spin

I don't believe you. Just google "burden of proof" and you'll see your invective is off the mark.

Hasn't this happened for millennia in churches and other religious institutions? -- I mean the forcing of "facts" on the willfully obtuse. Well, I guess "willfully" isn't really the case. Over the centuries most people have never had the opportunity to learn logical skills or the necessities of evidence.

When one learns a little about evidence, then the notion of "burden of proof" is seen as an important revelation. When one learns more it should have been taken on board as a given and people can get on with dealing with the proffered evidence rather than needing to ask for it.

It's hard to understand the scorn, Roger.


spin

Huon

Suppose that in 2500 CE, historians will have the history of Iraq in the period 2000-2010, written by a follower of Saddam Hussein, another history by the private secretary of George W. Bush, another history by a Kurd, another history by a friend of Sadr. Where shall be the truth ?

Edited : And who will speak of the Iraqi Christians ?

Dean Anderson

It seems to me (and this answer doesn't fit into Peter's nice structured format - so I am doing it freestyle) that "burden of proof", when used outside its strict legal context, should be more properly called a "burden of reasonableness".

Within the legal context, the BoP is a simple concept - no matter how likely someone's guilt looks, one should not assume it without proof beyond reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the person is guilty, and without that proof the person must be considered innocent, even if the glove fits and they later release a book telling how they "would have" done it if they had...

However, whilst this is fine in a legal setting (and arguing about that would seem to be a different argument than this one), this is obviously not the case when debating about historical facts.

When debating historical (or archaeological or whatever) facts rather than a legal case, we do not have a "presumption of innocence" or a "presumption of existence" or a "presumption of non-existence".

So there is not a single "burden" that is stuck to a particular claim (the "positive" one or whatever). What we actually get are multiple "burdens of reasonableness" - one for each claim that is being made, regardless of the claim.

The point being that the default position is the position taken by a reasonable person (of course, finding a "reasonable person" may be difficult) given no evidence or knowledge of the subject.

In the case of an historical King Arthur, this default position (upon reading the stories of King Arthur and having no other knowledge of the subject) would probably be that the supernatural events in the stories are probably exaggerations (because by definition supernatural things are things that don't normally happen), but that there probably was a mediaeval king called Arthur - because the stories are written as being historical, and the existence of a king called Arthur is not exactly implausible.

Then, from that default position, anyone who has a claim of any other position whether positive or negative (e.g a claim that the supernatural events did happen, or a claim that there was no historical person, or the claim that the character is based on the historical Romano-Briton warlord Artorius who fought against the Saxons) has a burden of reasonableness in order to demonstrate that their claim is more reasonable than the default position.

Unlike the legal case, the burden is only one of reasonableness - not one of proof. One does not need to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that Arthur was based on Artorius - there is no "presumption of innocence" to overcome - one only needs to show that is is as reasonable to believe he was as it is to believe any other claim.

spin

The answer to your first question is that the truth at least partially between all the sources.

The answer to your second is, if you can't find anything in your sources then no-one.

A rhetorical question for you: And who will speak of the Iraqi Pixies?

The answer is once again, if you can't find anything in your sources then no-one.

From our perspective there is a great difference between Iraqi Christians and Iraqi Pixies. But what will be the difference to the people of 2500 CE?


spin

spin

The writers of most novels understand the notion of reasonableness and adhere to it. The writers of fabrications also strive for reasonableness. I don't think reasonableness is a sufficient criterion for saying anything is historical.


spin

Dean Anderson

I agree - and in my example, the reasonableness of the King Arthur stories leads people to take him as an historical character - in the absence of other evidence - but that doesn't mean that it is a historical "fact" that he did exist, because there is indeed other evidence out there; the evidence of comparing the King Arthur stories with other Romance stories, the evidence of other historical sources, and so on.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that if something sounds "reasonable" then we should assume it to be historically accurate. I'm emphatically arguing against that, since that would constitute a "presumption of existence" and lead to a "burden of proof" on people who claim it not to have happened. People who claim something did not happen don't have to show that it is actively unreasonable to think that it did - they only have to show that it is more reasonable to think that it did not.

