Barbarian

I have yet to hear a definition of 'positive claim' which satisfies me, so I avoid using it for the time being. Instead, I try to stipulate the rule that the side which would, theoretically, have an easier time proving his claim has the burden of proof. E.g. the claim that photons are mentioned in the Bible assumes the burden of proof because proving the opposite would mean forcing the guy to read through the whole Bible to see the absence of such a mention, while it is really easy to just show the chapter and verse if such exist.

Stephen T-B

Just seen this thread - couldn't believe the hostile reaction it provoked.
So, Dr Mick, welcome to Infidels from a windowless hangar in Leeds.

Moving on

"I believe that the 'burden of proof' is on the one making the positive claim..." (Stumpjumper).
Is this really the case?

Consider this: every member of a particular household has heard rustling sounds coming from the attic, and each agrees that they are caused by ghosts.

I arrive in the house as a guest; I do not believe in ghosts; I do hear the rustling sounds, and at breakfast I state that they are not caused by ghosts.

Is the burden of proof on me to prove I'm right, or on the others to prove they are?

Dr.Mick

Me neither, like I said I've been lurking for a while and thought this place seemed ok. Still, you get dickheads in any given part of society.

How's Leeds? I live in Huddersfield now, used to live in Leeds a while ago.

Interesting conundrum you posited, I suppose the burden rests with whoever wants to change the others' opinion. So in your case it could be with both or neither...not much help me am I?

Barbarian

The burden of proof is on the guest, because he can, theoretically, find the natural, physical source of the noise quite easily. There is no way the family can prove to him that a ghost is at work in the attic, unless they force him to search the attic for a source of the noise and fail at it, which is equivalent of him trying to prove his idea and failing at it.

Hazel-rah

The reason so many theists resist the burden of proof is because they consider the existence of a god to be an non-extraordinary status quo -- and, statistically, it is. It's the person claiming there is no god who is rocking the boat.

I'm very interested in ways to explain this in fairly simple terms. I've tried "the person who proposes something instead of nothing is the one who has the burden," but that usually hits the god-as-default brick wall, too.

JurgenBM

The burden of proof lies on the protagonist of a negative or positive claim, versus the antagonist (who also has a burden of proof) or the one who isn't sure yet.

So if you're going to make the negative claim "These sounds are not made by ghosts", the burden of proof is on you. Same with the statement "God does not exist", if you state that, the burden of proof is on you. If, however, somebody says "God exists." and you say ''Well I'm not so sure about that, tell me why you think that." you are neutral and they're going to have to back up their statement with arguments.

What would happen if the burden of proof wasn't on the protagonist of a statement but the antagonist or the questioning party? Imagine that you would go for a walk with your friends and one of them was to say "Hey I think it must have rained a while ago." and you'd say "Oh, why do you think that?" and instead of saying something reasonable like "The streets are all wet." or whatever they would say "Well, you prove me that it hasn't rained.". That's unreasonable behavior. He puts forward a claim and until you've ruled out the possibility that he's right that claim is 'allegedly' corresponding to the world.
I think the such a rule implicates that logic is doing the wrong thing, it should - instead of deducting what's true - actually be ruling out all other possibilities since anyone could posit them and the antagonist would have the burden of disproving it. If you're going that far you might as well throw logic out the window alltogether.

JurgenBM

Status quo is only used in court to determine which party (the protagonist or antagonist) must defend their case first. To say that alot of people think something is true and therefore it's true is a logical fallacy called the argumentum ad populum.

Caine

None of these reasons seem to go beyond "it makes sense". Asking why it makes sense is a separate interesting discussion, but adhering to the question of the OP, I can't imagine any burden of proof that exists outside of human reasoning.

Roq

It's odd. I think it’s an interesting question, if one that hasn’t got a definitive answer...

I would argue that the burden of proof is on the ghost believers, because the theory of ghosts is not an accepted scientific theory in the society which you and the house members have in common.

If you went to the same house and the occupants all said that the woman who lived next door was an evil witch and unless hung before midnight would cause everyone in the village to die of the pox, would you argue that the burden of proof was on you to negate the claim?

Stephen T-B

It's the outrageous claim, I think, which carries the burden of proof.

Now, "outrageous" is not only relative (what's "outrageous" to me might simply be "surprising" to you) but it is also subjective (eating human beings seems "outrageous" to me; not eating them is "outrageous" to a cannibal).

So, in a predominately religious society, the claim that gods don't exist is the outrageous claim, and needs to be justified; in a predominately secular society, the claim that there are gods is the outrageous claim, and which needs to be justified.

The more outrageous the claim, the more closely will the justification offered for it be examined.

Which is why theists have such a hard time here at Infidels...