Peter Kirby

Why is it that 3 people have marked "always and only one," but nobody has defended such a position in this thread?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

diudiu

I didn't specify what I meant by "reliable".

Of course I'm not saying the knowledge base must be always 100% correct. I'd say only justified beliefs should enter the knowledge base. Therefore if the knowledge base says ~X then it is justified belief that ~X is a justified belief.

Therefore person who made claim X has burden of proof. He must prove that X is more justified belief than ~X. If he manages to do that, the knowledge base must be altered.

Hmm.. I'm not sure if this is actually very interesting approach. It when there is no evidence for any hypothesis being discussed.

jakejonesiv

Before we reach the burden of proof, the statement must be falsifiable. If I say that God created the world last Tuesday at 10:00 AM complete with false memories, there is no way to disprove the assertion.

Whoever makes the assertion bears the burden of proof.

If someone say King Arthur existed, that person bears the burden of proof.

If someone else say King Arthur did not exist, that person bears the burden of proof.

But a third person may say "there is no proof that King Arthur existed."
Or even "there is no proof that will withstand scrutiny that King Arthur existed." I have done this myself. It is usually meant to be a statement of agnosticism, but could be viewed as a clever way to avoid the burden of proof.

So Peter, my question to you is, "Does the agnostic, on any subject, bear any responsibility in the burden of proof?" This is something that has concerned me for some period of time, and I wish we had a formal answer.

Jake Jones IV

Peter Kirby

For a while there has been talk of so-called strong apologetics, that which make it (or purport to make it) irrational not to believe a proposition. Perhaps, in a conversation in which one party proposes a strong apologetic, the other party has the minimal burden of showing it not to be a proper strong apologetic, if they wish to maintain the rationality of not believing a proposition? And, perhaps, the maximal burden of showing that a strong apologetic cannot be devised? Hmmm.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think this entire concept is misguided, probably because apologetics has been messing with people's minds.

How can you prove anything in ancient history to any degree of certitude? Only a True Believer who requires a certain fact in history to exist would even think that way. Normal people can look at history as a puzzle with some missing pieces where they can have fun trying different solutions.

"Burden of proof" is a legal concept. In the legal system, one person brings an action, and the court has to reach a decision within a finite period of time. Since resources are finite, and no one wants to spend all of society's resources on resolving disputes, courts have devised rules for limiting the attention paid to any one dispute, including the "burden of proof." If you sue someone, it is your burden to produce evidence that convinces the court that you are right. At various times, the burden of proof or the burden of going forward of the evidence might shift to the other party.

But none of these factors applies to historical research. No one has sued another party. You are not forced to reach a conclusion - the question can remain open forever. Later generations of scholars can continue to revise the evidence and reach new conclusions.

So "burden of proof" in historical research is a loose analogy to the legal concept, and does not really fit the subject matter.

mikem

Would this Confusious by any chance have anything to do with CONFUCIUS the ancient Chinese sage? :wave:

mikem

That ll teach me to read the whole thread won't it!!

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't know why nobody ever seems to point this out but me 'round these parts, but a burden of proof never shifts. Ever.

So, for example:

No, that person bears their burden of proof, not "the" burden of proof. Call it BOP KA.

Likewise, no, they bear their burden of proof, not "the" bop. Call it BOP ~KA.

These burdens do not shift and do not go away until such time as each claimant has fulfilled their respective burdens, though, of course, claimant ~ KA need only wait to see what claimant KA's evidence is and if not sufficient, then ~ KA is by default effectively established, since a positive claim whose BOP is not met voids the claim, for all intents and purposes.

IOW, if you can't prove KA, then there's no real need to prove ~ KA and, accordingly, it would therefore be a perfectly legitimate stance to hold no "beliefs" in KA.

:huh:

I would argue the opposite, since pointing out that there is no proof that KA existed or that would withstand scrutiny partially fulfills the burden ~ KA. It doesn't complete it all on it's lonesome, but it certainly would, at least, lay a foundation for further argument of ~ KA if that's what floats your boat.

My .02

ETA: It should be noted, methinks, that what is more important to prove is not necessarily KA, but the more "miraculous" claims surrounding KA (such as divine providence; a magical sword and sorcerer; etc). It is merely trivial that an actual KA existed (i.e., a King of England named Arthur); the only thing that is pertinent, IMO, is if such a King existed, what evidence is there to corroborate the claims surrounding him (aka, his "legend"), yes? Obviously, if one could prove ~KA, then this would negate all claims surrounding him, but then, it is these claims in the first place that generate a non-trivial BOP and not merely that there was once a King of England named Arthur.

EarlOfLade

It's simple:

You claim A exists, your produce the evidence.

gstafleu

The burden of proof is a red herring, since in science one never proves anything (it isn't math). In science one tries to come up with a hypothesis/theory that best explains the data/observations that are available.

Whoever proposes a theory has to supply two things:

(1) Verification. This is observations, data that supports the theory. In case of King Arthur for example: these are the documents/traditions that lead me to believe he existed.

(2) Potential falsification: if this would happen or that would be found it would cause me to reject my hypothesis. In case of King Arthur: if such and such a document would be found, or you could show this and that to be the case, then I'd have to concede the critter didn't exist.

Failure to provide either of (1) or (2) disqualifies the theory straight from the bat.

To try and capture this under a simplistic header like "burden of proof" is, well, a bit simplistic. Possibly you could call the obligation to provide (1) a BOP. But then after the proponent of the theory has provided it, anyone who would want to rebut would have a BOP to show the evidence is not good enough. Similarly if an opponent claimed to have produced something that satisfies (2) it is up to the proponent to rebut that, providing yet another BOP.

So the BOP, if there is such a thing, is a shifting burden.

Gerard Stafleu