Burden of proof

[seebs]

We have empirically demonstrated that an open discussion on this topic tends to get hopelessly bogged.

How about a debate?

Topic: The burden of proof.

My position: Burden of proof comes from trying to convince someone of something. Statements do not have any inherent burden of proof, whether "positive" or "negative", and indeed, the distinction between "positive" and "negative" claims does not appear to be well-defined in all contexts. A burden of proof exists only when you are trying to convince someone of something, and the standards you must meet are entirely a function of the person you wish to convince.

The other position: Statements can be meaningfully divided into two categories; "positive" and "negative". Positive claims have an inherent burden of proof, negative claims do not. The burden of proof is an objective standard.

I may well be misunderstanding this.

I was thinking that Jobar or Yahzi might welcome the opportunity to have this debate in a more controlled setting, where pages wouldn't be scrolling by like that calendar trick they used to do in movies to depict the passage of time.

[faust]

A burden of proof exists only when you are trying to convince someone of something, and the standards you must meet are entirely a function of the person you wish to convince. I think you outlined the question pretty well seebs, only I think of this bit slightly differently. The burden of proof exists independantly of the two parties of differing opinion. It is a function of the argument itself, i.e. the burden of proof lies with the argument that postulates more than the Least Common Denominators of given assumptions.
I agree with your statement, only that I would generalize it to say that the burden of proof lies with the argument or debator proposing the greater number of basic assumptions.

Ex. Position A requires assumption Alpha and Beta.
Position B requires assumptions Alpha, Beta, and Iota. The burden of proof would be on position B, itself.

Looks like an interesting debate, I hope someone takes you up on it!

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by seebs
The other position: Statements can be meaningfully divided into two categories; "positive" and "negative". Positive claims have an inherent burden of proof, negative claims do not. The burden of proof is an objective standard.
I agree with this, sort of. It's nuts to think that the rules changed based on the person: however, I agree they kind of do. Hopefully the distinction will be made clear in the following:

A positive claim is one that changes your existing body of knowledge. Thus, for any given body of knowledge (held by a person, say), a given claim might be positive or negative, based on whether or not it is already incorporated into that body of knowledge. There's your relativity.

However, the standard of change is objective. For all persons, the way to determine if a claim is positive or negative is to see if it has significance, that is, if it meaningfully changes the knowledge they have.

An untestable claim is by definition negative, because no possible test can come out differently based on the truth or falsity of the claim. Hence it adds nothing to your knowledge base.

The burden of proof is on the attempt to modify the knowledge base.

The corallory to this is that untestable claims are meaningless in that their truth or falsness is irrelevant and indistinguishable. My position is not that untestable claims are necessarily false, but that they are necessarily irrelevant, and hence indistinguishable from false, in that they cannot add to the knowledge base (just as a false claim does not add to you knowledge base).

[seebs]

The thing is, your proposed definition for "positive claims" here goes directly against the usage given by, say, Biff, in which any claim of existence is necessarily positive, whether or not it's the claim you currently accept.

I think it'd be cleaner to call such claims "affirmative", to avoid confusion with the vast number of arguments out there involving "positive claims".

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by seebs
The thing is, your proposed definition for "positive claims" here goes directly against the usage given by, say, Biff, in which any claim of existence is necessarily positive, whether or not it's the claim you currently accept.

I think it'd be cleaner to call such claims "affirmative", to avoid confusion with the vast number of arguments out there involving "positive claims".
Well, I won't argue that "postive claims" enjoys many, many usages. ;)

However, I think in this particular case it's the same thing (I think existance is an affirmative claim). I would argue that the existance of an object implies an addition to your knowledge base. You don't necessarily have knowledge about objects you don't know about, but you do necessarily have knowledge of objects you believe exist. I think that "not believing an object exists" and "not knowing about an object that doesn't exist" result in the same actions, and are therefore indistinguishable.

I don't object to "affirmative," though. I'll try to remember to use this in the future.

[seebs]

Hmm.

My argument would be that, if you currently accept the existence of any given thing, trying to convince you that it doesn't exist is also an affirmative claim. It seems to me that you're arguing that it's not?

[Gunnaheave]

Hey Seebs

Have you already moved on this one? If not, I would be happy to take this one on myself. It's your call Seebs. What you call a burden of proof, I would call a burden of moving foreward. I do agree that burdens are affected by the specific goals of the parties involved and the social context in which the argument takes place, but I would deny that the variations of social construction take place without structural constraints. Ultimately, I think there is a difference bewteen affirmative claims and at least some negative claims. I am not sure that I would maintain that all negative claims are distinct from affirmative ones. That might require a modification of the second position.

[seebs]

So far as I can tell, "affirmative claims" are those being put forth with the expectation that others adopt them. If that's what you mean, then we'd have no argument...

[Gunnaheave]

No.

Replace "Affirmative" with "Positive" and re-apply my statements. The relationship between positive/negative statements and affirmative/negative meta-statements would of course be part of the issue. To the degree that negative statements may themselves express negative evaluations of prior statements, this creates the ambiguity which skews the burdens.

[seebs]

I propose we take this offline and discuss the terminology back in forth in PMs to see whether we have an issue to debate. I'm not sure whether I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you yet. :)

[Gunnaheave]

Deal

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi guys,

I'm splitting this thread off to the Philosophy forum so that you may continue the discussion. Though I'll keep seebs' challenge intact here in case someone may want to take him up on his claims in a formal debate.

Jason

[Singularity]

I agree that the burden of proof rests on the person asserting that a positive fact claim is true.

However, every negative fact claim can be stated, at least superficially, as a positive fact claim.

God does not exist. --------> Atheism is true.

But, the "atheism is true" fact claim is really a negative fact claim because the fact claim has an embedded negative fact claim. Atheism is the mindset where the person has not encountered sufficient evidence to judge the fact claim "God exists" to be true.

I find it useful to draw an analogy with the judicial system. The judicial system is focused on an act that, if performed, would cause someone to be "guilty." Thus, guilt is the relevant state that is being evaluated. In court, burden of proof resides with the prosecution because it is tasked with proving the positive fact claim "The defendant is guilty." The defendant need only address the evidence provided by the prosecution. The defendant is not required to prove he is not guilty.

How does this compare to the theist/atheist debate? The presumption of innocence is similar to the presumption of falsehood associated with any hypothesis. The prosecution is making an assertion that is inconsistent with the presumption and thus the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. In the theist/atheist debate, the presumption is that naturalism is true. Not exclusionary naturalism, i.e., that there is no room for supernaturalism, but that the universe is governed by natural laws. The theist is making an assertion that is different from the presumption naturalism pervades, i.e., that supernaturalism exists also. Thus, the theist has the burden of proof to show that supernaturalism fact claim is true.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi Singularity,

Please keep in mind that this forum is not meant for debating unless you wish to discuss a potential formal debate on the issue. If you go here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71200) you will find a thread in the Philosophy forum where you can informally debate the issue.

Jason