Do people who "withhold judgement" also have a burden of proof?

Question

I will illustrate my question with several examples involving 3 individuals: A, B, C.

Example 1: The shape of the Earth

• A defends the claim that the Earth is round.
• B defends the claim that the Earth is flat.
• C is epistemically open to all possibilities, and doesn't want to commit the Holmesian fallacy, so decides to withhold judgement.

Example 2: The existence of God

• A defends the claim that God does exist.
• B defends the claim that God does not exist.
• C, once again, prefers to remain epistemically open-minded, so decides to withhold judgement.

Example 3: The universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age

• A believes this is nonsense.
• B believes this is actually the case.
• C withholds judgement ("you never know").

Example 4: Consciousness can be reduced to Physics

• A believes consciousness is reducible to Physics.
• B believes consciousness is not reducible (there must be something beyond Physics).
• C withholds judgement.

Example 5: Murdering other people is objectively wrong

• A believes so.
• B believes morality is ultimately subjective, so disagrees.
• C withholds judgement.

Is C's position always the most rational?
Should we always withhold judgement?
Or is "withholding judgement" a position that needs to be defended as well (i.e., with a burden of proof of its own)?

Answer 1

Describing yourself ("I am not convinced.") is free.

Describing the rest of reality ("Your argument is not convincing.") costs an argument.

Answer 2

First of all, "the burden of proof" is not a hard and fast rule but more about sportsmanship. So as asserting a claim is easier than defending or disproving one the former usually is required to support their position by arguments and evidence. Though what constitutes a "claim" or an "assertion" may differ depending on context and the accepted status quo... If you said "the world is round" today compared to 500 years ago the expectation for evidence for that claim would be vastly different.

So yeah regarding the question: It Depends ;)

But seriously if it is an open question with multiple alternatives it's fair to withhold judgement before you know what's at stake. In fact it's usually dangerous to pick a side before you know what it is about and what is at stake.

That being said if a decision is already made and you remain neutral, then that is actually a hidden (or partial) rejection of that decision which can be seen as an assertion.

Or if there is a process to make a decision and you withhold any sort of judgement that in itself might be less of a neutral stance but somewhere between, support, rejection or it's own alternative.

And as a consequence it can warrant prove or be neutral, so your examples are not the same even if they sound like it on face value.

Answer 3

I apologise in advance for the possibly confusing answer.

Withholding judgement means making a non-claim or no proposition about the issue, correct? In that case there is nothing C says that requires proof of any kind, relating to the issue at hand (whether the Earth is flat, etc.)

He might be asked why they withhold judgement, especially with issue 3 (it seems nonsensical to withhold judgement in that situation). If they assert that withholding judgement in that context is fine, he would have to provide proof for why they are withholding judgement, but not necessarily for the original issue.

Or is "withholding judgement" a position that needs to be defended as well (i.e., with a burden of proof of its own)?

Potentially, this is how I would answer the question. But it would only make sense (to how I understand it, anyway) if the person said a truth-value statement about how they withheld judgement. For example:

A: Why are you withholding judgement, this is a simple question with a clear answer?

C: Withholding judgement is a reasonable thing to do when asked this question.

The act of withholding judgement doesn't necessarily ask for the burden of proof. Defending or making a claim about the withholding of judgement would.

Another answer mentions that withholding judgement when a consensus has been reached can imply a rejection of the consensus, which could be challenged as requiring potential burden of proof. This is an important and interesting point too.

Answer 4

The short answer is no, but the question makes a few faulty presumptions:

1. It presumes that holding an opinion requires the holder of the opinion to provide any sort of justification for their belief, let alone "proof".
2. It presumes that convincing someone to share an opinion or take some action requires proof.
3. It presumes that there might be some way to actually "prove" an indecision.

1.) Person "C" carries no burden to prove anything, whether or not they eventually come to agree with "A" or "B", or choose to "withhold judgement". There is no requirement to participate in the discussion, to declare which belief they hold or don't hold, or actively decide to withhold judgement. They are free to remain silent and completely ambivalent.

Truly, neither "A" nor "B" has any real burden either. They are equally free to not discuss their beliefs.

Consider that "burden of proof" is a legal term, and in your examples "A" and "B" would be attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, while "C" would represent the jury. The lawyer for the prosecution has the burden of proof, the defendant does not. The jury never has a burden to prove anything.

Therefore, the person asserting a certain point of view is the one who has a burden to support, (or prove...) their argument, but if and only if they hope to convince others to share their view.

2.) Getting someone to agree with you rarely requires hard proof. The car salesman doesn't have to "prove" that the car they are trying to sell you is assured to be the best decision in the future, they only need to get you to decide to buy it. And the buyer doesn't have to justify either their decision, or any indecision.

3.) Finally, what might "proof" of a lack of decision or absence of commitment even look like? If presented by compelling but opposing evidence on an issue it is reasonable to presume that a person might be unable to decide. However, there is no tangible evidence that could be presented for such a lack of support for either. They would simply remain unconvinced. If person "C" was to argue a position from the middle they would no longer be withholding judgement, but espousing a new point for undecided person "D".

Answer 5

This platform StackExchange Philosophy provides many examples of questions with answers of type A,B,C.

Whether the position of C, whithholding judgement, is rational, depends on his/her ability to justify by an argument, why he has no answer to the question. Lets hear his argument?

I do not consider the argument of C in example 1 and 3 to be correct resp. to be sufficient, the other examples do not provide any argument.

