Burden of proof (logical fallacy)

Burden of proof (logical fallacy)

In philosophy, the term burden of proof refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe.

All logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their conclusions to follow, and most logical arguments require a certain level of informality to be stated in a compact and comprehensible form. [Even the hyper-rigorous Nicolas Bourbaki points out that "in practice, the mathematician who wishes to satisfy himself of the [correctness] of a proof or theory hardly ever has recourse to one or another of the complete formalisations .. nor even usually to the incomplete and partial formalisations" "Theory of Sets" Addison-Wesley (1968) p8] Therefore it is always possible to seek to discredit an idea by suggesting that the Burden of Proof should be set to an inappropriately high level. For example when behaviourism was the dominant ideology in the study of animal behaviour, but social conditioning was dominant in human behaviour according to Mary Midgley.

there was a remarkable discrepancy between what was treated as a parsimonious explanation for a piece of human behaviour and what could count as such when the behaviour was of some other animal. The practice was that, in the human case, the normal, indeed practically the only, licensed form of explanation was in terms of culture or of free deliberate choice, or both. Anyone who suggested that an inborn tendency might be even a contributing factor in human choices tended to be denounced as a fascist. The burden of proof was accordingly laid entirely on this suggestion, and it was made impossibly heavy. To put it another way, any explanation that invoked culture, however vague, abstract, far-fetched, infertile and implausible, tended to be readily accepted, while any explanation in terms of innate tendencies, however careful, rigorous, well-documented, limited and specific tended to be ignored. In animal psychology, however, the opposite situation reigned. Here, what was taboo was the range of concepts that describes the conscious, cognitive side of experience. The preferred, safe kind of explanation here derived from ideas of innate programming and mechanical conditioning. If anything cognitive was mentioned, standards of rigour at once soared into a stratosphere where few arguments could hope to follow. [Mary Midgley "The Myths We Live By" Routelege (2004) ISBN 0415340772 p142-3. Emphasis added.]

The logical fallacy which she is exposing in this case is the attempt to argue that view A is to be preferred to view B because "B cannot be proven" when the burden of proof is laid on view B to an impossibly heavy level, and in particular to a level under which A could not be proven either.

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In "philosophy" a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …" [ Keith Lehrer 1971, "Why Not Skepticism?" The Philosophical Forum, 2/3, 283-298. p53 (Page reference is to the reprint in The Theory of Knowledge, L. Pojman (ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993.) - quoted in [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] )]

ee also

* Negative proof
* Thomas Reid

Notes and References

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Burden of proof (rhetoric) — Burden of proof means the reasons that have to be met before a proposition of fact, value, or policy can be evaluated.Difference between “a burden of proof” vs “the burden of proof”“A burden of proof” comes in when one makes an argument. “A… …   Wikipedia

  • Burden of proof (disambiguation) — Burden of proof is, in common law, the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action.Burden of proof may also refer to: * The Burden of Proof , a 1990 novel by Scott Turow * The Burden of Proof (film) , a 1992 film based… …   Wikipedia

  • Negative proof — This article is about a logical fallacy. The term negative proof can also refer to a proof of impossibility. Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:: X is true because …   Wikipedia

  • Beyond reasonable doubt — may refer to:* Beyond a Reasonable Doubt , a 1956 Fritz Lang film * Beyond Reasonable Doubt (film), a New Zealand docudrama * Beyond Reasonable Doubt (book), a book by David Yallop on which the above film was based * Beyond Reasonable Doubt… …   Wikipedia

  • List of fallacies — For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common misconceptions. A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Contents 1 Formal fallacies 1.1… …   Wikipedia

  • Argument from ignorance — The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ( appeal to ignorance [ [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ] ] ) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it… …   Wikipedia

  • Argumentation theory — Argumentation theory, or argumentation, embraces the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion; studying rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings. Argumentation is… …   Wikipedia

  • Evidence — For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation). Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are… …   Wikipedia

  • Occam's razor — For the aerial theatre company, see Ockham s Razor Theatre Company. It is possible to describe the other planets in the solar system as revolving around the Earth, but that explanation is unnecessarily complex compared to the modern consensus… …   Wikipedia

  • Pseudoscience — Part of a series on Science …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”