There seems to be confusion on this exchange as to what constitutes a proposition in philosophy. This seems to extend to the burden of proof. The classical burden of proof is "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat". The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who opposes. Any serious challenge to this would be challenging reason itself. Is this correct? (This question is not about the philosophy of language, or any specific field of philosophy).
12
-
1@Meanach You asked a similar question before philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/104878/… Please clarify why the new question is distinct. What has been left open by the many answers to your previous formulation of the question?– Jo WehlerCommented Dec 12, 2023 at 7:59
-
1A proposition is a proposition. See e.g. Spinoza's Ethics, Ax.1: "Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else."– Mauro ALLEGRANZACommented Dec 12, 2023 at 8:04
-
3There is no confusion, the meaning of "proposition" is simply controversial even when used in a technical sense, and what you refer to is just vague colloquial use. Distinguishing who "speaks" and who "opposes" makes sense in regimented debates and courts of law, but in informal settings it has no clear meaning either. Disputing where the burden of proof lies in this or that context, or if it even makes sense there, is often reasonable enough, and certainly does not make for anything grandiose like "challenging reason itself".– ConifoldCommented Dec 12, 2023 at 8:23
-
2Philosophers use the term 'proposition' to mean several related things. There is an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia devoted to explaining the concept.– BumbleCommented Dec 12, 2023 at 15:10
-
1@Meanach you seem to have your own personal definition of a proposition which disagrees with normal usage. Why don't you answer your own question by setting out your definition for everyone to understand?– Marco OcramCommented Dec 13, 2023 at 9:44
|
Show 7 more comments
2 Answers
A proposition has traditionally been known as any statement that contains a truth-value. From the linked article:
It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences.
As there are many ways to use it and is used in philosophy, a more vague, broad and general definition might be the way to go for this question. The SEP article lands on this one because of how many different ways the word is used.
Propositions, we shall say, are the sharable objects of the attitudes and the primary bearers of truth and falsity.
This definition, then includes both positive propositions and also the denial or negation of said proposition. This is also how the word is most broadly used in philosophy.
A common thought among atheist debates is that the denial of the existence of God is not a proposition (or is the 'default position'). I believe this is wrong. The denial of something is still a proposition insofar as it tells us something about the world. As it comes to the burden of proof, a denial or negation to a proposition has that burden also (because it’s still a proposition that needs to be supported).
For example, one makes the proposition that God exists (P). I negate that claim (not-P), and in doing so I take the opposite claim to the proposition, which is that God doesn’t exist (not-P). Both are still claims about the world which means they’re both propositions. Just because it’s in opposition to an already existing proposition doesn’t make it any less a proposition.
It would be different if instead I asked "where the proof is for the existence of God," without making any claim or truth-value what-have-you. This would not be a proposition.
If you disagree, that’s fine, but I’d really like to see an argument for your stance. Please drop some supporting evidence in the comments because I don’t see the idea that a negation isn’t a proposition fits with the multiple accepted definitions.
A proposition is broadly a statement about which one might meaningfully ask whether it is true or false. Logically the negation of a proposition is as much a proposition as the proposition it negates.
Suppose I have a proposition P. Its negation is not-P. If you assume its negation is not a proposition then you end up with a contradiction, since I can define S to be not-P, so that not-S, which you say is not a proposition, is equal to P, which was a proposition, so we arrive at nonsense.
answered Dec 12, 2023 at 11:42
