forward in every single debate and be forced to meet a burden of proof before we can proceed in any way to investigate the claim being made?

No, I'm really not.

I'm saying, "Have warranted ideas. Please."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I'm really not.

I'm saying, "Have warranted ideas. Please."

In what sense? And how does that relate to or disagree with anything I said?

 

[Willamena]

In what sense?

In the sense that you have shouldered the burden of proof for your claims.

And how does that relate to or disagree with anything I said?

It probably doesn't.

 

[Falvlun]

Disbelief is a state of not accepting a claim, and a person who is unaware of something's existence - even when they are unaware of even the claim of that thing's existence - holds a position of disbelief with regards to that claim.

Just wanted to point out that that's not disbelief. That's simply ignorance, or what I would actually consider a "lack of belief". Disbelief is pretty consistently defined as a rejection or refusal to accept something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are unable to evaluate an argument, then, as I said before, I think the best you can say is "I don't know". You wouldn't know whether the theist has met his burden of proof or not.

I think we're operating with different definitions of "burden of proof". To me, meeting the burden of proof includes breaking down the argument for the intended conclusion into steps that the person you're trying to convince can agree logically follow from one to the other. If the argument doesn't take into account the person's level of understanding, then it's not going to be convincing.

I am talking about the behavior you and nearly every atheist in this thread has demonstrated: A reluctance to accept the responsibility to support the claims one makes within a debate.

This thread has been talking about a particular tactic. I'd like you to provide an example of the tactic being used. An actual quote.

Specifically, I am arguing against the concept that merely claiming that theists haven't met their burden of proof is enough, or is all atheists need to do within a debate or in their personal evaluation.

Gotcha... but when has this happened? Can you give any examples of an atheist in an argument with a theist saying "burden of proof!" and dropping the metaphorical mic?

How is it known whether the other side fails to adequately support their position? In your example, I would think that the team would need to demonstrate the insufficiency of the arguments. They would not merely be allowed to state "They are insufficient, therefore, we win." They would need to support that claim.

No: we don't presume an argument is sufficient until it's demonstrated to be sufficient. This is how the burden of proof works: we don't presume that an argument works just because a specific problem with it hasn't been identified. The argument has to stand on its own merits.

And this is just as true of theist claims as it is of atheist claims. In other words, it's a non-issue. This is common sense.

So why are you arguing against it?

That's true. I was agreeing with you that just because someone wants to debate with you, doesn't mean you have to debate with him.

And in the case you have decided to debate someone, and this person has presented an argument, you don't necessarily have to respond to it. I think where you get locked in is when you say "That's not a good argument." or some such thing. That's when you have a debate responsibility to explain why it's not a good argument.

I disagree. We're never "locked in"; we never have a responsibility to continue the discussion. It's always an option to just walk away, or to stop responding to someone that we don't want to talk to any more.

Again, this is no different than the theist. This explains away the responsibility a theist has to support his argument just as much as it explains away your responsibility to explain your reasons. In other words, I don't really see how it helps your argument much.

I think it makes more sense to say that you had a responsibility within that debate, but chose not to fulfill it. You are allowed to shirk your responsibilities, obviously. This is all voluntary. But it just means that you haven't met your burden of proof.

I think our fundamental disagreement is that I don't see the burden of proof as a "responsibility" at all... certainly not in an informal online debate. I don't ever owe the internet my time or attention.

I think what you say here has merit, but I still think that these explanations need to happen so arbitrariness can be ameliorated.

For example, it would be arbitrary if you can claim it hasn't been met simply because you were unable to understand the arguments, as in the Hungarian and modal logic examples. Or if you can claim that it hasn't been met, without giving any reasons at all.

It's not arbitrary to recognize that I can't evaluate an argument I don't understand.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I think that's reasonable.

My only issue is that, at this point, we all know the arguments. It's not like we haven't heard them before. It sorta makes this whole burden-of-proof ritual a little stuffy and unnecessary, imo.

Sure.

:woohoo:

That's completely irrelevant.

Not really. It demonstrates a difference between disbelief in something that someone in this thread can make up on the spot, and a belief that is held by billions of people.

