aa5874

Proof can only be sought for things that exist or was in existence, there can not be found any proof of non-existence.

So, if King Arthur never existed there can not be any proof of his non-existence, however if King Arthur actually lived, there may be proof of his existence.

If I assert that King Arthur never existed, it is because I have no proof of his existence, whether my search for his existence is limited or extensively detailed is immaterial, because I have nothing whatsoever to show that King Arthur existed.

However if some one claims that my assertion is erroneous and that King Arthur existed, then they must have proof of his existence.

My observation is that there are some who confuse probabilty of existence and actual existence. Probality does not require proof, but actual existence requires proof.

If I claim that King Arthur probably existed, I can make the assertion without proof but based on the plausibilty of King Arthur's story.

If I report a matter to the police, they respond on the probabilty that my statement is true, they collect evidence to prove the event actually occured.

Now, the Christian Bible makes outrageous assertions that some characters called Jesus Christ existed, I have come up empty-handed with respect to evidence concerning these gentlemen, I therefore conclude these gentlemen are imaginary entities and never existed.

Look at 2 Corinthians 12:2-3, 'I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannt tell; or whether out of the body , I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up in the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth).

This author of the Bible cannot recall one of the characters called Jesus. So much for the burden of proof.

Bobinius

The burden of proof is the burden of proving something one affirms, or makes a positive statement about. If you make a positive statement, it is you job to provide the audience with the evidence or justification for it.

If someone affirms a negative, he has to prove it. Therefore, on every topic one can actively affirm or disconfirm a statement or position, and on each case, he has the burden of proof. But negative statement can be supported by the absence of evidence, in case there should have been evidence for it.

Usually, as it is the case in law, we mantain a status quo: a person is innocent, for all we know, until proven otherwise.

gstafleu

There has been some discussion about what the positive and what the negative of a hypothesis is. This thinking can be a bit misleading in the sense that when one counters a proposition A it is not always with ~A.

First it should be realized that a hypothesis does not exist in a vacuum. A hypothesis is proposed in order to explain certain observations. For example the observations could be the existence of the Arthurian legends. In order to explain these a person P could propose the hypothesis that they are based on a real person, the HKA hypothesis.

As I pointed out above, the first thing P then has to do is produce some evidence to support that hypothesis. In this case that could simply be the existence of the legends. It would be nice if there were some evidence independent of the legends, but it is not initially necessary.

P however is not the only person who can propose theories, and thus I propose a counter theory: we know that lots of legends evolve without a real person as it basis, and the Arthurian legends can be an example of this. This is the MKA hypothesis. It should be carefully noticed that MKA does not claim that KA did not exists. Rather it claims that an HKA is unnecessary in order to explain the legends.

This is of some importance, so I'll repeat it: I'm not claiming KA never existed, I'm claiming the hypothesis of his existence is not necessary to explain the evidence presented so far. That means that until more evidence is produced by the HKA side, my MKA hypothesis has the methodological upper hand: it is more parsimonious as it does not need the introduction of an HKA. Rather it relies on the already known phenomenon of myth formation without a real person at the root.

For P to gain the upper hand, he would now have to produce more evidence outside the legends, or observations from within the legends that cannot be explained with the normal non-historical-person myth formation process. That debate could go on for a while.

But what I want to point out here is that when it comes to existence/non-existence arguments, the argument is not necessarily between E and not-E. Rather it can be between E and "E is not necessary." BOP-wise that obviously means that it is up to the HKA proponent to prove why it is in fact necessary.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

How can "KA is not necessary" be considered an explanatory hypothesis? It cannot, because an explanatory hypothesis must point to some relationship of things in history. An explanatory hypothesis would be "the KA legends developed out of the pre-existing XYZ legend cycle, adapted for local colour," or, "the KA legends give a name and a place to a figure presumed to have existed, on the basis that someone might as well have led the battles." Yes, these do not say directly whether KA existed, but they do refer to some actual explanation of the facts on the ground; if they were adopted, KA would indeed perhaps be an unnecessary hypothesis. "KA is not necessary" is not itself an explanatory hypothesis.

