Roq

The point you (Jurgen) seem to be making is that if in a debate I make some statement then I should be prepared to defend it (That’s the point that Pavlov’s Dog thinks you are making too). That’s true, its just not very interesting and has nothing to do with how the phrase “burden of proof” is commonly used by people discussing the scientific method. If I was in a debate about it, I’d be perfectly prepared to defend my contention that “The universe was not created by a fish living on the moon”. The problem is though that there are an infinity of different theories similar to my fish/moon theory about the creation of the universe: Maybe it was a snake not a fish, perhaps… No sane person would seriously suggest that it’s necessary (or possible) to debate all these absurd positions and take the burden of proof for each one on themselves. That’s why the scientific method needs a different way to assign the burden of proof:

When a scientist makes a statement such as “The universe started in a big bang about 10 billion years ago”. It’s a shortcut for the following position “The evidence for the big bang is greater than evidence for other theories about the origin of the universe such as the steady state theory or the theory that the universe was created yesterday by god. Therefore its now the primary theory in the scientific canon. That doesn’t mean that it’s true. In fact it may not be true or it may be only partially true as in the case of Newton’s law of gravity. However, If you wish to support an alternative theory, that other scientists will take seriously, then you must account for all the evidence that points to the truth of the big bang and further it must be a theory with equivalent or more explanatory power than big bang cosmology. In short the big bang theory is now the best scientific theory we have and so the onus (burden of proof or whatever) is on you if you wish to propose another theory that would be considered scientific”.

Of course “burden of proof” is just a phrase in the English language and you can define it to mean anything that you wish and as Stephen T-B points out it can also be context dependent. It’s just that your use of the phrase is not a common one and results only in the trivially uninteresting position that it’s a good idea to defend propositions that you propose. Noone I think was arguing against that anyway.

JurgenBM

I don't suggest that at all either. I think that that's the exact thing that would happen if the burden of proof was on the challenger instead of the one making a claim. If the burden of proof was on the challenger it would mean that that claim, which is any claim, would 'allegedly' be corresponding to the world until the challenger could rule out the possibility that the one who made that claim was right.

You seem to be saying that evading burden of proof is righteous in some cases, wrong in others. Here are four claims with the exact same way of evading burden of proof:

I: "The universe was not created by a fish on the moon. I don't need to defend it - you prove me that I'm wrong!"
II: "A square has four equal sides and angles. I don't need to defend it - you prove me that I'm wrong!"
III: "The universe started in a big bang about 10 billion years ago. I don't need to defend it - you prove me that I'm wrong!"
IV: "God exists. I don't need to defend it - you prove me that I'm wrong!"

These statement are not as unreasonable to you; you would find statement I reasonable but statement IV not. However, they're all evading their burden of proof in the exact same way. Where you (or any person or group of people for that matter) would draw the line as to where someone would have to defend their claim or not would depend on you, so that would be unlogical and unfair. All you can do is set up a clear distinct rule which says that a party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so. Mind the part: ''if the other party asks him to do so". That means that no absurd positions need to be debated.

You bring up the scientific method, but the scientific method has nothing to do with the burden of proof. What scientific researchers do is they "propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy." (wiki). They're doing research; There is no disagreement in the equation, there is no arguing, so there's no burden of proof.

Roq

OK I’ll try again. The burden of proof in science has nothing whatsoever to do with who is the challenger and who is being challenged. A scientific theory may be many things but it is not a debate. I can’t do any more than to draw your attention to the second paragraph in my previous post. Did you read that? That’s about as clear as I am capable of being:

I’m saying nothing of the sort.

There’s not a lot of point in me responding to further sections in your post, which are all bound up with this notion that the concept of burden of proof in science is some kind of debating rule. Many threads on this and other forums proceed aimlessly for hundreds of posts when two people use some word or phrase in different ways. I call it “thread rot”. Maybe I’ll formulate a theory!?

JurgenBM

In short I guess what you're saying is: "If you wish to support a theory alternative to an established theory that has much proof and a high explanatory power, the burden of proof is on you." I don't see how this conflicts with the pragma-dialectic theory, except it's a bit more vague (what do you consider to be established, how do you measure explanatory power, etc?).

The OP said: "The burden of proof rests with the party making the positive claim." which I think we both would disagree with. But you see he's talking about claims and he's not mentioning the scientific method. I haven't heard of the 'scientific burden of proof' and I'm a student of language and communication, hence my inclination to see burden of proof as part of a debating rule. This makes sense to me and your demarcation of the burden of proof doesn't.

RAFH

Even in your example Roq, of the scientist stating "Big Bang is the Standard Model (the correct term) and anybody who proposes another model must provide support for such" is supporting JurgenBMs argument. That scientist is not evading the Burden of Proof, he is stating the claimant (the person proposing the alternative) must meet the Burden of Proof. The scientist could be held to support his claim, ie - Big Bang is the current Standard Model, but that would be obviously simple to do, just look up Standard Cosmology Model and be done. He is not required to prove the Standard Model, just Big Bang is the current Standard Model, because that's his claim. However, he could also support the Standard Model, if need be. to the point of its general acceptance. Which is about as good as it gets. If the disputer finds that insufficient, well, they find it insufficient and they join the minority of those with similar views. So what? There's no law everybody has to think the same. Shouldn't be such a law. They are free to pursue their own model of the universe. However, in common society, their model will not be the Standard Model, because its the common society that determines that fact by consensus. Again, that is a fact that can be supported. Just look it up.

