spamandham

For some reason, discussions involving the 'burden of proof' seem to be finding their way into multiple threads here in BC&H lately. It might be useful to divert some of those discussions outside the primary threads.

IMHO, arguments involving the 'burden of proof' have little role in BC&H. While I agree we strive here to be more than just coffee talk, at the same time, I do not see arguments involving 'burden of proof' in the scholarly works I read.

Are historical scholars less advanced than us, or have they simply realized appeals to such burdens are counter productive or meaningless?

I tend to view the 'burden of proof' as something applied to formal debates/trials and probably also philosophy, but no so much in applied science.

What role does such an argument play here in BC&H?

neilgodfrey

There is some interesting background reading to the 'burden of proof' concept on Wikipedia: Burden of Proof and another one that looks like it could do with some editing and tidying up or clarification or even deletion, Burden of Proof (Logical Fallacy).

Neil

Toto

The burden of proof issue was the obsession of one person. My apologies for not putting a stop to it.

mountainman

In many BC&H works, stated or implied, there is no burden of proof for the theory and/or arguments concerning the historical jesus. In many absolutely shocking instances, the existence of the HJ is taken as a postulate. An unexamined postulate. We have no evidence to examine. As you can see, this explains exactly why BC&H is largely conjectural.

IMO historical scholars deal with ancient historical evidence. The burden of proof involves gathering all the known evidence together in one place and explaining it all by a profane political history that does not involve the supernatural.


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Speaking of one person obsessions with one issue that should be stopped ....

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

I recently took a historiography class. According to that professor, no matter what you wrote -- whether as a student or as a practicing historian, if somebody else hadn't already proved it, you had to prove it yourself. In other words, historians don't argue about burden of proof because they all assume they have it themselves.

patcleaver

The rule of argument is that the burden of proof is on the proponent of a propositions they claim is true and the burden does not shift to someone who denies the proposition.

Tradition is not a sufficient reason for this rule. I think what is missing here is proof that this is the correct position.

The only argument that I have is that of practically. If it is not true that the burden should not shift, then whenever you deny something silly, then the proponent can claim that you have assumed the burden of proof.

For example:

He says: The consensus of scholars is that Horus died on a cross and was resurrected.

You say: It is not true that a consensus of scholars agrees that Horus died on a cross and was resurrected.

He says: prove it.

What evidence or arguments are there that the burden of proof should not shift, besides the argument from practicality?

Toto

This is descending to the level of gameplaying.

Instead of saying "it is not true that..." you could just say "prove it." For the discussion in progress, that informs player number 1 that he has the burden of producing evidence to support what he said.

If you say "it is not true" you are assuming the burden of proof in that conversation for producing your evidence.

None of which has anything to do with the truth of the proposition.

WWJD4aKlondikeBar

The person denying the claim could be reasonably called upon to prove the reasons for their doubt in the original claim, but proving the claim then rests back with the person who made the original claim.

mountainman

You may need burden of proof about conjectures concerning both the B and the C in BC&H, but when its the time to step into the arena of the H nowdays, in BC&H, you'd better be carrying some citations to the archaeological evidence. C14 citations are today highly regarded. Why dont we have more of them? Hmmmmm? Also, because in prior centuries papal archaeologists forged such archaeological citations, one must thus be prepared to entertain the notion that some of the evidence already furnished to prior generations is now perceived categorically as itself entirely historically fraudulent. Keep examining the evidence.

Best wishes,


Pete