Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 12:55:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

No, the burden does not exist.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

It does not exist.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

It does not exist.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

No.

BOPs should not be applied to claims of belief; they are for epistemic disputes.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:18:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1.) No, the burden of proof comes from the person putting a claim out there as true. Like "there are magical fairies living in our brains that nobody else can see". Since he provided the claim, he has to prove it exists, but you don't have the burden of proof if you are negating the topic, does tthat make sense?

2.) The nature of the burden of proof is to prevent people from providing scenarios like the hypothetical one above and making everybody else accept them as true. That's why the stupid argument "You can't prove it isn't true" is not actually acceptable unless you can first prove that your statement is true. The Con can then go through and prove your proof wrong, which means you cannot uphold the burden of proof and so you no longer have it.

3.) Only if you're the one suggesting that panda bears do live in the center of the earth, and then only if you're rational :p.

4.) That's actually a good question. I would say no, simply because the statement "there are no gods" follows the statement "there are gods", and so the affirmative is simply being negated, and no burden of proof is needed. At least, I think so anyway.
My legend begins in the 12th century
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:21:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For #1, I'd say yes. You are asserting positive non-existence, until there is a reason to believe they CANNOT exist, the assertion is unjustified.
Sapere Aude!
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:26:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 1:18:23 PM, TheOrator wrote:
1.) No, the burden of proof comes from the person putting a claim out there as true. Like "there are magical fairies living in our brains that nobody else can see". Since he provided the claim, he has to prove it exists, but you don't have the burden of proof if you are negating the topic, does tthat make sense?

2.) The nature of the burden of proof is to prevent people from providing scenarios like the hypothetical one above and making everybody else accept them as true. That's why the stupid argument "You can't prove it isn't true" is not actually acceptable unless you can first prove that your statement is true. The Con can then go through and prove your proof wrong, which means you cannot uphold the burden of proof and so you no longer have it.

3.) Only if you're the one suggesting that panda bears do live in the center of the earth, and then only if you're rational :p.

4.) That's actually a good question. I would say no, simply because the statement "there are no gods" follows the statement "there are gods", and so the affirmative is simply being negated, and no burden of proof is needed. At least, I think so anyway.

The point of drafter's post is that his assertion is a positive claim and should then shoulder the burden of proof (according to some). Since he clearly cannot do this, is it not only logical that he accept the contrary stance that invisible, intangible pandas exist?

Claiming that pandas do exist or don't exist are both positive assertions of truth, however, there should not be a burden of proof in this case or the god case. These are unverifiable claims of belief, not knowledge. BOP does not apply.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 7:46:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I dunno, man. BOP seems kind of like a dialectical heuristic where both people just find something to agree on so they know what they're arguing about. BOP is just about what level of proof people are willing to accept. That's why people argue for certain interpretations, probably--some BOPs are way easier than others. Like, trying to prove exclusively that X doesn't exist--particularly if you're doing heavy empirical lifting--is kind of ridiculous because of the labor required (and, even then, induction never works 100%, so you're never really done). So, the BOP changes to "Defend your claim, or we default to not-X". It's super-useful, but there aren't like objective parameters that tell you what a "proper" burden of proof is.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:18:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

To prove your claim.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

No, that'd be an argument from ignorance. At best it'd lead you to an agnostic position on the issue.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

Nope. Same thing applies. If I say "God exists", I need to prove my claim. If I say "God does not exist", I need to prove my claim.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:17:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

BOP is sketchy. Most people don't understand it, and those that do will often debate over what exactly it is. I generally find that most people understand -subconsciously- that a person's burden of proof is that degree to which their claim devices from what they, themselves, know. (I disagree with this, but that is usually the effect.) In that rite the BOP as a concept can serve as a metric that evaluates how contentious a judge finds your claim.
Tsar of DDO
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:21:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I tend to find the presumptive stance of preference to be neutral, undecided; agnosticism. Note the word 'preference; a debate with some relevance http://www.debate.org...

When one makes a statement then a listener, one who has NO prior knowledge concerning anything to do with the question, should suppose an agnostic position.

The issue with number 1 is that listeners tend to have background knowledge or bias - ie. they know the structure of the Earth, or that they are unaware of intangible things and don't believe in them due to their experience... In the case of no 1. one tends to assume a different position than purely neutral, although I suppose technically you do have a burden if communicating to the type of ideally unprepared listener.

Now I am quite aware that this issue of the nature of the burden of proof changing depending upon prior knowledge is probably not going to sit well with most people. I don't pretend to know the exact nature of proof given pre-existing conceptions, except that that 'burden' of proof depends in part upon the likelihood of that statement (we are presuming prior knowledge here!) being true and also the burden can vary in terms of what extent it must be proven to on occassion.

That's my view of the matter.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:39:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. This is how burden works.

Most burden (strong positive statement): Unicorns exist.
2nd most burden (strong negative statement): Unicorns don't exist.
3rd most burden (weak positive statement): Unicorns might exist.
4th most burden (weak negative statement): Unicorns might not exist.
Least burden (neutral statement): I don't know whether unicorns exist.

And actually, the last one is only neutral in terms of unicorns. It's making a negative statement about think something. So there is always a burden of some form. The question is how much.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:11:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:39:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Yes. This is how burden works.

Most burden (strong positive statement): Unicorns exist.
2nd most burden (strong negative statement): Unicorns don't exist.
3rd most burden (weak positive statement): Unicorns might exist.
4th most burden (weak negative statement): Unicorns might not exist.
Least burden (neutral statement): I don't know whether unicorns exist.

And actually, the last one is only neutral in terms of unicorns. It's making a negative statement about think something. So there is always a burden of some form. The question is how much.

