Timeline for What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2023 at 13:46 | vote | accept | Meanach | ||
| Nov 13, 2023 at 11:23 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | I guess if someone didn't like the Burden of Proof method, they would have to come up with something better. Otherwise, they would simply unravel the nature of argumentation, and, lacking anything to replace it with, we would put it back. People aren't good at just throwing their hands in the air and giving up. | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 11:19 | answer | added | Meanach | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 11:16 | history | edited | Meanach | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Nov 13, 2023 at 11:13 | comment | added | Meanach | Indeed. James I abolished torture because it produced unreliable evidence. Btw, I did not claim that Occam's Razor spoke directly to the burden of proof. It is background to the argument. | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 11:07 | comment | added | Roger V. | Indeed, in the middle ages it was suite customary to torture people, in expectations that, of not guilty, they would not confess of a crime. In other words, they had to prove their innocence. Of course, many confessed just to stop being tortured. | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 9:21 | answer | added | Michael Kay | timeline score: -1 | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 5:01 | answer | added | usul | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 2:46 | comment | added | robert bristow-johnson | “Ockham’s Razor” isn't directly related to burden of proof. It's a different consideration. Whether you're the side with the putative burden of proof or the other side, all William of Ockham is saying is that simple explanations that are sufficient to explain are preferable to complicated explanations that also suffice to explain. Einstein had a Lemma to Ockham: "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." | |
| Nov 13, 2023 at 1:06 | answer | added | armand | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 23:27 | comment | added | Stef | Like most things, the expression "burden of proof" got abused the minute it was coined as an expression, so it shouldn't be too surprising that "some people doubt this principle". | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 21:43 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:52 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | Of course, at other times my answers get a decent number of upvotes and are even accepted by the initial inquirer, so perhaps I am being quasi-cynical when I refrain from trying for acceptable answers rather than illustrative comments (think of the comments as similar to objections that might be raised during peer review of a dissertation, anyway...). | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:50 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | I would have imagined that the purpose of arguments, when they are used, is to generate belief in their conclusions. So if there is an argument that the phrase "burden of proof" has substantive and useful meaning, I would think the outcome of accepting the argument would be accepting, and hence believing in, the conclusion (that there is such a thing as a burden of proof). As to why I sometimes post what look like answers in the comments, sometimes I am discouraged because I have posted lengthy citation-based answers to questions and seen them get little traction. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:49 | answer | added | NotThatGuy | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 17:42 | comment | added | Meanach | I have no such belief. What makes you think that? A principle is a tool. If I questioned a spanner, would that make sense? Btw, why are you posting alleged answers in comments? Any chance of an actual answer? | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 17:40 | answer | added | Dheeraj Verma | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 16:45 | comment | added | Hudjefa | @KristianBerry, on target! | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 16:27 | answer | added | g s | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 16:26 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 16:15 | comment | converted from answer | causative | If someone claims X, they should* have a rational reason for doing so. If you claim not-X, you should* have a rational reason for doing so. The burden of proof is on both parties. Just because someone previously claimed X before you claimed not-X does not free you from your obligation* to justify your belief in not-X. Whatever you believe, you should* have a rational justification for, except for those things so intrinsic to your reasoning that they serve as axioms. However, there is often a good, default reason for believing not-X: most conceivable claims that a specific thing exists are not | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:45 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | You seem to believe that there is something called "the burden of proof," no? But does the principle of this burden, apply to itself? If not, why not? (I realize we approach the regress of knowledge, here, of course...) | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:38 | comment | converted from answer | user62907 | A burden of proof is an ought. There is no fact that specially delimits one ought from another. Oughts do not come from is statements, as Hume showed. As such, it is not just that it can be challenged. A burden of proof, by any objective measure, cannot exist. It is nothing more than a subjective claim of what one “feels” is right in a debate context. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:00 | comment | added | Meanach | Belief? What do you mean? | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 14:41 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 14:27 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | It's mostly just a principle of debate, not so much of reality. And what is the burden of proof for the belief in the burden of proof? | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 13:41 | history | asked | Meanach | CC BY-SA 4.0 |