Critical Philosophy and Burden of Proof

A Tract Book Essay

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In Law, the Burden of Proof is on the Plaintiff to prove his or her case in a civil

case, by the Preponderance of the Evidence. I argue that the same Burden of Proof must

be applied in Philosophy. Once a Philosopher has stated a position, that position must

be presumed valid until disproven by another Philosopher. A Philosopher disproves the

philosophy of another by either attacking the factual basis on which the philosophy is

based, or, by arguing that the philosophical position taken is not logical. If the

philosopher putting forth the position has made certain assumptions, or has defined terms

in a certain way, then the philosopher attaching those assumptions or definitions has the

burden of proving that they are invalid. The foregoing is consistent with modern science

where a scientist puts forth a particular theory to explain the data, and opposing scientists

have the burden of proving the theory wrong. One cannot place the burden of proof on

the defendant to prove the negative, that is, that there is no flaw in the original

philosophers position.