4 ms·

I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the

I was mostly doing (partly in jest, although respectfully) what the you were recommending: explaining the how and why instead of jumping straight to naming the fallacy :) I checked the citations you provided. They are very interesting. > ...generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side... If I put it in my words, summarizing, he is saying: "No hypothesis should be rejected without an argument against it". About this, my opinion is: 1. Strictly speaking, yes, if someone puts forward a proposition without giving arguments, that does not mean necessarily that the proposition is false (It also does not mean it is true). 2. This notion is not very useful socially/economically. If someone puts forward a hypothesis without any arguments, they cannot expect it to be accepted, or others to justify why it should not be accepted. (In other words, if the person making the claim does not bother to spend time arguing, why should I?) > It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application So it is not in Philosophy, but in courts, or in practical discussion (this I add) that the concept of Burden of Proof has practical application. Could not agree more. So, in summary, in my words, Burden of Proof does not prove logically the Truthfulness (or not) of a proposition, but it is a good heuristic to take action on practical matters (such as courts, and everyday discussion here). EDIT: s/OP/you/ As such, when somebody putting forward a proposition expects (or instructs) the other part to explain why the proposition is false in detail, we are free to tell this somebody about the "Burden of Proof". IMO that is enough until a bit of effort has been put on their side to argument their case.

skissane 5y ago
Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc. In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity. Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks. To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness. I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims). IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo. So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument. Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic. I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.
  - skissane 5y ago
    I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention. On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.

skissane 5y ago

Well, I think one point which both Lehrer and Cargile are making, but which I don't see captured in your response, is that there is not a single all-purpose burden of proof for all disciplines – each discipline has to decide on its own rules around the burden of proof, and those adopted by one discipline (such as law) might not be appropriate for another (such as philosophy). Yet I see many amateur philosophers on the Internet make the assumption that some simple principle regarding the burden of proof must be obviously true and universally applicable, invoke analogies with the law to justify imposing some such principle on philosophical debates, etc. In law, the burden of proof is a complex topic. In legal trials, the burden of proof is normally on the plaintiff/prosecution, but sometimes it shifts to the defendant instead (such as in "affirmative defences", "rebuttable presumptions", etc). Complex legal rules govern the burden of proof, they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and they change over time due to new legislation and evolution of case law. But these amateur philosophers appear ignorant of all that complexity. Really, before invoking the concept of the burden of proof in a debate, there needs to be agreement upon what is the correct burden of proof for the matter under discussion. But, that is often a big digression from the substantive topic, and often the most fruitful course is to avoid that by deciding to leave the concept of "burden of proof" to one side. A good way to do that is to accept that both sides in a debate have an equal burden of proof.

mejutoco 5y ago
I think we are practically agreeing at this point. And you bring some interesting perspectives. Very interesting conversation. Thanks. To address the different burden of proof interpretations, like the author you quoted: in philosophy/logic it seems to be concerned with truth; in other disciplines (like discussing online, our main topic), with usefulness. I agree with you that defining the term would be the best (but it puts us in Socrates territory). So, again, (I believe) it is right, but not practical for certain uses (discussing online would turn into discussing the definitions. In the end, the person making an unfounded claim is still wasting everybody's time discussing definitions instead of proving arguments in favor of their claims). IMO this unhealthy dynamic of burden of proof is common to most disciplines (ones concerned about usefulness/practicality and not just truth). There is an unbalance of effort on making a point, and the unbalance should be, IMO, on the person challenging the status quo. So, to conclude, because the concept of burden of proof seems useless to deal with truth, but it is useful to deal with usefulness, I think it is ok to assume the definition of it is the practical one (and not the philosophical). If somebody brings a point that challenges the status quo, IMO, they can be annoyed at people throwing burden of proof at them, but they are not right. They can, instead, use this energy to come up with arguments in favor of their argument. Maybe burden of proof should not be described as a logical fallacy, since it is more of a rule to abide by for fruitful discussing, and, as far as I can tell, has no connection to logic. I guess in the end our little disagreement comes down to that truth/usefulness interpretation.
- skissane 5y ago
  I agree with you that, in practical matters, one has to be concerned with questions like – is it even worth my while debating this? especially with this particular person? I saw the other day someone posting (not here) that COVID vaccines are actually a secret mind control plot to turn us all into slaves of Bill Gates. What's the burden of proof in that debate? Well, for me, the burden of proof is irrelevant, because I've got better things to do in life than even pay their arguments any attention. On the other hand, I often see debates on the Internet about the existence of God, and one side will claim that the other has all the burden of proof. (Most commonly it is the atheist side saying that, although I've heard theists say that too.) Nobody has to debate the existence of God, of course – whether you believe in God or not, you may well have better things to do than argue about it with some random person on the Internet. But, if you are going to enter into the debate, I think one should acknowledge that one is participating (however amateurishly) in the discipline of philosophy of religion, and then maybe one should pay some heed to professional philosophers' thoughts on the burden of proof–such as Lehrer's view that both sides in a philosophical debate bear an equal burden of proof.