Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Holder of the burden[edit]
When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]
While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards.[5][6]
Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
The number of gumballs is even.
The number of gumballs is odd.
These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we may suspend judgment. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims. [14][15]
