Burden of Proof.
0
I found an interesting video recently uploaded by one of my all time favorite youtubers.
Now, this is relevant to Serious Discussion because...well...I've seen people regularly admonish this "burden of proof" as being unnecessary, insufficient, or ignore it entirely.
It's not uncommon for someone to demonize a position on reality contrary to what they hold to be true.
Some common examples include:
Those against Genetically Modified Food
Anti-Vaccination movements
9/11 Truthers
"Racial Realists"
And those who believe in god.
By the by, that last one was simply an example like the rest. I'm not equating theistic belief with conspiracy theories or racism. I cannot make that more clear.
The burden of proof is certainly something that always needs to be met, but something to bare in mind is that not ALL claims require substantial evidence. If I say I work at a gas station, it's reasonable to accept that at face value. People work at gas stations and it's not uncommon to hold a job in general.
So how do we differentiate between a claim that requires substantial evidence, and one that doesn't?
It's actually very simple. If a claim is being made, and an argument stems from that claim's soundness, then it's reasonable to ask for sufficient reason to believe the claim before addressing the argument. If sufficient reason is not necessary, then this claim would be known as an "axiom" or rather, a fact that, while it could be argued, it'd be unreasonable to do so. I could stem an argument from the fact that I'm a human being. You could in fact argue this and ask for evidence or sufficient reason, but when one basically assumes that whoever they're communicating with in debate is a human, it doesn't become reasonable to ask for evidence simply because I'm basing an argument off of it.
By definition, conspiracy theorist claims require sufficient reason to believe them because of predictions they make. For instance, saying that the government planned 9/11 makes the prediction of competence on the government's part that is directly undermined by other observed facts(I.E. They couldn't even keep it a secret that Clinton boned an intern, how in the hell could they keep a secret across a vast amount of organizations?)
Whether you dispute the above example(I.E. you're a truther that accepts the theory of government conspiracy) is irrelevant to the fact that the claim would still require evidence, for those not convinced that it IS true.
The same can be said of any supernatural claim. A claim of divine intervention needs to be supported by definition, for those not immediately ready to accept such claims as being axiomatically true(like me). A claim of supernaturalism in general(ghosts, demons, devils) also requires evidence and sufficient reason .
For those of you who think this is unfair, see the above video. For those that wish to obfuscate and try and shift the burden so that you needn't give reason, see the video.
If anyone's goal is to seek truth, then this should not be something to be avoided. In fact, quite to the contrary, the burden of proof should be embraced, because as soon as you meet it, you can paint those who still don't agree or aren't convinced as being unreasonable, and you have provided reason for them to change their mind, and also reason that you could, in fact, be right, despite how counter intuitive your claim may be.
Science does this on a regular basis. Papers submitted for peer review require vast bibliographies of research for each and every claim the paper bases its points on. Philosophical papers and books are the same. For instance, I have The Moral Landscape with me here written by Sam Harris, and it has a bibliography of almost 40 full pages of sources and references to provide reason and evidence to back up the claims made within.
It's not always easy to provide sufficient evidence and reason, but if you are interested in the truth, whatever that truth may be, it behooves you to make the attempt. And if you CAN'T meet the burden...then perhaps your position...is unreasonable.
Thank you for reading. :)
Now, this is relevant to Serious Discussion because...well...I've seen people regularly admonish this "burden of proof" as being unnecessary, insufficient, or ignore it entirely.
It's not uncommon for someone to demonize a position on reality contrary to what they hold to be true.
Some common examples include:
Those against Genetically Modified Food
Anti-Vaccination movements
9/11 Truthers
"Racial Realists"
And those who believe in god.
By the by, that last one was simply an example like the rest. I'm not equating theistic belief with conspiracy theories or racism. I cannot make that more clear.
The burden of proof is certainly something that always needs to be met, but something to bare in mind is that not ALL claims require substantial evidence. If I say I work at a gas station, it's reasonable to accept that at face value. People work at gas stations and it's not uncommon to hold a job in general.
So how do we differentiate between a claim that requires substantial evidence, and one that doesn't?
It's actually very simple. If a claim is being made, and an argument stems from that claim's soundness, then it's reasonable to ask for sufficient reason to believe the claim before addressing the argument. If sufficient reason is not necessary, then this claim would be known as an "axiom" or rather, a fact that, while it could be argued, it'd be unreasonable to do so. I could stem an argument from the fact that I'm a human being. You could in fact argue this and ask for evidence or sufficient reason, but when one basically assumes that whoever they're communicating with in debate is a human, it doesn't become reasonable to ask for evidence simply because I'm basing an argument off of it.
By definition, conspiracy theorist claims require sufficient reason to believe them because of predictions they make. For instance, saying that the government planned 9/11 makes the prediction of competence on the government's part that is directly undermined by other observed facts(I.E. They couldn't even keep it a secret that Clinton boned an intern, how in the hell could they keep a secret across a vast amount of organizations?)
Whether you dispute the above example(I.E. you're a truther that accepts the theory of government conspiracy) is irrelevant to the fact that the claim would still require evidence, for those not convinced that it IS true.
The same can be said of any supernatural claim. A claim of divine intervention needs to be supported by definition, for those not immediately ready to accept such claims as being axiomatically true(like me). A claim of supernaturalism in general(ghosts, demons, devils) also requires evidence and sufficient reason .
