Peter Kirby

I'm asking in quite a general way, what could otherwise be placed in the Philosphy forum, about "the burden of proof."

1. What is a burden of proof?

2. Is there at least one burden of proof, in at least one topic?

3. For every topic, is there at least one burden of proof?

4. Pertaining to a single topic, can there be more than one burden of proof?

5. When there is only one burden of proof concerning a topic, where does it lie?

Those who answer #4 positively may be excused from #5, answering instead where the burdens of proof are, when there are more than one.

This thread is not about Jesus. For a point of reference, you may use one of these two topics, or select your own.

A. Whether King Arthur existed.

B. Whether the author of the Gospel of John made use of a Synoptic.

I look forward to your interesting remarks.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

spin

Confusious's law say, for every substantive claim there is a burden of proof.

Confusious's corollary say, Confusious's law is retrospective as well.


-- a acolyte

premjan

As truth is a collaborative activity, I would say that you have one burden of proof - i.e. showing that the current weight of evidence ought to indicate some hypothesis X to be the truth.

spin

Confusious say, for every beast of burden there must be legs to hold it up otherwise it fall down and get nowhere. Proof of burden is seeing them legs.

Don't ask Confusious what that has to do with burden of proof. He'd just say to look at it the other way around. For beast to get anywhere, must have legs.


-- a acolyte

Peter Kirby

But for every topic, are there not at least two hypotheses, X and ~X? Therefore, if I take what you say as true, should not you have marked the 2+ column? For you said that a BoP applies to all hypotheses, and to every such one, and I say that there are at least two hypotheses per topic.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

premjan

King Arthur existed --> proofs
King Arthur did not exist --> disproofs

I think only disproof of positive statements is possible in the sciences (by counterexample) right? Otherwise, "Proof" of theories is just the accumulation of evidence in favor and little against. In mathematics of course both X and ~X can be either proved or disproved. In science though: an assertion X can be disproved by counterexample.

So: it depends how you look at it.

spin

Confusious say, from other perspective, if I say you one ugly bastard, what I gotta say to stop you punch my face? If I say you one good-looking soag, no way I get outa hell.


-- a acolyte

Peter Kirby

This prompts me to ask a question:

(1) What determines the positive or negative attribute of a hypothesis?

For example, let "X" be "King Arthur did not exist." In this case, ~X is "It is not the case that King Arthur did not exist." Is there a positive or negative attribute to these hypotheses, and which are which?

For example, let "X" be "The Gospel of John was written without reference to the Synoptics," and let "Y" be "The Gospel of John depended on the Synoptics for reference." We may say either "X <-> ~Y" or "~X <-> Y," so who is to say which is positive and which is negative? What sense do these concepts have?

(2) If "proof" is "the balance of evidence" as you describe it above, cannot "proof" be adduced for either X or ~X for any given historical hypothesis X?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Coleslaw

It seems to me that the burden of proof rests on the person who wants to do the proving. If person A is quite happy believing X, and doesn't care if person B believes X or not, but person B not only believes not X but cares that person A believe not X as well, the burden of proof falls on Person B. It would not advance person B's cause to say that the logic of the situation requires that the burden of proof rests on Person A to prove X, if A is not out to prove X in the first place.

Peter Kirby

Thanks for your contribution, Coleslaw! Let me see if I can synthesize your response in terms of the questions posed:

1. What is a burden of proof?

A burden of proof is a socially constructed obligation to prove something.

2. Is there at least one burden of proof, in at least one topic?

Yeah.

3. For every topic, is there at least one burden of proof?

Naw.

4. Pertaining to a single topic, can there be more than one burden of proof?

Yeah.

5. When there is only one burden of proof concerning a topic, where does it lie?

Look, if you want me to believe something, you have a burden to prove it!

kind regards,
Peter Kirby