Answer 6

When someone withholds judgement, you must pay attention to whether or not it is reasonable for them to still do so. In many situations, people may put forward that explanation to hide what they feel is a less universally palatable decision that will simply be taken care of by the status quo.

Take an obviously absurd example, the trolley problem: Person A: We don't touch the lever, we don't want responsibility for the deaths of others.

Person B: We switch the track so only one person dies. It achieves the minimum amount of death.

Person C: I don't have enough information on the situation, so I will withhold judgement.

Here Person C is just Person A letting more people die because he doesn't want to take responsibility into his own hands. He's not letting the status quo be disturbed, thus he is accepting it, despite his ability to change it.

In your example, Murdering people is objectively wrong, there is a concept that silence is assent. Person C is choosing to remain silent on the topic, but his silence is secretly allowing murderers to roam free do do as they please. After all, it is the actors who are allowed to act on the acted without protection if protections aren't given, and Person C isn't choosing whether or not to give those protections. So in the end, Person C is secretly just Person B in this example as he is allowing murderers to do their own thing while he makes up his mind.

In short, there are many questions where it may be reasonable to withhold judgement, but not in questions where there is consequence. Once real consequences come into play, withholding judgement is just passing the buck to the status quo without saying as much, and people who do this should be called out for it.

Answer 7

This illustrates the difference between logic and reason. Logic is either valid or invalid, whereas reason measures probabilities and uncertainties.

Whereas it is purely logical to say "the claim has not been 100% proven, so I cannot say it is true", it would be most reasonable to say "the claim has been reasonably argued, so I believe it is true".

Note: The phrase "reasonably argued" above, is subjective, which is why some people are more gullible and others are more skeptical. But it's how humans operate: calculating a probability of reliability based on all evidence. The resulting probability is 50% or 70% or even 99%. Logic can't "round up", so Reason steps in and takes the leap of faith, yielding a functional conclusion that says "I believe it" or "I think it is true" (which is the same).

So logic is great for finding errors, but it cannot arrive at truth since there is always uncertainty. Reason makes up the difference and allows humans to act on truths that have not been proven 100% true.

"Burden of proof" enters the equation on the side of reason. When weighing claims, each claim needs to be supported, or "proven" (supported with arguments attempting to prove it, that reasonably do prove it). So in our human mental algorithm, claims with no supporting proof have no weight, and claims with proof have greater weight. This means that a supported claim should cause due acceptance, whereas an unsupported claim cannot demand acceptance. In the other direction: someone may say "You can't accuse me of being unreasonable for not believing your claim, since your claim has not been supported by proof. It is your burden to prove your claim." Hence: the "burden of proof".

Answer 8

The default position on any claim is disbelief, so it is reasonable to take the third position in all of your examples. You may be pressed for an explanation of why you find an argument unconvincing, but one who is not making a claim has no burden of proof.

Answer 9

Withholding judgement may not carry a burden of proof as such, but you could potentially make the case that:

• They're being inconsistent to withhold judgement on claim X, yet accept some other claim Y, despite both having a similar amount of evidence.

  If someone says e.g. "I don't have enough data to know whether this treatment is safe", you could point to other treatments that they accept as safe with a similar amount of data.

• They're still acting as if claim X is true, which carries consequences for themselves, and more importantly, for others too.

  If someone says "I don't know if this treatment is safe, so I won't take it and will oppose it until further notice", one might say they're acting as if the treatment is unsafe. Now, all medical treatments are assumed unsafe until proven otherwise, but the issue is when we've proven otherwise, and someone still withholds judgement and treats is as if we haven't proven it to be safe.

  Agnostic theism is another example where someone might act as if some god exists despite considering this to be unknowable, and one might argue that belief in a particular god is not a reasonable default position.*

  We commonly need to make decisions based on our beliefs, and even doing nothing is a decision too. Withholding judgement doesn't mean you don't make a decision one way or the other.

  * Theism doesn't directly entail a decision, but it indirectly influences many when it comes to morality or acting based on the existence of a supposed afterlife.

• As a member of society, they have some responsibility to make certain judgements. Failing to do so carries some implicit support for an objectionable position.

  If whether murder should be against the law is being voted on, and someone doesn't vote because they're withholding judgement, one might say they're failing in their responsibility and implicitly supporting the pro-murder side. Or that a kind and empathetic person would oppose murder (in which case a rational response might be for them to say they aren't kind and don't care about others, but it would not be a particularly humane response).

  If they claim that they haven't investigated the issue, one might say they have a responsibility to do so.

• The positive claim withholding judgement implies is "the evidence doesn't point to one conclusion above others"

  For the Earth being round or flat, if someone thinks there might be some third option (they could always be a brain in a vat, but that doesn't really tell us much), you could potentially press them on at least rejecting one of the two, or making a judgement about what the available evidence points to.

  Matt Dillahunty, a well-known atheist debater, has on occasion said something similar: if he's debating "Is Christianity true", he doesn't take the firm position of "no", but if he debates something like "Do we have good reason to believe Christianity is true", he does take a firm "no" position.

I would certainly not say that withholding judgement is "always the most rational", but I would say that all positions should be provisional (where you take a position) - that, to me, seems far more rational than withholding judgement altogether. I can't be completely sure that reality outside of my mind exists, but I have no reason to believe that it doesn't, so I'll provisionally take it to exist, and I'll act as if it does.