seebs

Having run into this a few times, I would like to suggest a rule for "burden of proof" that solves a number of problems.

It is this: The burden of proof you must meet when making a claim is solely a function of whom you wish to convince. This applies to any claim, whether it's a belief, or a disbelief.

So, for instance, let's look at evolution.

What if I wish to claim that evolution is the primary mechanism by which new species are formed?

Burden of proof on me: Whatever it takes to convince me, personally.

What if I wish to convince you that evolution is the primary mechanism by which new species are formed?

Burden of proof on me: Whatever it takes to convince you, personally.

Now, let's say that I try to convince you, and I don't meet your standards of proof. We're fine; we disagree, but no one is doing anything "wrong" by holding a belief. Now, on the other hand, let's say you think my evidence for evolution is really weak, and I should stop believing in this strange theory.

Burden of proof on you: Whatever it takes to convince me, personally.

In many cases, neither party can meet the other's standards for proof; in such cases, it is totally counterproductive to argue about who is "making a claim" and thereby has the "burden of proof". Each party can be presumed to have met his own standards of proof; neither party appears to be meeting the other's standards of proof. The only thing they can do is agree to disagree.

I think the attempt to associate burden of proof with claims is a noble effort at formalizing the implications of this - but it has the problem that it's easy to declare that someone who believes in something (God, evolution, whatever) is somehow obliged to prove it to *everyone else* before it is permissible for him to believe it himself. With such a rule, a single solipsist has the right to tell us all to stop believing that anything is real, because, after all, *we're* the ones claiming this external world we keep yammering about.

Secular Elation

I think the attempt to associate burden of proof with claims is a noble effort at formalizing the implications of this - but it has the problem that it's easy to declare that someone who believes in something (God, evolution, whatever) is somehow obliged to prove it to *everyone else* before it is permissible for him to believe it himself.

Well...here is my take on it. It is my opinion that, if someone belives in something, he doesn't have to prove it to everyone else. However, if that same person is trying to make others believe in the same thing, then yes, he must present a strong case of evidence for his position for us to accept the same one. Other than that, no.

seebs

I think that the amount of evidence he needs to present will probably vary widely, based as much on our presuppositions as anything else.

If you tell me that someone had a fever, and took some aspirin, and his fever went down, I will accept this without much consideration. You've offered no "proof" - but the claim is consistent with my worldview, so I don't impose any burden of proof. If you tell me that someone had terminal brain cancer, then ate an entire bottle of chewable vitamins, and got better, I will not believe that the vitamins were relevant without a *LOT* of evidence.

So... even when you want to make someone else believe something, I think that, in reality, the "burden of proof" on you varies widely with the person you wish to convince. I don't think this is a problem; it's an essential result if we're to allow for the possibility that people will not always be convinced by the same things.

Often, there will be sets of beliefs which are interrelated, such that you can believe one set, or another set, but the compromise positions are untenable. In these cases, trying to impose a burden of proof on each individual premise can produce the result that you resist a superior overall model, because each part of it looks inappropriate or implausible when compared to your existing model.

For instance, if you look at a creationist, the problem isn't that evolution *on its own* is implausible, or that creation *on its own* is particularly compelling; rather, it's that the creation belief is *tied in* with a whole raft of other beliefs. This can happen to basically any set of self-consistent beliefs. For instance, many people are both atheists and materialists; these beliefs tend to reinforce each other. Meanwhile, theists who believe in supernatural forces in general have a pretty consistent belief system.

Thus, if you have two such people debating a question such as "does magic exist", the burden of proof that each will bear is *MUCH* higher than it would be if these beliefs were nicely compartmentalized and independant. Each belief is part of a complicated network of related thoughts and interpretations of prior experience.

I think the only fair thing to do is grant that people have a perfect right not to accept the same standards of proof that you do, and that this cuts both ways. I know people who are absolutely convinced of various things I am skeptical of; I know people who are skeptical of things I find convincing.