It would be lovely if we could get empirical proof for historical events. But realistically, we can't.

The best we can do is to ask that given our understanding of the nature of novels and fabrications, and given the other sources we have that may or may not agree with the work in question; is it more reasonable to assume that a particular account is historically correct or more reasonable to assume that it isn't?

So I agree with you. It is not enough to treat something as historical because it reasonably could have happened. To treat something as historical, the hypothetical scenario in which it happens needs to be more reasonable than the alternative hypothetical scenarios in which it doesn't happen, when taking into account all the historical and archaeological evidence we have.

Because without empirical proof, that is all we have to go on.

spin

I don't necessarily think we can't. It will depend on the individual case.

I'm happy to concede that Augustus has enough empirical data behind him. I can show you what he looked like at different stages in his life. I can show you in situ a primary historical document, Res Gestae, which purports to have been written by Augustus and which describes his actions which match the literary record. I can show you the coins he minted which also show evidence of the man and his deeds. There are buildings which bear his inscriptions. I would find anyone who cannot face the evidence for Augustus and the events in his life out of touch with the notion of evidence. This is far beyond mere reasonableness.

Likewise the battle of Kadesh fought between the Egyptians under Ramses II and the Hittites under Hattusilas III goes beyond simple reasonableness. We have accounts of the battle from both sides, one from Egypt and the other from central Anatolia, which together make it possible for historians to follow the stages of the battle given an understanding of the terrain upon which it was fought. Then again can we doubt that Ramses II was a real person, given that we have his mummy and mummies of a few other members of his family which show a family resemblance?

Now one may try to argue for some ancient falsifying the past by creating mummies to match or whatever, but Occam's Razor simply reduces this kind of approach to insignificance, when we consider the nature of the evidence and the complexity of the endeavor to fabricate it.

What problem is there, faced with ancient documents dealing with matters of the Jewish Revolt and bearing the signature of Shimeon bar Kochba found in a closed environment, in accepting this as the empirical evidence necessary to augment the literary record and push Shimeon bar Kochba into the realm of the historical past?

These are solid points, and there are many of them, on a chronological line between which are other less tangible events and personages, or better, on a patchwork from which to hang less tangible events and personages, who by themselves might not be considered particularly tangible by today's standards, but, because on the already existent patchwork and the way their information can clarify the spaces, the complex being built up gives them more tangibility.

We can be definite to please the jury about certain historical events and personages. We might have difficulty bringing people and events into history, but we have better methods today and we are more likely to be able to talk about the materials upon which claims about the past are made. It is a progressive study and already given material will shape the validity of other material. We can start with firmer foundations to build history upon.

The standard of the trial and the jury are worthwhile to aim for. We may dismiss more cases, but we'll feel that the ones that win are good ones.


spin

Doug Shaver

It depends on context. In any discussion between two parties, any assertion may be assumed, for the sake of that discussion, by the discussion's participants. If it is not assumed by both parties, then the party making the assertion must prove it.

http://dougshaver.com/philos/burden.html

Norseman

You can have a discussion about God and have two theists put out claims that hold a burden of proof (two burdens of proof). You can have someone simply disagree with anything you say that is remotely dubious without asserting anything themselves, in which case the burden of proof sits only on one person.

Gamera

Burden of proof is a legal doctrine, tied up with a number of other legal concepts, such as presumptions and standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt --the criminal standard --, preponderance of evidence -- civil case standard --, and clear and convincing evidence in special cases such as fraud.

I don't think any of these really apply to historical (i.e., scientific) analyses. Rather, historical theses attempt to explain known facts (e.g., why does this body of literature about Jesus exist), predict discoverable facts and devise experiments for testing the thesis. A thesis can be tested, but not proved in the legal sense.

In contrast, a thesis can be disproved by the existence of a known fact that directly contradicts the thesis.

To summarize, historical arguments are not really like court cases, with standards of evidence and burdens of proof. Rather, they are scientific inquiries which test theses. Determining which thesis is better supported (i.e., more "valid") is not a hard and fast rule, but an analytical evaluation involving a lot of factors.