For those of you who think this is unfair, see the above video. For those that wish to obfuscate and try and shift the burden so that you needn't give reason, see the video.
If anyone's goal is to seek truth, then this should not be something to be avoided. In fact, quite to the contrary, the burden of proof should be embraced, because as soon as you meet it, you can paint those who still don't agree or aren't convinced as being unreasonable, and you have provided reason for them to change their mind, and also reason that you could, in fact, be right, despite how counter intuitive your claim may be.
Science does this on a regular basis. Papers submitted for peer review require vast bibliographies of research for each and every claim the paper bases its points on. Philosophical papers and books are the same. For instance, I have The Moral Landscape with me here written by Sam Harris, and it has a bibliography of almost 40 full pages of sources and references to provide reason and evidence to back up the claims made within.
It's not always easy to provide sufficient evidence and reason, but if you are interested in the truth, whatever that truth may be, it behooves you to make the attempt. And if you CAN'T meet the burden...then perhaps your position...is unreasonable.
Thank you for reading. :)
0
A detailed and thourough thought process and an interesting subject.
I did not know that the term had been coined as "burden of proof" but it suits it quite well indeed. The video was extremely instructive and well laid out, understandable.
Being a fervent believer that somewhere in the galaxy, far or close, every single story of every single book ever written is being, has been, or will be enacted, and often finding myself stuck with the "you can't prove me wrong" argument, it is a kind of "soothing" sensation to find an answer to my circling dilemnas.
I'm to emotionally involved in the matter to see clearly in it (I am a dreamer indeed).
I thank you for this, you have solved one of my many problems and enlarged my field of vision.
Thank you.
I did not know that the term had been coined as "burden of proof" but it suits it quite well indeed. The video was extremely instructive and well laid out, understandable.
Being a fervent believer that somewhere in the galaxy, far or close, every single story of every single book ever written is being, has been, or will be enacted, and often finding myself stuck with the "you can't prove me wrong" argument, it is a kind of "soothing" sensation to find an answer to my circling dilemnas.
I'm to emotionally involved in the matter to see clearly in it (I am a dreamer indeed).
I thank you for this, you have solved one of my many problems and enlarged my field of vision.
Thank you.
0
It is actually a cool video, one who makes a bold claim must also support his claim but it is also the case where you can't prove his claim wrong.
If one person believes in God, he claims it to be right because of his claims on what he believes, so the other person cannot really claim his claims are wrong otherwise the opponent must support his own claim that God doesn't exist.
An interesting video BigLundi, I will think about this topic for a while.
Interesting indeed.
If one person believes in God, he claims it to be right because of his claims on what he believes, so the other person cannot really claim his claims are wrong otherwise the opponent must support his own claim that God doesn't exist.
An interesting video BigLundi, I will think about this topic for a while.
Interesting indeed.
0
Hanasaku
i should just die
I have read this before, coming across a Wikipedia page entitled 'Probatio Diabolica'.
What intrigues me is that how, or rather why, the one that is the carrier-to-be of the burden, decides to make the claim when he himself probably knows that he needed proof to support his arguments. In no doubt the holder of the burden of proof is certainly to be rebutted by several arguments by the skeptic, whom, arguments usually contain scientific, organic evidence to possibly prove that the claimer's claim is invalid.
After watching the video, it brings me to another point.
What if the skeptic, who is providing the proof to prove that the claim is invalid, has evidence, that is, or could possibly be, not exact proof, or in other words, not valid? The absurdity of the situation makes for a party full of people who are carrying the burden of proof, becoming a stalemate on all sides.
In my personal reactions I think that people should seek truth to the matter and resolve the situation. Is it not right to rebut the claim by providing an empty claim yourself; it s not right to claim without providing evidence. It seems it all boils down to having evidence to support the claim.
What intrigues me is that how, or rather why, the one that is the carrier-to-be of the burden, decides to make the claim when he himself probably knows that he needed proof to support his arguments. In no doubt the holder of the burden of proof is certainly to be rebutted by several arguments by the skeptic, whom, arguments usually contain scientific, organic evidence to possibly prove that the claimer's claim is invalid.
After watching the video, it brings me to another point.
What if the skeptic, who is providing the proof to prove that the claim is invalid, has evidence, that is, or could possibly be, not exact proof, or in other words, not valid? The absurdity of the situation makes for a party full of people who are carrying the burden of proof, becoming a stalemate on all sides.
In my personal reactions I think that people should seek truth to the matter and resolve the situation. Is it not right to rebut the claim by providing an empty claim yourself; it s not right to claim without providing evidence. It seems it all boils down to having evidence to support the claim.
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
It is actually a cool video, one who makes a bold claim must also support his claim but it is also the case where you can't prove his claim wrong.If one person believes in God, he claims it to be right because of his claims on what he believes, so the other person cannot really claim his claims are wrong otherwise the opponent must support his own claim that God doesn't exist.
An interesting video BigLundi, I will think about this topic for a while.
Interesting indeed.
I don't think you paid enough attention to the video.
Very explicitly the video details that, even if one cannot prove the claimer's claim to be incorrect, this is not, in fact, their job to do.
While it's...defensible, to say that I can't say someone is WRONG without providing a burden of proof, I CAN in actuality say, in the case of god's existence, for example, that the claim is unreasonable.
I'll lay this one out simply: If you have not provided a valid reason to believe something, then by definition, that thing you believe, and have not provided reason for, is unreasonable.