If we can stop seeing each other as "irrational", and instead fairly evaluate our respective positions, we may get along a lot better - and *all* of us will learn more.

Secular Elation

I think that the amount of evidence he needs to present will probably vary widely, based as much on our presuppositions as anything else.

Well, it depends on the claim. If he wants me to believe someone is standing behind his house, he must provide evidence (i.e., taking me around the cornet to his house and showing me that person). Now, if he wants me to believe in his god, then he must provide evidence that his god exists (i.e., show evidence of some sort that that universe could not exist without a god). But then there are two problems here: one, how is this god *his* god? Second, what if we disagree with his 'evidence?'

If we can stop seeing each other as "irrational", and instead fairly evaluate our respective positions, we may get along a lot better - and *all* of us will learn more.

I realize this claim is a result of your experience with intellectually arrogant atheists. Well, I haven't called anyone "rational" or "irrational." All I care is that I find my position rational. If someone else thinks his position is rational, so be it. That's when debates comes in.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Secular Elation

Then there are also other claims that cannot be disputed. With such a claim, we cannot argue over who is the more 'rational.' The claim is simply true.

For example, two plus two equals four (2+2=4), there is no disputing that claim! It is impossible for 2+2 to not equal 4. A person cannot say, "Well, I think it is rational that 2+2=5" -- that is flat out incorrect, for obvious reasons.

But other claims are much more subject to debate. The god question is one such claim.

seebs

I bet that, 9 times out of 10, if you're talking to someone, and he says that one of his neighbors is behind his house, you will simply accept the statement without even *thinking* about it. The only time you need evidence to believe something is when it would in some way surprise you, or be inconsistent with your general worldview.

Secular Elation

I bet that, 9 times out of 10, if you're talking to someone, and he says that one of his neighbors is behind his house, you will simply accept the statement without even *thinking* about it.

The point is that he can still be wrong making that claim; I have seen no evidence that it is true. Other than my natural perceptions, there is no proof in that claim itself.

seebs

I tend to accept mathematical proofs, but I am obliged to grant that I can't find any way to demonstrate that anyone else should.

Essentially, while I can say that someone who doesn't accept these appears to be irrational, I can't imagine how I can demonstrate that this is any of *his* problem.

S.D.Jim

Seebs. I find the discusion on burden of proof interesting. However, I think I must protest on the evolution/creation debate burden of proof.

Evolution is a testable scientific theory which has been been examined, tested and modified as needed for about 150 years, and stands as a verified usable scientific theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.In fact so widely accepted it is refered to as a fact.

Thus in debate with a creationist, or at least a YECreationist, there is no burden of proof placed on me to prove my acceptance of it. Note I do not say belief in it. IMHO any burden of scientific proof rests on the opposition.

Thus I would place this in the catagory of undisputable claim as Secular Elation places 2+2=4. Again IMHO.

I ate Pascal's Wafer

Hello, S.D. Jim.

I agree with what seebs said earlier on this point. It really depends on who is doing the convincing. Since evolution is a widely held theory, scientists feel no need to try to prove it to anyone else. I would venture a guess that most people in their field accept the theory as well, so providing even more proof to the others is unnecessary.

Creationists, however, dispute this theory. They are trying to push their belief as a valid theory, and disprove evolutionary theory at the same time. The burden of proof would fall on them in this case because they are trying to convince the scientific community to discard the theory of evolution and accept creationism.

However, in some (rare?) cases where the evolutionist is trying to convince the creationist, the burden would fall on the evolutionist. If the creationist did not initiate the debate, and was content in believing his hypotheses, it is not up to him to provide evidence and/or proof to back up his position. In this case, creationism is the default position and the theory of evolution is the challenging position. The creationist is under no obligation to discard his beliefs simply because he cannot provide sufficient evidence to convince the evolutionist.

To make a long story short, I think evolution/creation was a good example to illustrate the point.

-Nick