Fallacy: Burden of Proof

[Upchurch]

Work is a little slow right now, so I was surfing when I read this page (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html), where it describes the following:
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.That caught my attention because I think I've argued against this type of fallacy before without realizing it. To my amusement, one of the examples at the bottom was the following:3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."Now, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "You haven't shown that God doesn't exist" a variation of the above fallacy? And why wasn't I smart enough to find this when I was counter-argueing this fallacy?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well its a good standard but the article imo got a bit wrong. Burden of proof goes on the side not yet established. By establsihed here I mean supported by evidence at the moment. Once a claim is established it not up to a person to prove the evidence isn't forged, or there is no evidence to the contrary out somewhere but the side making the challenge to now prove their case/disprove their opponents.

For example, holocaust deniers ask people to prove films of the holocaust aren't fake etc. However the claim that the Holocaust happened is established, making it the deniers job to go out and find proof that it didn't.


The reason why burden of proof is used it to avoid endless controversy. You can prove very little, many would say nothing, absolutely.

You cannot prove for example fossils aren't faked, the experts are not conspiring etc. So the burden of proof concept is applied in order to avoid endless hassle and actually resolve controversy in a meaningful manner.

As for claims that the burden of proof is on those who believe something exists, this is not really true. If someone for example told me George Bush did not exist, the burden of proof would be on them, not me. That is because the existence of Bush is established by much evidence(seeing him on TV and such.)

For bigfoot and such though, the burden of proof is on those claims not because they are positive but because they are superfluous. We have background knowledge at odds with such claims and a more parsimonious worldview at hand, those things are established. So why then posit stuff like bigfoot,UFO's and such? Paranormal claims are superfluous and hence not established and that's why the burden of proof is on them.

[hgc]

DM,

Isn't the "claim is established" measure, as you've described it, skating dangerously close to the ad populum fallacy?

Holocaust deniers would indeed assert that the claim is far from established, that it's a popular fantasy, big lie, so on. Then they present their evidence, such as it is, that the films are faked, that diesel fumes can't kill, that there weren't that many Jews to start with, etc, and invite you to refute it.

Indeed there's very little that can forestall endless controversy other than a little faith that the probability of something being true is overwhelming. This is based on faith that the gathering of the evidence was honest and objective. I never thought I'd resort to relying on faith, but your post made me think on it a little harder.

[DialecticMaterialist]

No, because what establishes a claim is not popular belief but evidence and reason.

For example naturalism is the established position, even though supernaturalism is more popular. That is because supernaturalism is more superfluous. Same thing with skepticism vs paranormal claims.

Same thing with darwinian theory, that is established by much evidence even if many people in the US are creationists or adhere to theistic evolution.

The Holocaust denier can say the films are faked and such, but they must prove this is indeed true. It's not my job at this point to prove the films are authentic, but their to prove forgery. Or that the experts are lying.

Also though authority and popularity do not establish a claim, expert testimony or ordinary testimony(for ordinary claims) is acceptable as evidence.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems to me that the burden of proof is on whomever actually has the possibility of offering proof one way or the other. That might be one side or the other, or both sides. Indeed, if one side has already done their homework, then it's up to the other side to do theirs.

~~ Paul

[hgc]

Here's the thing: I agree with everything you said. When you say "established," of course you mean established through rational means. But frankly, the conversation that you and I have with each other doesn't really matter much. What matters is the conversation that either one of us has with someone who doesn't put much stock in rationality (as we define it), yet.

Some times I get the feeling that there is absolutely no common ground, no basis for discussion with some people. For instance - holocaust deniers, religiously-inspired racists, creationists. How far can I hope to make a difference if I start with "my position is established; you have the burden of proof." It simply is not persuasive. Not practical.

Then there's the whole universe of claims that I may think are established through rational means, but reasonable people might disagree. For instance - the ill effects of burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

[ChuckieR]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
No, because what establishes a claim is not popular belief but evidence and reason.

For example naturalism is the established position, even though supernaturalism is more popular. That is because supernaturalism is more superfluous. Same thing with skepticism vs paranormal claims.

...

Also though authority and popularity do not establish a claim, expert testimony or ordinary testimony(for ordinary claims) is acceptable as evidence. I just wanted to add to this. In science, it is often repeatability that establishes a claim. If an effect is "real", then anyone should be able to set up the aparatus and do the experiment. That way, we do not have to rely on any one person's statements. The claim should be "obvious" to all.

As you point out, though, not all questions are easily answered by a simple experiment (i.e., "burning oil will make the Earth uninhabitable in the future" is a difficult experiment to conduct, and it's difficult/impossible to accurately extrapolate current data). And questions of what went on in history can often (always?) only be answered by indirect evidence.

[Loki]

hgc,

Holocaust deniers would indeed assert that the claim is far from established, that it's a popular fantasy, big lie, so on. Then they present their evidence, such as it is, that the films are faked,...
Just wanted to add that DM's point was slightly different here - he was referring to the fact that Holocaust deniers will often point to the "fact" that the films *could* be faked, but not to any "fact" showing they were faked. This leads to "if you can't prove the film is not fake, then we must dismiss the film as evidence" - which is way too extreme a position, given that (a) no evidence of faking exists and (b) the film is consistent with a range of other evidence (survivor statements, physical buildings, etc).

[Marvel Frozen]

The way I see it that, is that when there is a claim, the side making the claim, and the side disagreeing with the claim each have a burden of proof. Obviously, though, when a claim or it's opposite is unfalsifiable, things are a different. Using the Holocaust deniers as an example, the people claiming the Holocaust happened have already presented a large amount of evidence supporting that position. For Holocaust deniers to be taken seriously they need to provide just as much evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen.