spamandham

Which is what motivated this thread. It seems that much of the 'burden of proof' arguments going on are more about posturing and gamesmanship than anything else.

mountainman

The anything else of course referring (in the present tense ladies and gentlemen) to the scientifically acceptable archaeological evidence and the technology available to the field of ancient history. It is (in part) understanding that the fields of biblical history, new testament history and ancient history are three separate fields of research, and that the latter is to be the authority and final arbitur if we are to evolve from childhood to adolescence. Chronology in past times was not assisted by technology, and chronological foundations are as yet very hazy in all these three fields with respect to the pre-nicaean epoch and the era of Eusebian purported "christian origens". (And no I did not mispell origins!!!!!)


Best wishes,


Pete

patcleaver

I think your missing the point.

What basis does someone have for asserting that someone else has the burden of proof?

Burden of proof is the claim that a proposition should not be believed until the proponents of the proposition, with the burden of proof, provides credible evidence.

Surely, your not arguing that its all just semantics. If I say that "unless you can prove otherwise, everyone should believe that they have nose fairies living in their noses and that is what causes sneezing"; Do you really think that you should believe it unless you can prove otherwise?

BTW, Do you disagree that I should be able to argue any way I want unless it infringes the rights of others?

Toto

This is an example of a misapplication of the so called burden of proof. It really makes no sense to believe an assertion just because there is no evidence against it, if there is also no evidence for it.

It's a free country, but if you are going to carry on a debate or a conversation, you need to abide by certain rules to have a productive conversation.

And I am not sure what you are asking - what are the rights of others? What is your purpose? Are you concerned about what the rules of this board are, what you can get away with, what will be most persuasive :huh:

patcleaver

I thought it was the most fundamental rule in science that the proponents of a hypotheses had to burden of proof.

If not then why aren't all the cranks with pseudo-scientific theories about ESP and crystal power and astrology and phrenology and perpetual motion and time-cube accepted as science?

For every positive hypotheses "x should be believed", there is a negitive hypotheses "x should not be believed". If some crackpot states a positive hypotheses (e.g. it should be believed that ESP is science) and scientists respond by stating the negitive hypothese (e.g. it should not be believed that ESP is science), then the burden of proof does not shift to science to prove the negitive hypothese. When science denies that it should be believed that ESP is science, that does not shift the burden to science to prove that it should not be belived that ESP is science.

Amaleq13

Exactly.

And you do find references to the burden of proof in scholarly journals and books but not necessarily phrased in that way. Every time you read a criticism of another scholar's views as lacking sufficient supporting evidence, you are reading a reference to the burden of proof. Such references are actually quite common in both scholarly books and journals.

gstafleu

This discussion baffles me a bit. As patcleaver remarks, when someone proposes a hypothesis, it is up to that someone (or other proponents of the hypothesis) to provide some evidence for it. Ona can call this "burden of proof" (and I will do so below), altough it should be noted that the notion of "burden of proof" seems to stem primarily from the legal domain and (perhaps secondarily) from the philosophical domain. IOW not from the domains of science and scholarship.

On the other side of the equation, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and if someone claims to have falsified it, then that someone has to provide the evidence that he has indeed done so. Notice, though, that it is not necessary to falsify a hypothesis (something that puts a burden of proof on the falsifier) in order to contest it. Pointing out that the evidence for the hypothesis is lacking, e.g., is valid and keeps the burden of proof on the proposer of the hypothesis.

Gerard Stafleu

patcleaver

"prove it" is literally just a request for information, but it is commonly used as a denial of the truth of an assertion.

If I deny someone's hypotheses then I do not assume the burden to prove that its wrong and should not be accepted. If someone says that there are nose fairies, and I deny it, then that does not shift the burden of proof to me to provide evidence that there are no nose fairies.

The burden of proof does not shift depending on how I deny it, because its not just semantic. There is no magic formula of denial, such as "prove it", that prevents shifting, that if not invoked causes the burden to shift. The burden does not shift depending on which of the following denials that I make:
"prove it"
"its not true unless you prove it"
"I will not believe it unless you prove it"
"it is not true that there are nose fairies"
"there is no such thing as nose fairies".

patcleaver

Yes, and just for background for others.

Falsifiability is one of the standard tests to determine if a hypotheses or theory about the universe is scientific or not. There are some scientific theories that are not falsifiable, but they are otherwise very well verified.

Falsifiability means that if an hypotheses were false then you could prove that it was false.

You prove that an hypotheses/theory is falsifiable by proposing a test such that, if the hypotheses were false, the hypotheses would fail the test because it was false.

Something is falsifiable if the world would be detectably different if it were false.

If you subject the hypotheses to the test and it passes the test then its still a falsifiable hypotheses, and we have more confidence in the hypotheses.

If you subject the hypotheses to the test and it fails the test, then its still a falsifiable hypotheses, but it has been falsified.

For example, if ID were true then we could easily find lots of irreducibly complex structures in life forms. We can not find any irreducibly complex structures in life forms, therefore ID has been falsified. If ID were true, then similarity of DNA would be more closely related to how similar two species looked, then to how closely the two species were related according to the fossil record. The similarity of DNA is more closely related to how closely the species are related in the fossil record than how similar they look, therefore ID has been falsified. If ID were true then it would be more likely to mate animals of different species if they looked similar, then if they were merely closely related in the fossil record. Animals of two different species (such as camels and llamas) are more likely to mate if they are more closely related in the fossil record, then if they are more similar in appearance, therefore ID has been falsified.

An hypotheses/theory is not falsifiable, if a test can not be devised, such that, if the hypotheses were false, the hypotheses would fail the test because it was false.

For example, the speculation that there are invisible, non-material, magical fairies living in peoples noses that cause sneezes is not falsifiable because nobody has proposed a test such that we can agree that, if the speculation were false, the speculation would fail the test because it was false.

spamandham

Opponents of crank scientific theories are often more than happy to disprove far out ideas, rather than sitting back and reminding the proponents of those theories that they hold the burden. How much effort was expended disproving cold fusion rather than just sitting back and waiting for the proponents to do all the work?

There are only 2 consequences to failing to uphold such a burden; your idea might not be taken seriously, and if it's outlandish enough, you'll probably lose reputation as well. But a lot of people are more than happy to live with these consequences, so for them, what enforces the burden?

...if nothing, then there is no burden.