5 ms·

There's burden of proof when people agree there is, not merely when an argument is issued. I operate on the idea that if you want something, it is that desire w

There's burden of proof when people agree there is, not merely when an argument is issued. I operate on the idea that if you want something, it is that desire which convicts you with a burden to actualize it. If I say Pi is 3.14 (a false but useful statement), I feel it's the burden of those who want the knowledge to prove it to themselves what's real. It's different, of course, if we're talking about special contexts like law. Then the burden of proof is formal because society has agreed upon it.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I operate on the idea that if you want something, it is that desire which convicts you with a burden to actualize it. Sure, and if you want people to believe your conclusions, that's why you have the burden of establishing the truth of those conclusions to the audience.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  Yes so if people want things from each other they should ask what’s sufficient motivation for the other party to continue dealing with you. The negotiation or balance of interests will produce a sort of equilibrium. Proof is just a good in a negotiation, and it’s pretty costly, as opposed to conjecture. WSJ wants to be heard but not for free. The market finds the intermediate price to read their analysis. The burden is on both WSJ and the audience to satisfy their interests.
  - dsjoerg 8y ago
    I like your way of thinking about it. Proof is just a good in a negotiation. To put your point another way, there is one set of rules, considerations and motives for the speaker, and another for the listener. Depending on the context, either the speaker or the listener may be interested in doing the work of assembling evidence for or against what is being said. OP describes the specific rules pertaining to when a rational speaker is desperate to convince a rational listener of the truth of their arguments. But in real life, and in general, there are many more types of situations.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.”. If you just claim something — like that Pi is 3.14 — without supporting it, it’s not an argument. You are free to assert whatever you want — there is no obligation to offer an argument. It is when you undertake to convince — in any context — that you accept a burden of proof. This is the case in logic, law, public policy...in those areas where we are looking for shared agreement and shared understanding. We can’t ask that others believe us “just because”.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I operate on the idea that if you want something, it is that desire which convicts you with a burden to actualize it. Sure, and if you want people to believe your conclusions, that's why you have the burden of establishing the truth of those conclusions to the audience.

threatofrain 8y ago
Yes so if people want things from each other they should ask what’s sufficient motivation for the other party to continue dealing with you. The negotiation or balance of interests will produce a sort of equilibrium. Proof is just a good in a negotiation, and it’s pretty costly, as opposed to conjecture. WSJ wants to be heard but not for free. The market finds the intermediate price to read their analysis. The burden is on both WSJ and the audience to satisfy their interests.
- dsjoerg 8y ago
  I like your way of thinking about it. Proof is just a good in a negotiation. To put your point another way, there is one set of rules, considerations and motives for the speaker, and another for the listener. Depending on the context, either the speaker or the listener may be interested in doing the work of assembling evidence for or against what is being said. OP describes the specific rules pertaining to when a rational speaker is desperate to convince a rational listener of the truth of their arguments. But in real life, and in general, there are many more types of situations.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.”. If you just claim something — like that Pi is 3.14 — without supporting it, it’s not an argument. You are free to assert whatever you want — there is no obligation to offer an argument. It is when you undertake to convince — in any context — that you accept a burden of proof. This is the case in logic, law, public policy...in those areas where we are looking for shared agreement and shared understanding. We can’t ask that others believe us “just because”.