Burden of Proof

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

The burden of proof is on the one asserting the claims. There are some websites that try to show the Burden of Proof is on both parties. But the refutation examples that that doesn't work in most situations are vast.

I have heard people say "I don't wish to argue because I have to prove nothing to you." to a person making negative claims. There's nothing wrong with that, but in the case of making negatives claims, your proof of your side making negative claims is when adequate evidence from the other side isn't submitted. So no adequate evidence, and if it ever becomes a dispute over the stronger side - the one making negative claims has it.

There is an exception though. If person A making negative claims accuses person B of a logical fallacy, and person B disputes it, the Burden of Proof is on person A. It's common debate courtesy and the alternative would be people saying "this is a logical fallacy and I don't need to prove it" to refute every argument.

I've made a few positive claims in my post, so if anyone disagrees, let's hear the concerns.

Mindmaster · May 25, 2019

The problem with logical arguments is we're not logical.

Thus, our subjective experiences weigh heavily and there is a lot of "wrong for you"/"right for me".

But, that being said logic is just a tool designed to aid in understanding it's not the right tool for every job. Someone sharing their experiences or beliefs with you to some extent is exposing a very personal and vulnerable side of themselves and a bit of consideration goes a long way. I believe in a lot of things that cannot be proven to others, but I'm aware of that. If I share them with my fellow human beings it's always in the vein of letting them know more about me, but it's not about trying to get them to believe what I do. I realize many of my experiences are strange, rare, and quite unusual and those factors shape a lot of my spiritual leanings. Those that did not have the same experiences will feel differently, and I'm OK with that.

Logic can be used like glue to connect all of the pieces of the information you collect, or conversely you can use it to destroy any new information that doesn't currently line up with you own biases and beliefs. It has to be used wisely, compassionately, and adeptly or it's no help at all -- it's just a prison of your own currently-held delusions.

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Mindmaster said:
The problem with logical arguments is we're not logical.

Thus, our subjective experiences weigh heavily and there is a lot of "wrong for you"/"right for me".

But, that being said logic is just a tool designed to aid in understanding it's not the right tool for every job. Someone sharing their experiences or beliefs with you to some extent is exposing a very personal and vulnerable side of themselves and a bit of consideration goes a long way. I believe in a lot of things that cannot be proven to others, but I'm aware of that. If I share them with my fellow human beings it's always in the vein of letting them know more about me, but it's not about trying to get them to believe what I do. I realize many of my experiences are strange, rare, and quite unusual and those factors shape a lot of my spiritual leanings. Those that did not have the same experiences will feel differently, and I'm OK with that.

Logic can be used like glue to connect all of the pieces of the information you collect, or conversely you can use it to destroy any new information that doesn't currently line up with you own biases and beliefs. It has to be used wisely, compassionately, and adeptly or it's no help at all -- it's just a prison of your own currently-held delusions.

Some people, like me, consider telling personal stories and accounts and making a conclusion from them to be a form of proof. It may hurt some people's noggins to both consider logic and abductive reasoning, including me at one point, but I've gotten there.

Skwim · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
The burden of proof is on the one asserting the claims. There are some websites that try to show the Burden of Proof is on both parties. But the refutation examples that that doesn't work in most situations are vast.

I have heard people say "I don't wish to argue because I have to prove nothing to you." to a person making negative claims. There's nothing wrong with that, but in the case of making negatives claims, your proof of your side making negative claims is when adequate evidence from the other side isn't submitted. So no adequate evidence, and if it ever becomes a dispute over the stronger side - the one making negative claims has it.

There is an exception though. If person A making negative claims accuses person B of a logical fallacy, and person B disputes it, the Burden of Proof is on person A. It's common debate courtesy and the alternative would be people saying "this is a logical fallacy and I don't need to prove it" to refute every argument.

I've made a few positive claims in my post, so if anyone disagrees, let's hear the concerns.

Not all negative claims escape the burden of proof.

"Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something."
Source: Wikipedia

If I said, "The Smokey Mountains don't exist," It would be incumbent on me to prove my statement, negative though it may be.

What it comes down to is a matter of assertion. It doesn't matter if a claim is positive or negative, but what the first assertion is.

If I assert that X exists, it's up to me to prove X exists, and not up to you to prove it does not.

If I assert that X does not exist, it's up to me to prove X does not exits, and not up to you to prove it does.

.

.

Enoch07 · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
The burden of proof is on the one asserting the claims.

Unfortunatley you see a lot of misguided folks here start a thread, then when religious people engage the burden of proof is thrown on them.

But that is backwards.

The person who starts the thread is the asserter or prosecutor. The burden of proof is on them to prove their case.

It is not my job as the defendant to provide the burden of proof on my position which is already established.

What frustrates these misguided folks, is that you cannot prove a negative. So this is why the burden of proof is wrongly placed on the defendent.

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Skwim said:
Not all negative claims escape the burden of proof.

"Negative claims are statements that assert the non-existence or exclusion of something.
Source: Wikipedia

If I said, "The Smokey Mountains don't exist," It would be incumbent on me to prove my statement, negative though it may be.

What it comes down to is a matter of assertion. It doesn't matter if a claim is positive or negative, but what the first assertion is.

If I assert that X exists, it's up to me to prove X exists, and not up to you to prove it does not.

If I assert that X does not exist, it's up to me to prove X does not exits, and not up to you to prove it does.

.

.

Suppose I say "No other object in the universe is like God."

How do I prove it?