And of course the BoP is nothing but a convenient fiction; it does not exist. If I had to say it did exist, it would have to apply to all the proposed explanatory hypotheses equally.

--
Peter Kirby

ynquirer

What is this “phenomenon of myth formation without a real person at the root”? You say it is “already known” - by whom? Where is the theory that formalizes serial tests according to empirical evidence? It appears to me that it is only a rhetoric phraseology to conceal an empty core, an ad hoc tool to invalidate whatever evidence in favor of the HKA hypothesis. Whatever additional evidence I happen to produce, you will manage to declare non-relevant to the effect of supporting the hypothesis.

gstafleu

Correct. MKA states that an HKA is not necessary to explain the existence of the Arthurian legends. It does that by saying there is a more parsimonious explanation, one that doesn't need to introduce the element of an HKA. This proposed (I didn't detail it, I don't think that is what this thread is about) explanation states that "normal myth formation," like we see with Hercules, the Norse mythology, whatever (I don't think there is a shortage of myths on which there is general agreement they do not have historical figures at their root), that this process of myth formation is sufficient, no HKA need apply.

I think that this is a point that is frequently missed: if you have something (a set of legends e.g.) that can be explained without introducing a certain element (e.g. a historical person), then introducing such an element is methodologically invalid. It is only allowed once you have shown something in the legends that necessitates it. Not something that could be explained by an historical element, you need something that cannot be explained without it.

Something else that allows the element in is of course if you can show the existence of the element independent of of the legends. In that case, even if the legends don't "need" the element you can still put it in, provided you show relevance.

Gerard Stafleu

Gerard Stafleu

Pragmatista

I am thinking of burden-of-proof as being arbitrary, or established by convention. This is not to discount the existence of widespread and successful conventions. Here are some examples:

A. "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" is a useful rule that defines a burden of proof in an informal way.

B. A power structure, for instance, if you want to sell me something, and I am holding my money tight, then you get the burden of proof.

C. The presumption of innocence in criminal trials.

D. A challenge in sports, or perhaps even in warfare.

Sometimes, reading lesser forums than IIDB, I have formed the impression that the parties to a debate will bat the burden of proof back and forth, hoping it will land on the other side and stick there.

1. What is a burden of proof? It is a conventional preference of an assertion over its negation, pending proof.

2. Is there at least one burden of proof, in at least one topic? I gave four topics, above.

3. For every topic, is there at least one burden of proof? "Was Charlie Parker better than John Coltrane" is a topic without a burden of proof. I suppose another case would be any time there is absolute authority, such as my bicycle versus a cement mixer.

4. Pertaining to a single topic, can there be more than one burden of proof? I can imagine topics where there is no decent core theory, but multiple equally unproven theories being studied. My college roommate was an education major, and his textbooks gave me the impression of harboring such topics.

5. When there is only one burden of proof concerning a topic, where does it lie? See above, it is established by convention, or handed off to the other guy if possible.

ynquirer

I think this is exactly what this thread is about. My own position is that there is always something real - a person, a fact - underlying a myth. After all, Troy was regarded a myth until Schliemann discovered its ruins where they ought to be. In a purely inductive process, nothing excludes that a like confirmation might occur for the Norse mythology or - that‘s our issue - KA. Why is your position more parsimonious than mine?

Huon

Ancient history is full of characters who combine possible/probable/certain historical events and certainly mythical traits. King Arthur belongs to the proto-history of Britain. We have material evidence of the presence of the Romans (Hadrian's Wall) before the existence of King Arthur (if ...). But we have no serious evidence of what happened during the late Roman Empire in Wales and Cornwall. Perhaps, we shall never know.

Roger Pearse

The technique by which an illiterate village idiot demands "prove to me that xyz is true/false" with the silent rider "otherwise you must accept my assertion as being sound".

I have never seen it used in any other manner.

Everyone has an obligation to master all the data about a given question. If there then is no data on a subject, no statements can be made -- either that it happened, or that it did not -- but NO-ONE is under an obligation to force the facts on the wilfully obtuse.

All the best,

Roger Pearse