Topics Logic

Question How does one determine which side in an argument must shoulder the burden of proof?

Accepted:
March 14, 2013

Comments

The other guy has the burden of proof. And yes, I'm serious. It's that bad.

But, to elaborate a little bit, I despise burden of proof type arguments. I do not know of any reasonable way of telling who "ought" to have the burden of proof, and I'm not sure I understand what is supposed to follow from someone's having it. People often end arguments saying something like, "Since they have the burden of proof and haven't met it, it is reasonable for us to believe my view". But this seems to me an odd way of thinking about philosophy.

I mean, I do hope that some of the philosophical views I hold will have some influence and help us understand certain sorts of things better than we do. But whether any of my views might actually be true I very much doubt. And the fact that the other guy hasn't been able to knock my view down doesn't seem like good reason to believe it, even if my view is more common-sensical than his (a common test). Philosophy seems to me to be much more a hunt for understanding than it is one for truth, and I'm not sure "burden of proof" has much to do with understanding.

Question How does one determine which side in an argument must shoulder the burden of proof? Accepted:March 14, 2013

Question How does one determine which side in an argument must shoulder the burden of proof?

Accepted:
March 14, 2013