I'd reform this somewhat to:

Most burden: Something for certain
Second Most: Something most likely/preferable
Third Most: X is more likely/preferable to Y
Fourth most: Something is unlikely
Fifth most: Something is unlikely with our current knowledge

With all else lacking burden of proof.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 7:18:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:18:26 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

To prove your claim.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

No, that'd be an argument from ignorance. At best it'd lead you to an agnostic position on the issue.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

Nope. Same thing applies. If I say "God exists", I need to prove my claim. If I say "God does not exist", I need to prove my claim.

"Need" in what sense? You just said that if failing to meet the burden of proof shouldn't result in me abandoning the position. So why do I need to meet anything?
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:24:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 7:18:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 10:18:26 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

To prove your claim.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

No, that'd be an argument from ignorance. At best it'd lead you to an agnostic position on the issue.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

Nope. Same thing applies. If I say "God exists", I need to prove my claim. If I say "God does not exist", I need to prove my claim.

"Need" in what sense? You just said that if failing to meet the burden of proof shouldn't result in me abandoning the position. So why do I need to meet anything?

Why do Christians need to prove that God exists?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

1. Yes. The person making the claim (positive or negative) bears the burden of proof.

What if I were to tell you there were no stars? Wouldn't I, then, have to prove it to you?

2. The nature of this burden of proof is that you must have some evidence to back up what you are saying.

3. Not necessarily. If there is better evidence to the contrary, then you do not have to accept its premise as true.

If you say "there is no God," you have as much burden of proof as I do when I say "there is a God." I may not be able to empirically prove God's existence as true, but it can be shown that belief in God is more reasonable than not believing in God. God's existence can be shown to be probable, even though not empirically proven.

4. No. Atheists cannot be let off that easy.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:09:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:24:59 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Why do Christians need to prove that God exists?

The whole point of faith is that you believe without seeing. There is no empirical evidence for God's existence. There is no argument that can prove God's existence. At the discovery of symbolic logic, it was tried by many people of higher intellect than can be found on DDO. God's existence cannot be logically proven.

There are many arguments. The favorite of mine is the "watchmaker" argument. Others argue intelligent design or some derivative of it. They are normative arguments, and nothing more. They are not statements of fact.

People who need logic to prove God's existence will never truly accept faith. People who need empirical evidence to believe in anything are beyond faith.

This is ultimately why it irritates me to see people try to debate God's existence. The idea of debating about wether or not there is a God is absurd. The idea of trying to logically prove that God exists is even more absurd.

That is all.
Tsar of DDO
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:17:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:24:59 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/31/2012 7:18:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 10:18:26 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

To prove your claim.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

No, that'd be an argument from ignorance. At best it'd lead you to an agnostic position on the issue.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

Nope. Same thing applies. If I say "God exists", I need to prove my claim. If I say "God does not exist", I need to prove my claim.

"Need" in what sense? You just said that if failing to meet the burden of proof shouldn't result in me abandoning the position. So why do I need to meet anything?

Why do Christians need to prove that God exists?

In order for me to answer your question, you'll have to answer mine first.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:01:39 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

1. Yes. The person making the claim (positive or negative) bears the burden of proof.

What if I were to tell you there were no stars? Wouldn't I, then, have to prove it to you?

2. The nature of this burden of proof is that you must have some evidence to back up what you are saying.

3. Not necessarily. If there is better evidence to the contrary, then you do not have to accept its premise as true.

If you say "there is no God," you have as much burden of proof as I do when I say "there is a God." I may not be able to empirically prove God's existence as true, but it can be shown that belief in God is more reasonable than not believing in God. God's existence can be shown to be probable, even though not empirically proven.

Is it more reasonable to believe in invisible pandas or not? Why or why not?


4. No. Atheists cannot be let off that easy.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:17:14 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:24:59 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/31/2012 7:18:06 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/30/2012 10:18:26 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

To prove your claim.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

No, that'd be an argument from ignorance. At best it'd lead you to an agnostic position on the issue.

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

Nope. Same thing applies. If I say "God exists", I need to prove my claim. If I say "God does not exist", I need to prove my claim.

"Need" in what sense? You just said that if failing to meet the burden of proof shouldn't result in me abandoning the position. So why do I need to meet anything?

Why do Christians need to prove that God exists?

In order for me to answer your question, you'll have to answer mine first.

Well, I'd say that it depends on context. I can't really say there's some sort of moral obligation to prove everything you claim. In context of debate, you certainly need to fulfill your burden of proof in order to win though.

What about you?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always thought it was the person making the knowledge claim (x) has the burden of proof. Someone else would then claim an alternative (y). The first person has the BOP to show that (x) is more probable than (y).
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 4:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:31:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
1. If I say, "There are no invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth" am I, by the mere act of making a positive assertion, inheriting a burden of proof?

Yes.

2. What is the nature of this burden of proof?

If one makes a claim, then you have the BoP. Saying you do not believe something does not give you the burden of proof.

3. If I fail to meet this burden of proof, should I then adopt the negation of that statement (That there are invisible, intangible Panda Bears at the center of the Earth)?

Not unless you wish to base your position in rationality (One can base their positions in faith or intuition or self-evidence).

4. Do the answers to the above questions change if the statement becomes "There are no gods?" If yes, why?

The first does not. If you claim "I believe that there are no Gods", then yes, because that last statement means "I do not believe that there are Gods" (due to the complexity of the English Language).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2012 4:53:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/13/2012 3:41:14 PM, stubs wrote:
I always thought it was the person making the knowledge claim (x) has the burden of proof. Someone else would then claim an alternative (y). The first person has the BOP to show that (x) is more probable than (y).

In policy, yes, due to promoting Y having a BoP. In factual statements, it does not hold BoP.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...