Philosophic burden of proof

This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical 4 Example

concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation).
Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of
gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] It is a
In epistemology, the burden of proof or onus probandi fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is
is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to pro- either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance
or rejection of claims about that characteristic is more
vide sucient warrant for their position.
nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can
choose to consider two claims about the situation, given
as:

Holder of the burden

1. The number of gumballs is even.

When two parties are in a discussion and one arms a

claim that the other disputes, the one who arms has a
burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An
argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been
proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the
eect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

2. The number of gumballs is odd.

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical

syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs,
the standard for evidence to meet the burden of
proof is usually determined by context and community
standards.[5][6]

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the
two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either
proposition, we may suspend judgment. If there is a claim
proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof
falls onto the proponent of the claim. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing
claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims
or ambivalent of both claims. [14][15][16]

5 See also

In public discourse

Evidentialism

Burden of proof is also an important concept in the public

arena of ideas. Once participants in discourse establish
common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof
helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments.[7][8][9][10]

Legal burden of proof

Metaphysics
Parsimony

Proving a negative

Pragma-dialectics

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an armed claim

that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.
There are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in
mathematics, science, and economics including Arrows
impossibility theorem.

Scientic consensus
Scientic method
Statistical hypothesis testing

A negative claim may exist as a counter point to a previous

claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence
argument are typical methods to full the burden of proof
for a negative claim.[11]

Russells teapot
Justicationism
1

References

[1] Cargile, James (January 1997). On the Burden of

Proof. Philosophy (Cambridge University Press) 72
(279): 59 83.
[2] Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. Lander University. 2004. Archived from
the original on 30 April 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-29.
[3] Dowden, Bradley. Appeal to Ignorance. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[4] Michalos, Alex (1969). Principles of Logic. Englewood
Clis: Prentice-Hall. p. 370. usually one who makes an
assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If
this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic,
the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.
[5] Leite, Adam (2005).
A Localist Solution to
the Regress of Justication.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (3): 395421 [p.
418].
doi:10.1080/00048400500191974.
[t]he point of
articulating reasons in defense of ones belief is to
establish that one is justied in believing as one does.
[6] Leite, Adam (2005).
A Localist Solution to
the Regress of Justication.
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (3): 395421 [p.
403].
doi:10.1080/00048400500191974.
justicatory
conversation...[is]...characterized by a persons sincere
attempt to vindicate his or her entitlement to a belief by
providing adequate reasons in its defense and responding
to objections.
[7] Goldman, Alvin (1994). Argumentation and Social Epistemology. Journal of Philosophy 91 (1): 2749. JSTOR
2940949.
[8] Eemeren, Frans van; Grootendorst, Rob (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 60. ISBN 0521830753.
[t]here is no point in venturing to resolve a dierence
of opinion through an argumentative exchange of views
if there is no mutual commitment to a common starting
point.
[9] Brandom, Robert (1994). Making it Explicit. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. p. 222. ISBN 067454319X.
[t]here are sentence types that would require a great deal
of work for one to get into a position to challenge, such
as 'Red is a color,' 'There have been black dogs,' 'Lighting frequently precedes thunder,' and similar commonplaces. These are treated as 'free moves by members of
our speech communitythey are available to just about
anyone any time to use as premises, to assert unchallenged.
[10] Adler, Jonathan (2002). Beliefs Own Ethics. Cambridge:
MIT Press. pp. 164167. ISBN 0262011921.
[11] T. Edward Dame (2009). Attacking Faulty Reasoning:
A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Cengage
Learning. p. 17. ISBN 9780495095064.
[12] The Atheist Experience. Episode 808. 7 April 2013.
channelAustin 16. Missing or empty |title= (help)

REFERENCES

[13] Matt Dillahunty (2013). Does God Exist? (Debate). Texas

State University.
[14] Metacognitive Model of Ambivalence: The Role of Multiple Beliefs and Metacognitions in Creating Attitude Ambivalence.
[15] Reductionism, emergence, and burden of proof part
I.
[16] Reductionism, emergence, and burden of proof part
II.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

7.1

Text

Philosophic burden of proof Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof?oldid=680623194 Contributors:

Chealer, Aetheling, Discospinster, Bender235, Phiwum, Diego Moya, Brandmeister (old), Malcolma, Trickstar, SmackBot, Rtc, The
one092001, Fuhghettaboutit, Richard001, Ariel Pontes, Stalik, Wiploc, Jablomih, Zach99998, JohnManuel, Sanya3, Sunrise, Denisarona,
Rhododendrites, Simon Villeneuve, Dthomsen8, Piratejosh85, Mitch Ames, Addbot, Dawynn, AgadaUrbanit, AnomieBOT, Mark Renier,
Jonesey95, Calmer Waters, GrapedApe, Philocentric, Nederlandse Leeuw, Becritical, Tesseract2, Tinss, Ursus Lapideus, Solomonfromnland, AgentTheGreat, ChuispastonBot, ClueBot NG, Rtucker913, Spannerjam, Jeraphine Gryphon, Pacerier, Pirhayati, Dawkinsgirl, Epicgenius, Digimaster002, Rekowo, Balljust, AnuragVohra27, Leegrc, Yibby is so cool, KasparBot, Ephemerance, Yellowishmagenta and
Anonymous: 37

7.2

Images

7.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0