The Burden of Proof Revisited

[Bad Writer]

Though the question of the burden of proof is generally brought up during debates with theists over the existence of a deity, it remains a philosophical idea, thus my reason for posting this in this particular forum. It's my experience that anyone making a claim yet denying their burden of proof is impossible to talk to, as they don't understand that they are the one who must prove their outrageous assertion.

Because too much text can make anyone's head explode, I'm going to provide a short video instead explaining in easy-to-understand details just what it means to bear the burden of proof.





If any of you after watching this still takes issue with having to support your claim with demonstrable evidence, you can yet avoid ridicule by seeing yourself out the door.

[Minimalist]

[Bad Writer]

If I had a nickel for every time SW said he was winning the debate... He always claims that by the merits of his words that you can't prove him wrong. Well, no shit, fucker. You can't logically disprove that which isn't logical. Not only that, but it's not our place to disprove the claim anyway, so by that token he and so many others like him are very much losing the debate outright.

[Minimalist]

Why would you "debate" with Waldork?

[Bad Writer]

Why indeed.

[genkaus]

Though the question of the burden of proof is generally brought up during debates with theists over the existence of a deity, it remains a philosophical idea, thus my reason for posting this in this particular forum. It's my experience that anyone making a claim yet denying their burden of proof is impossible to talk to, as they don't understand that they are the one who must prove their outrageous assertion.

The problem with the concept of burden of proof is that its common understanding is too simplistic. As you said, it is a philosophical idea. Which means it has a philosophical basis and a logical reason behind it and without an explanation of both, the concept can easily be manipulated and misapplied.

Here's where your video falls short of the mark. Rather than examining the principles underlying the concept, it simply gives an explanation of where and how it should be applied. As a result, atheists looking at the video nod sagely, agreeing with everything being said. Theists look in askance, thinking of apparent examples where such applications fail. Those who accept the mantra, try to turn their positions into non-claims, while others present hypothetical scenarios requiring misapplication of the concept, all the while accusations of blind faith are being thrown at each-other.

For example, an atheist sees the statements "I don't believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" as two different things. They see the first as non-claim (thus escaping the burden of proof) while the latter as a claim (thus assuming it). The theists, obviously see this as a weak evasion (fyi, so do I), often try to imitate this position by rewording their claim into a non-claim. Others bring up statements where the burden of proof won't apply - statements such as "I exist" or "Reality exists" - and imagine that they've established the concept as inapplicable to certain claims and choose to place god-claims into that category. Failing that, each party accuses the other of having blind faith in their world-view and the whole thing devolves into a cluster-fuck.

And this is why an understanding of the basis of that principle is required. What statement constitutes as claim should not depend upon how it is worded. Which principles we agree upon should be laid out beforehand. Who bears the burden should not devolve into counter-accusations of claim making.

Here is how I would explain the concept of "burden of proof".

A rational inquiry is contingent upon coherence theory of truth, i.e., we
assume a set of compatible premises and the truth or falsehood of a statement is determined by how much it lines up with those premises.

A scientific inquiry is contingent upon correspondence theory of truth, i.e., we decide the truth or falsehood of a statement by how it matches up with reality - even if it seems contrary to our previous experience of reality.

Ideally, a debate should be both rational and scientific in nature. These two epistemological processes should be used to complement and correct each-other. The scientific aspect would keep us from assuming incorrect premises (which would result in logically valid but unsound conclusions) or weeding out arguments that may not be overtly contradictory. The rational aspect would indicate errors in observation or existence of extraneous factors. The two common concepts, "claimant bears the burden of proof" and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" make sense only within the context of such a debate. And the premises axiomatic to this context would be self-evident and undeniable within its context.

The context for a rational and scientific debate requires certain specific assumption. We assume that "reality exists". We assume that "an observer to the reality exists". We assume that reality works in specific ways - ways describable as laws of logic and laws of nature. Without the first two axioms, there "inquiry" would not be possible and without the third one there would be no point to it. Assumption of these axioms would neither be faith-based nor reason-based because both faith and reason are meaningless concepts without them. The idea of proof is meaningful only if these axioms are accepted. Flawed attempts at rationalization aside, I do not believe that anyone seriously questions these beliefs. Rather, I'd say that any such question can be shown to be self-refuting.

And now we turn to its relation with burden of proof. Normally, we don't start a debate with these basic axioms - we have a multitude of other accepted facts regarding science, history etc. Though both parties often agree to accept these facts without much scrutiny, the assumption is made that upon examination, we'd find them to both match reality (correspondence theory) and be compatible with the basic axioms (coherence theory). A claim in this scenario would mean something that is not already included in that accepted set. Within the context of god-debate, we accept the following facts - "humans exist", "reality exists", "laws of nature exist", "earth exists", "observational faculties exist" and so on. If "X exists" is not a part of the accepted set, then "X does not exist" can be considered the default position and "X exists" a claim to be proven. Regardless of how it is worded - whether the statement is "Non-X does not exist" - the implication of existence of X would be the claim and bear the burden of proof. "X does not exist" does not add anything extra to the given set and is therefore not a claim and does not bear the burden of proof. Similarly, if the claim is apparently contradictory to the apparent facts, then it would be considered "extraordinary" and the standard of proof required would be higher. Basically, both theists and atheists share a portion of their worldview - the portion about reality - and that serves as the premise of debate. A claim is made when one party adds something to that worldview and therefore that party bears the burden of proof. And the bigger the addition, the greater the burden.

In conclusion, the principles of "burden of proof" and "extraordinary claims" can be meaningfully applied only of both parties understand the basic principles of rational debate. Without it, the whole discussion may devolve into semantic debate with no sensible conclusion.

[Doubting Thomas]

The problem is that being intellectually lazy enough to say "You can't prove that it's not true" is far more easy than actually providing evidence for your assertions. That, and when it comes to religion the theists know they don't have any actual evidence, so they have to resort to shifting the burden of proof.

[Bad Writer]

They can shift that burden all they want, but they'll find a very quick halt in the discussion when the other party calls then out on that trick.

[bennyboy]

You can't logically disprove that which isn't logical.

???

I think showing that it isn't logical is good enough.

[Bad Writer]

Showing them doesn't mean they'll accept it, unfortunately.