JurgenBM

I see that you still don't fully understand what I mean by burden of proof, so I probably wasn't clear enough. When somebody (X) makes a statement, be it positive or negative, and someone else questions or challenges that statement, then the burden of proof is on X who is then called the protagonist. What that means is, they're going to have to defend their statement with arguments. If the other guy says "No I think you're wrong." then he is the antagonist and he has to prove his statement as well.

About your new examples:

B "The universe was created by a fish living on the moon."
A: "What evidence can you provide for that"
B: “I have no evidence, but the burden of proof is on you”
A: "Hell no it isn't, because you're the one who brought up the idea that the universe was created by a fish living on the moon."

B is being unreasonable by evading their burden of proof, A is not.

B "The universe was not created by a fish living on the moon."
A "I'm not so sure about that, tell me why you think it wasn't..."
B: "(The idea that the universe was not created by a fish living on the moon is an extraordinary claim, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,) there is no evidence for such a thing."

A and B both being reasonable.

Roq

Well I’m not familiar with your “pragma-dialectic” approach to argumentation. However, from what you say, in this system the burden of proof is on the person who speaks first. I would remind you that many of the questions we wish to answer in science and other areas do not arise in the context of an argumentative dialogue and the question posed by the thread originator is not really about the technicalities of debating.

I have argued in previous posts that we really want to make the burden of proof do some useful work to help us in selecting valid arguments and discarding invalid ones. If we can’t do that its not a very useful concept.

Although frameworks for thought and discussion can be useful they don’t always suit every context.

JurgenBM

In the pragma-dialectic approach the goal of argumentation is seen as an effort to resolve a disagreement. If someone makes a statement and nobody disagrees, there's no reason to argue in the first place, so burden of proof doesn't come into question. So it's not as simple as the burden of proof is one the person who speaks first. If you advance a standpoint and another party asks you to do so, you're obliged to defend it. I think it's adequate to put burden of proof in the context of argumentative discourse, because it sets the rules clearly and it works in a straight and clear way, even within scientific or philosophical debate. What's your alternative?

"In our own efforts to offer an alternative to the Standard Treatment we started from the consideration that there is no reason to assume from the outset that all the fallacies are essentially logical errors. We were convinced that the single-minded preoccupation with the logical aspects of arguments should be rigorously abandoned. For the informal fallacies it had, after all, only led to largely unsatisfactory and unsystematic ad hoc analyses. In our opinion, the fallacies could be better understood if they were treated as faux pas of communication -- as wrong moves in argumentative discourse. Viewed from this perspective, a fallacy is a hindrance or impediment to the resolution of a disagreement, and the specific nature of each of the fallacies depends on the exact manner in which it interferes with the resolution process." (http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd.html)

Burden of proof has nothing to do with the validity of an argument in itself anyways, it will never state anything but who has the burden of having to prove their statement, so what's your point?

Jim Colyer

I wrestle with the question of whether or not there is a God. It seems like I can prove it both ways and disprove it both ways. Does the universe need a creator to exist? Or is this just an idea inside man-made theology? It is speculation. Man yearns for the eternal. He wants to live forever and be strong forever. He is the only animal as far as we know which builds churches and contemplates the infinite. This in itself may be an indication that immortality resides in a soul of some kind. If there is truth in religion, I accept the premises of the New Testament.

Roq

I outlined some views on burden of proof in scientific theories in the first post I made in the thread. If you are not familiar with possible world semantics, which I use somewhat informally, have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world.

James Randi has a million dollar challenge which any one can win provided they are able to demonstrate some supernatural ability that defies the laws of physics. Now Randi puts the burden of proof on the person making the supernatural claim and so each such person has to take a double blind test.

Now all I’m really saying is that I agree with Randi. Imagine instead he uses your technique for assigning the burden of proof. He’d have to keep his mouth firmly shut, because If before the supernaturalist makes a claim, Randi states: “Water divining is not possible”, any prospective diviner just has to say “ah ha you have just made a claim and so the burden of proof is now on you!”. He can’t prove that water divining is not possible (you can’t prove a negative). Woops minus one million dollars.

Roq

Hi and welcome - but what's this got to do with the price of eggs? Did you mean to start a new thread and accidentally post to this discussion on the burden of proof? If so click the new thread button at the bottom left on the main screen in the existence of god section to start a new thread.

Pavlov's Dog

You could easily prove that is not true (or highly unlikely if you are one of those that don't believe in the absolute truth). There are no fish on the moon, no oxygen if there was a fish, fish do not have the ability tor create universes, etc. I don't see why anybody would run from that burden. But if you are going to take a position, then you better be prepared to defend it and I think that is the point.

RandomCoolzip

The world of ideas is awash in baloney - unsubstiated claims, rumors, urban legends, half-truths, and outright whoppers. That's why the burden of proof should always be on the person making a claim. That, and the fact that it is extremely hard, often impossible, to prove a negative.

3DJay

True. But, we also live in a world where Deity has apparently been accepted as fact, since pre-history, when man was making Earth Goddess figurines.

The Earth had to be proved round.


Peace

JurgenBM

That's not true. If Randi states that “Water divining is not possible” and he chooses not to defend that claim when someone challenges him, it does not mean that water divining is in fact possible (so no million dollar prize). Randi isn't out there to make statements anyway, it's a million dollar challenge. He wants to be convinced not the other way around. The only sort of statement Randi likes to make is: "People are led to believe that there are such things as psychic powers. I've looked for it for a long time now and I have not found anything in all these years." That's a perfectly reasonable argument. What if he were to say: "People are led to believe that there are such things as psychic powers. There aren't and I am right and I don't need to defend myself." That would be evading the burden of proof and that's unreasonable when trying to resolve a difference of opinion.
During the debunking of James Kydrick, Randi also said "Since my theory, as yet unproven of course, is that it's accomplished simply by blowing (...).". What if he had said "My theory is that it's accomplished simply by blowing, and I'm right until proven wrong." or "My theory is that it's accomplished simply by blowing, and I'm right and I don't need to defend myself." That would have been an unreasonable way of arguing. Instead he courteously admitted that his theory was unproven :notworthy:

You seem to believe my idea of burden of proof has bad consequences for rational thinkers, but you have to take this unreasonable form out of the (science v supernatural) context. Then you'll see that there isn't and there shouldn't be a double standard for people who are 'obviously right' and people who are 'obviously wrong' or anything like that. That's medieval absolutism with a bias towards scientific fact. When you're arguing a standpoint it's unreasonable to say "And I don't have to defend myself, it's just true" in any case.