Share something you like/find interesting

The old saying, "the burden of proof is on the person making the claim", sounds very good in theory. In practice, this doesn't always work, and it can actually be very difficult to place the burden of proof.

For example, consider the well-worn debate about the existence of God. Atheists will say that the burden of proof lies with the believers, who are claiming that God exists. Believers will say that the burden of proof lies with the athiests, who are claiming that God does not exist. How do you identify the real claim which warrants the burden of proof. Well, you might argue that the affirmative claim is real, and the negative "claim" is not a claim at all, but a critical challenge to the affirmative claim. This rule applies well to the God debate, but what about another example?

Imagine, in some bizzare alternate reality, that it's the year 1012AD and two scientists, Einstein and Newton, have a dispute. Newton woke up that morning with some fabulous velocity/acceleration equations. He hasn't had time to gather evidence yet, but is convinced in his mind that are correct. Einstein, meanwhile, was struck by lightning the previous night and blessed with the knowledge of General Relativity. And there they are, with two opposing ideas. Now where is the burden of proof? Both of them are making claims, and both claims are affirmative.

Myself, Finlay and Alex got into a discussion about burdens of proof. Finlay's theory was that a "neutral case" should be identified, and the burden of proof lies with the opposition to that case. A valiant attempt, but as Alex points out, there are many situations where there is no neutral case. My Einstein-Newton example displays that. Alex's argument is that the burden of proof is an unworkable concept that has no place in debating.

So, having pondered this on-and-off for the last couple of days, I think I can see a solution. You see, the problem lies with having a binary view of disputes. Either a claim is true or it is false. What we need is a third, neutral state. If there is no affirmative or negative support for a claim, or equal amounts of both, then the fact is, we don't know. And that's okay. People often seem afraid to admit that something is unknown. It's so dissatisfying, so disorderly. They feel a lot better if they can conclude that something is true or false, so they push it in one direction or the other so that they can move on and be happy and merry.

My view is that, by default, everything is unknown. So, we can boil down a claim into the statement that "Fact X is true" or "Fact X is false". If Moira trots into the bar and says "God exists", and Brent runs in behind her and says "No way, God doesn't exist, that's ridiculous!", then I propose that it's not a case of "Moira vs Brent". Both of them have made claims, and both have to be considered in isolation. The fact that they made contradictory claims at the same time is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on Moira to prove that God exists, and separately, the burden of proof is on Brent to prove that he doesn't. Until one of the claims is supported, we will default to "We don't know if God exists".

So, anyone want to question my thinking, or present a flaw or an example of where it would fail? By all means, sound off.

Lawliet wrote: »

EuropeanSon wrote: »

What an annoying pile of whiny cliched sh.ite. I want those 3 minutes of my life back now.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Very judgemental of you.