Summapaxist

Why??

Rational people have purpose in what they do. If they are proposing something, they have a purpose for doing so. If they they intend on accomplishing that purpose, they should be expecting to compenstate for obstacles. The burden of proof is merely one of the obstacles for accomplishing the purpose.

The person merely receiving the message, with no serious purpose in mind, has no reason to bear any burden.

If two people are proposing something for a listener to accept, they both bear the burden of proof in a competative manner else the listener has no reason to accept either.

The burden follows the desire. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to prove an existence or a non-existence. such is only semantics anyway. The only question is who wants to prove something and thus is willing to bear the burden of doing so.

If I want you to believe there is no God, then it is up to me to prove to you that there isn't one.

If I want you to believe that there IS a God, then it is up to me to prove to you that there IS one.

If I am in competition for your belief, then it is up to me to better prove my case than the other guy.

What is so hard to understand about any of this?

EarlOfLade

A Dr. in what?
Surely nothing that has required you to study logic and philosophy. A religious doctorate maybe?

Worldtraveller

I would go a bit further (especially in light of Dr. Mick's additional questions of why the burden of proof argument is formulated in the way it is).

Logic and reason (and the specialized subset of these known as science) are very useful tools simply because they work. Hundreds of years of deductive reasoning, logical construction (pure mathematical logic classes are really quite interesting) and testing of these methods have yielded positive results. To many, that is the main reason to stick with them.

A practical example, as you mentioned is any legal preceding (particularly criminal) where the assumption is of innocence, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the system were reversed, you could have a difficult time proving you didn't do something you were accused of. The same holds true for any claims of supernatural entities.

In addition, the maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence should be kept in mind. While it is probably not a formal logical tool (although maybe, I'm no expert), it can be very powerful in keeping a sense of perspective on one's skepticism.

I could tell you I made a free throw shot from half court last week. While somewhat difficult, it's not an unheard of feat in basketball, and many people have seen it happen, indeed, seen much more impressive shots made. Now if I told you I made it blindfolded, with my back to the basket, standing on one leg, you may be right in demanding some kind of evidence.

Some things it's ok to accept at face value, at least in that it probably won't affect anything, and there's now specific reason to doubt. Other claims require great skepticism, especially in the face of a paucity, or worse, contradicting, evidence.

Cheers,
Lane

notasheep

I see your point, but I think you're wrong. If I want to convince you of something, I need a convincing argument. But it's no more possible to prove the non-existence of god than the non-existence of unicorns. Things that exist can be proved by evidence. So the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Dr.Mick

I have a doctorate in Analytical Chemistry from York University, England. So I haven't studied logic or philosophy as such.

Regarding the OP, I don't think I'm expressing myself clearly. It does sound a bit dumb arse the way I have worded it, like I said I'm not the most articulate sometimes! I think I was after something a bit like what Steve Weiss said. I think we all agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, I wanted to see the reasons for this formalised. I am not a theist btw.

pob14

I can speak to the burden of proof in the legal context.

There are actually two burdens of proof in a courtroom.

The first burden is called the burden of going forward. Meaning: if everybody sits quietly, and nobody says anything, what happens? The state, the plaintiff, the party who brings the issue up, loses. Why? Because the status quo is favored. The law will leave everyone as it found them, unless there is some reason to so something else. So the prosecution or plaintiff goes first, and must put on some evidence of its claim, or the trial is over.

The second burden is the burden of nonpersuasion. Meaning: If the judge or jury is not convinced, who wins? In a civil case, this is the preponderance of the evidence standard; if the evidence is exactly split, the plaintiff loses. Again, this is because the law favors the status quo; the plainiff wants something changed, and if he doesn't convince the trier of fact that it should be changed, it won't be.

In a criminal case, this second burden is the familiar "beyond a reasonable doubt." Unless the prosecution's case convinces the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution loses. The higher standard is a reflection of the societal value that we don't want innocent people convicted of crimes; it has been phrased that "we would rather free a hundred guilty people than convict one innocent." Again, it is a societal decision to place the burden this high; other societies can, and do, place it much differently.

Bringing this back to EoG . . .

We - society - in addition to favoring the status quo, consider any supernatural claim to be extraordinary. We don't need to be convinced that the sky is blue or that ice is slippery; we all experience that. But when someone claims that the Great God Muuntu kills a kitten every time I masturbate, but we can't see him do it, the claimant bears the burden of proof because:

1) He wants to change the status quo; he's the one bringing up the claim, and
2) His claim is extraordinary; we can't see the effects, the streets are not littered with the bodies of kittens due to my self-abuse, and we aren't told how Muunto manages this mighty feat.

The burden of going forward exists because a positive claim is being made; the degree of the burden of nonpersuasion relates to the level of the claim.

That's how I see it, from an admittedly legalistic perspective. (It's the only one I've got!)

PS: AnalChem almost cost me my undergrad degree; my deepest respect for anybody who actually gets it!

EarlOfLade

What?

When I started to study at the University of Oslo, a requirement was a class in logic and philosophy related to science. It was mandatory for all students to pass the exam before they could get a Bachelor or similar degree.

Dr.Mick

I bow down to your superior erudition. In order to be accepted into York for Postgraduate study I needed a Chemistry degree and to pass an interview.

RAFH

Great post, thank you.

But regarding the bit about Muuntu, kittens and your 'touching yourself', although its a bit off topic, I wonder why you choose the term self-abuse, which by definition would mean you are badly using your self. Do you somehow cause yourself harm or injury in your passion? Are the 'goods' damaged, has the 'package' been banged about?

I ask only because I wish to understand the notion the body is bad or dirty and what is clearly a natural phenomenon is considered 'abuse'.

RAFH

I think the notion of preserving the status quo unless there is reason to change it is paramount along with it being the duty of the claimant to support their claims.

In the first case, status quo, this is only natural. It follows the same logic as Newton's Laws of Motion, that a body will do what its doing unless influenced by an independent force. This would extend to the duty of the positive claimant because they wish to establish that which is not apparently clear, ie - change the status quo. Where there is no controversy, there really is no need for support (though formally, every claim should be supported), because there is no change proposed from what is already accepted.

In the second case, its always the duty of the claimant to support their claim, regardless of nature, because they are the active party. They wish to me change my status quo in which case they must give me reason to do so. Otherwise, I simply tumble from one unsupported claim to next.

This also ties in with the recently discussed issue of personal experience as evidence. Certainly our own personal experience has to be accepted of evidence by ourselves, otherwise we have nothing to accept. But the personal experiences of others, it is not necessary for us to accept such without some support. We cannot personally experience another's personal experience. To attempt to achieve the next best thing they can either arrange for us to personally experience what they have personally experienced or they can rely on our ability to utilize vicarious experience, in other words, we can simulate their personal experience based on our own memories of our personal experiences. That requires stimulus. It requires our building a model. Building requires plans and specifications, ie - instructions as to what to build, which is what evidence really is.