Skwim · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
Suppose I say "No other object in the universe is like God."

How do I prove it?

Ya got me. After asking you to prove it my next question might be, "Why do you say such a thing?"

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Skwim said:
Ya got me. After asking you to prove it my next question might be, "Why do you say such a thing?"

The way I see it, the side making positive claims can prove it, by finding one other object in the universe similar to God.

I can't though. All I did was kind of start a good honest discussion. If no one can prove against it, I have the stronger side.

PureX · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
The burden of proof is on the one asserting the claims.

There is no "burden of proof" because proof is a subjective criteria. Te best you could achieve would be the "burden of conviction".

So that leaves us with a proposition, and it's justifications, or lack thereof. "God exists" is a proposition. So is "gods do not exist". Both imply justification, and if it is not given will and should be ignored. If justification is given, then it should be considered.

Rejecting a proposition based on nothing is as pointless and worthless as making a proposition based on nothing.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2019

It is more correct to say that the burden of proof is upon the one making a Positive Assertion. Therefore if I say "There is no God" that would be a positive assertion event though I am denying the existence of something. If I cannot support such a claim as:

"No other object in the universe is like God."

Then the proper action for others to take is to ignore it as a non-statement.

PureX · May 25, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
It is more correct to say that the burden of proof is upon the one making a Positive Assertion. Therefore if I say "There is no God" that would be a positive assertion event though I am denying the existence of something. If I cannot support such a claim as:

"No other object in the universe is like God."

Then the proper action for others to take is to ignore it as a non-statement.

How would one make a "negative assertion"? ... "This is not true!" ... "I do not believe ...!"

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
It is more correct to say that the burden of proof is upon the one making a Positive Assertion. Therefore if I say "There is no God" that would be a positive assertion event though I am denying the existence of something. If I cannot support such a claim as:

"No other object in the universe is like God."

Then the proper action for others to take is to ignore it as a non-statement.

By your understanding of Positive Assertions, you made a Positive Assertion rather than a negative, refuting my post. So if you can prove your whole post to be true, I'll believe it.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2019

PureX said:
How would one make a "negative assertion"? ... "This is not true!" ... "I do not believe ...!"

Actually "This is not true!" is a positive assertion. As is your other.

"A positive assertion is where the conclusion is a statement of truth. "

One can always say "I don't believe this" and in a debate one would have to accept that statement. It does not prove or disprove what it was a reaction to. If a person says "Evolution is impossible" that person has taken on a burden of proof. Or if a person says "There is no God" that also is a statement of truth, a claim that could or could not be true. That also is a positive assertion. I am not sure if a "negative assertion" is even a thing.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
By your understanding of Positive Assertions, you made a Positive Assertion rather than a negative, refuting my post. So if you can prove your whole post to be true, I'll believe it.

I can support it. I don't know if you would call that "proving it". This is another problem with many debaters. They do not understand the concept of evidence or proof. They need to define what standard of proof that they are using. It is often impossible to prove something in a mathematical sense. But it is quite often possible to prove something by the legal standard, That is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Though a fuller and more accurate definition would be "Supported by evidence beyond the point where rejecting the concept is unreasonable".

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
I can support it. I don't know if you would call that "proving it". This is another problem with many debaters. They do not understand the concept of evidence or proof. They need to define what standard of proof that they are using. It is often impossible to prove something in a mathematical sense. But it is quite often possible to prove something by the legal standard, That is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Though a fuller and more accurate definition would be "Supported by evidence beyond the point where rejecting the concept is unreasonable".

How about we Philosophically make a case that articles agreeing with your statement, which are out there, make a healthier debate when followed than the method described in the OP? Shouldn't be hard, I've set the bar pretty low.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
How about we Philosophically make a case that articles agreeing with your statement, which are out there, make a healthier debate when followed than the method described in the OP? Shouldn't be hard, I've set the bar pretty low.

Wikipedia is often a good starting point:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

And though I used the term "positive assertion" they use a better term in that article of an "affirmative claim":

"
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11]"

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Wikipedia is often a good starting point:

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

And though I used the term "positive assertion" they use a better term in that article of an "affirmative claim":

"
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11]"

Reread my post. I didn't ask for the Wikipedia article, I asked for the ethics of believing said Wikipedia article.

Subduction Zone · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
Reread my post. I didn't ask for the Wikipedia article, I asked for the ethics of believing said Wikipedia article.

So you just want to go around in circles.

Skwim · May 25, 2019

AT-AT said:
The way I see it, the side making positive claims can prove it, by finding one other object in the universe similar to God.

I can't though.

And if one can't prove a negative claim then perhaps they should think twice about making it.

Subduction Zone said:
It is more correct to say that the burden of proof is upon the one making a Positive Assertion. Therefore if I say "There is no God" that would be a positive assertion event though I am denying the existence of something. If I cannot support such a claim as:

"No other object in the universe is like God."

Then the proper action for others to take is to ignore it as a non-statement.

Correct, and perhaps I haven't been clear about it. I've tried to steer clear of conflating the nature of a "claim," + or -, if you will, and the pronouncement of the "assertion."

In a sense, whether or not the claim takes a positive or negative form the assertion itself is always positive: "It is true that . . . . " Which is why, whether the claim itself is positive or negative, the burden of proof always falls on the one making the assertion.

.

PoetPhilosopher · May 25, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
So you just want to go around in circles.

No, I want a reason I should believe the Wikipedia article as truth.

Burden of Proof

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member