 

[Falvlun]

But disbelief in and of itself is not a claim.

This one is tough for me. While I probably wouldn't categorize it as an official claim, I do think that disbelief is a position. It is part and parcel of a person's worldview just as much as a belief is. What we don't believe is just as important as what we do believe.

This is why I think there is a personal responsibility to support your disbelief, even if, perhaps, there is not a responsibility within a debate to do so... at least, not until further claims are made.

In a formal debate - or any debate on anything that actually hopes to go anywhere meaningful - the discussion has to start with a person making a claim, and then others responding to that claim. Someone has to carry the burden of proof - it cannot merely be shared equally at all times, or else debate falls down into a mire of meaningless, solipsistic drivel. It goes "Claim: reasons -> response to claim; counter-claim: reasons -> response to responses, counter-counter-claim: reasons". The burden passes from one to the other, but ultimately the entire debate hinges upon the burden of proof on of the initial claim because that is exactly what people are trying to decide whether to believe or not believe depending on the reasons presented.

As long as you agree that people have a burden of proof-- a responsibility to provide reasons-- for their claims made within a debate, then we agree.

I don't think that all claims are equally burdensome or equally important within a debate. The theist claim is certainly a big claim that requires big proof and is central to a debate in regards to the existence of God. All I am saying is that doesn't negate the need for little claims to provide their own little proofs as well.

You don't need any other reason to disbelieve a claim other than "no argument has been made". Any other additional reasons you may disbelieve a particular claim are open for discussion if you wish to make a claim of your own, but disbelief on its own does not require a burden of proof. In debate, itt doesn't matter what my reasons are for believing that bananas are vegetables until I decide to make the claim that they are vegetables. If someone opens up a debate and makes the claim "bananas are fruit" I do not suddenly have a burden because I happen to have an averse view that carries its own burden of proof, because my view is not up for debate - the view of the person making the claim is. In that debate, I need not justify my belief that bananas aren't fruits by claiming why I think they've vegetables, I only have to disbelieve the claim until I feel its burden is met, or else formulate a counter-argument once the evidence has been presented and I make the claim that the evidence is insufficient.

So passive. Maybe I just favor a more hands-on and honest approach.

(In regards to your example above, I do think that it is relevant that you are already biased against the claim being debated. It is much harder to persuade a mind that is already made up than one that is still agnostic. This, of course, again speaks to the subjective nature of the requirements to meet a burden of proof.)

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree. We're never "locked in"; we never have a responsibility to continue the discussion. It's always an option to just walk away, or to stop responding to someone that we don't want to talk to any more.


I think our fundamental disagreement is that I don't see the burden of proof as a "responsibility" at all... certainly not in an informal online debate. I don't ever owe the internet my time or attention.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you find this such a salient point.

It's basically like saying that there are no rules in chess because playing is voluntary and you can get up and leave whenever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the life of me, I can't understand why you find this such a salient point.

It's basically like saying that there are no rules in chess because playing is voluntary and you can get up and leave whenever.

Exactly what do you think the "rules" of internet debate are?

Edit: it's not chess; it's conversation. What are the rules of conversation?

 

[Falvlun]

Exactly what do you think the "rules" of internet debate are?

Edit: it's not chess; it's conversation. What are the rules of conversation?

One of the rules is that the person making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim (burden of proof).

If you don't think that the burden of proof is a debate rule then you are even more of an anarchist than I. I wonder how riled people would get if you told them that theists don't have a burden of proof after all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One of the rules is that the person making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim (burden of proof).

This seems to be a claim. Care to support it? Apparently, you're responsible for doing this. :sarcastic

If you don't think that the burden of proof is a debate rule then you are even more of an anarchist than I. I wonder how riled people would get if you told them that theists don't have a burden of proof after all.

As I've said over and over now in different ways, it's not really a rule as it is a recognition of consequences: if you want to convince someone, you'd better be convincing.

And if a theist wants to make claims without backing them up, that's their prerogative... just as it's my prerogative to ignore him. He won't make me think that his arguments have merit, but he's not breaking any set "rule".