So, yeah, the Burden of Proof always lies with the claimant.

There is a very easy way to avoid it though. If you don't accept the belief in the existence of god(s), you can say you don't accept the belief in the existence of god(s) and state your compliance to said belief will require substantiating evidence. Acceptance of any stated fact is, by definition, conditional. You accept said fact because you are convinced, by whatever means, said fact is true. If its a fact commonly accepted by society, you may face difficulties should they find your non-acceptance a problem, unless said society is ethically bound by the common rules of argument and logic.

In which case they will be bound to substantiate whatever 'fact' it is you dispute.

Unfortunately, some believers don't adhere to such ethics and they may prefer the use of placing disagreeably hot pointed metal objects in orifices which you might normally object to having anything placed or they may be convinced your lack of intelligence is caused by your lack of length and contrive to forcibly increase your length until you agree with them or other such methods including BBQing on a vertical spit.

Roq

It simply doesn’t matter in science who is the claimant and who is the proposer:

The idea of burden of proof comes from the law where the terms and definitions are all quite different and is really only used in science by analogy so that scientists can communicate with pesky laymen. In science, though, we’re not really involved in a competitive debate where one side puts forward a position (the prosecution) and another side defends it. In science we are really talking about the relative success of competing theories in explaining the physical world rather than about scientists competing in a debate and “avoiding the burden of proof”. It thus makes sense to require extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. It makes no difference whether the person supporting the claim has proposed it or is responding to some proposal from a scientist supporting a more reasonable claim.

Roq

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying

Ok. I see where your coming from. Its certainly the case that the burden of proof is assigned in different ways outside of science such as law (See my reply to RAFH).

RAFH

Which is exactly what is meant by the claimant has to support their claim. Its not up to the world to support anybody's claims.

If I come up to you and propose my theory ants are intelligent and are controlling us telepathically, are you going to just accept it, report to the nearest ant hive and wait for orders? Are you going to start digging up data in support of my theory? Is anybody?

Absolutely not! Its up to me to support my own theory, my own claims.

It doesn't matter if they are competing theories or whatever, if you want anybody else to believe what you propose, its your responsibility to support it to the level they require for belief. If you don't, well, you may just be barking at the moon. You may well find nobody responds to you and if you become an annoyance they'll likely sedate you and lock you up. Or perhaps, give the propensities of the religious, start worshiping you.

If you are responding to somebody else's claim, unless you state "You sir, are full of bullshit and Robert De Correcto's Theory of Excrement is the Truth!" but rather simply say "I don't accept your theory on its face, would you mind providing some support?", it's not your duty to disprove that somebody else's theory, that duty falls to them.

Even if you were to say, "I find your theory is, on its face, less convincing than Lord Correcto's" is still up to the original claimant to support his claim, though I guess he could request you support your claim you believe its less convincing, which is provided by your claim, its a statement of your belief, which nobody but you can verify or doubt. What, somebody else knows your mind better than you?

Lastly, I would ask, when was the last time your formally or informally proposed a scientific theory of your own in scientific circles? And might I ask what it was?

Roq

Your disagreement probably arises from the fact that you are using the words proposed/proposal/proposer in a different way to the way they were being used in previous discussions. Consider this reformulation of the principle I am espousing: “In science the burden of proof is on the person arguing for the existence of what is being proposed”. In this sentence (with which I agree) the author is using “what is being proposed” to mean some new physical claims. In Jurgen’s system on the other hand the proposer is the person who makes a statement whether that statement is for or against new physical claims and the proposer by the act of making a statement inherits the burden of proof. In science, however, if one makes the statement “Pink unicorns do not exist” one doesn’t immediately inherit the burden of proof for that statement – It still remains on the new physical claim which is “Pink unicorns do exist”.

Well the last scientific theory I proposed informally was “Pink unicorns do exist” a bit earlier in this post

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't know why I always seem to be the one pointing this out, but there seems to be a misconception about the burden itself. It never shifts, regardless of what other claims may exist.

If someone claims, "A god exists," then they have made a positive claim of fact that axiomatically shoulders a burden of proof. If they do not meet that burden, then their claim is effectively void of substance and the entire world is under no obligation at all in regard to any implications of such a claim and it should therefore be discarded. Let's call this Claim A.

If someone else claims, "A god does not exist," then they have made a negative claim, which is impossible to prove, but nevertheless axiomatically shoulders a burden of proof simply because it is a claim of fact. Let's call this Claim B.

Regardless of the outcome of Claim B's burden of proof, Claim A still shoulders its own burden of proof. The burden never "shifts" or magically goes away just because Claim B (or C or the entire alphabet) does not meet its burden of proof.

But then, Claim B is entirely unnecessary, of course, and need not ever be made since Claim A's burden has never been met, thus it is effectively void of substance and the entire world is under no obligation at all in regard to any implications of such a claim and it should therefore be discarded.

Any idiot can claim something exists, but it they can't meet their burden to prove their claim, then their claim is effectively worthless. No great treatise need be written, except, of course, by those desperately attempting to shift that which cannot be shifted.

:huh: