The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Burden of Proof

In all science, engineering, law, philosophy, theology, economics, statistics, and many other areas of human interactions, the “Burden of Proof” is upon the person or persons who makes the assertion. Otherwise, we could end up with the following absurd situation:

Someone could assert that the bad news is that the Martians have invaded Earth, but the good news is that they eat garbage and urinate gasoline. If it were not necessary for them to prove their assertion, but someone had to disprove their assertion, then the following would be necessary to disprove the assertion: The person disproving the assertion would have to prove there is no such thing as Martians, and if there were Martins then they would have to prove that they have not invaded Earth. If there were Martians who had invaded Earth, then they would have to prove that they did not eat garbage, and if there were Martians who had invaded Earth and eaten garbage, they would then have to prove that they had not urinated gasoline.

Obviously, it is not possible to prove or disprove these things. Therefore, the person who asserts something bears the burden of proving that their assertion is correct. Consequently, you must always challenge a person who asserts something to prove their assertion is correct, and their proof must be based upon facts and reasoning rather than emotions, for incorrect facts and emotions will almost always lead to a false assertion. The burden of proof must always be based upon facts and "Reasoning" rather than emotions, for emotions will almost always lead to a false assertion. In evaluating any proof, you should also remember that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and it often becomes an “Argument from ignorance”.

If you allow someone to shift the burden of proof to another person, then you may fall into the trap of "if you cannot show their assertion is wrong, then their assertion must be right", which is obviously an untrue statement. Additionally, disproving someone's assertions often involves proving a negative, which is very difficult to accomplish. Thus, as I have often said, “The Burden of Proof always rests with the person who makes an assertion. To not do so is to ask the other person to prove a negative - which is very difficult to accomplish.”

Remember, an assertion is not the truth but only a statement that someone believes to be true. The assertion must be accompanied by credible, verifiable, and substantiated evidence to be proven true. The standards of proof are different in different situations, but without proof, the assertion must be rejected. You should also remember, as Carl Sagan has said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Without evidence, then, as Christopher Hitchens once said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." I would argue that assertions without evidence must be dismissed without evidence. To do otherwise is to allow for an uncivil society, as I have discussed in my Article "A Civil Society".

When someone is pressed for proof, they often retort that “Studies Show” or “Statistics Say”, not acknowledging that studies can show anything the author(s) may want them to say and statistics can prove anything based on the data inputs and data manipulations, as I have examined in my Article "Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave". There is also confusion about “Experts” and “Evidence”. An expert opinion is not evidence; it is the expert's opinion of the evidence, an opinion that is often debatable and disputed by other experts. The consensus of experts is not proof, as consensus often changes as new or changed evidence comes to light or previous evidence is discarded as incorrect or faulty. Consequently, we should all be dubious of expert opinions and be wary when someone resorts to a consensus argument to prove their assertion.

The assertor often believes that their assertions are truths, as they rarely encounter resistance to these assertions, and thus, they continue to make their assertions. Alas, it is an unfortunate fact that in today’s society, many Progressives claim that they interpret the facts as they see them to be proper, but interpreting the facts by not applying proper facts and proper reasoning leads to improper conclusions. As I have often said, "There can be no truths without proper facts and proper reasoning." I have also examined in my Chirp on “08/11/23 Proper Reasoning” that people have many reasons for what they think or believe, but they often do not have proper reasoning to arrive at the proper conclusions of their thinking and beliefs. In many of my Chirps and Articles, I mention proper reasoning as important to reach a proper conclusion.

To reason properly requires that you take "A Philosophical Approach" to your "Reasoning" and apply the Rules of Reasoning, as elucidated in the book Rules of Reason: Making and Evaluating Claims by Bo Bennett, Ph.D.. These rules succinctly summarize how to apply reason to assertions made by yourself and others. Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims or "strong" claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

While I have some issues with this book, the rules he outlines are important to analyze both your and others' claims. His rules of reason are:

1. Acknowledge the Limits of Your Knowledge Regarding the Claim.
   Understand that there is much you likely don’t know on the topic and realize that even sources that are frequently wrong are sometimes right.
2. Explore Your Biases Related to the Claim.
   Explore Your biases and realize that they might be affecting your judgment.
3. Isolate the Actual Claim
   Isolate the claim by finding out what is exactly meant by the claim. This will often uncover an implicit claim.
4. Clearly and Precisely Define Each Relevant Term.
   Words have multiple meanings, and people use them differently. Don’t guess the meaning if you have an opportunity to get clarification. Clearly and precisely define each relevant term in the claim.
5. Use Terms That Reflect the Scope of the Claim Accuracy.
   To avoid ambiguity, specify the scope of the claim. Use words like “all”, “none”, “a few”, “some”, and “many”. When possible, be even more specific by providing numbers or percentages.
6. Operationalize Terms When Possible.
   For terms that can be measured, ask how they can be measured so the claim can be investigated using one or more reasonable standards.
7. Make the Claim Falsifiable When Possible.
   Do your best to modify the claim so that it is possible to be demonstrated to be false. Otherwise, it will likely be a weak claim.
8. Express an Accurate and Meaningful Level of Confidence.
   Make sure claims reflect an accurate, clear, and meaningful level of confidence.
9. Covert Causes to Contributing Factors When Appropriate.
   Causality is a complex area that is virtually always better expressed in terms of causal factors than “the cause”, “the reason”, “the key”, or other terms that indicate a binary distinction.
10. Make Strong Analogies and Call Out Weak Ones.
    Analogies are claims that fall into the continuum from strong to weak. Stronger analogies are specific about how what is being compared is similar, and weaker analogies make claims of similarity where the differences are far greater.
11. Filter All Relevant Assumptions Through These Same Rules.
    Realize that claims often contain several other implied claims, many of which should also be run through the rules of reason.

In applying these rules of reason, you will be better able to adjudge the veracity of your own and others' claims and make a judgment on the truthfulness of a claim. The more you apply these rules of reason to a claim, the more you will realize the nonsense of many claims, and the better you will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff of the myriad of claims that surrounds us.

As such, the burden of proof and rules of reasoning are essential for a society to function properly. To not insist on following the burden of proof and rules of reasoning allows for confusion and improper conclusions to be propagated throughout our society. Such improper conclusions, when implemented as policy, can lead to negative and unintended consequences to the detriment of America and Americans.