Reversal Of Burden Issue

This discusses the following pattern:

Person A: X is objectively better than Y

Person B: I am skeptical. I have not seen you present any evidence that X is better than Y.

Person A: In that case YOU prove that Y is better than or equal to X.

It is allegedly a misuse of burden rules for person A to turn the burden back on B. It is being compared to:

Person A: Santa exists.

Person B: I am skeptical that Santa exists. I have not seen you present any evidence that Santa exists.

Person A: In that case, you prove that Santa doesn't exist.

The above would, indeed, be an erroneous reversal of burden. However, the person writing this page intended it to apply where the pattern simply [allegedly] doesn't match. See SantaEverywhereFallacy.

(looking at it the opposite way)

Person A: Murder is wrong.

Person B: I am skeptical, I have not seen you provide evidence.

Person A: Then you prove the murder isn't wrong.

Neither A nor B have provided evidence to support their position, the only conclusion is that neither are right. Therefore neither is wrong. (Incorrect. See below.)

Technically, Person B's position doesn't need much support beyond his word (since he's only claiming to be skeptical and to "not have seen [Person A] provide evidence", whether or not Person A provided any). But, supposing Person B had made a stronger claim (e.g. "It's impossible to support a claim that Murder is wrong"), it would be a fallacy to conclude that "neither is right" or that "neither is wrong". The correct conclusion is that "neither claim is justified."

Sounds like a LaynesLaw debate of the definition of being right. In a practical sense, I think both A & B are just practicing MentalMasturbation, debating over preconceived notions where neither adds any actual information to the discussion.

The above is (very loosely speaking) a debate over morality. As to whether it is 'MentalMasturbation' depends on the decisions ultimately made based upon it. Person B might vote to legalize murder. Ain't nothing wrong with it, is there? Person A did wrongly attempt to shift burden-of-proof, as intended by the example, I see nothing in the three-line example that indicates LaynesLaw is in play at all, though the word 'wrong' was used with a distinct (non-moral) meaning in the post-example discussion..

I'd think, however, that a section entitled 'looking at it the opposite way' would provide an example more like:

Person B: I don't believe Murder is wrong.

Person A: Oh! Then prove it is not wrong!

Technically, person B is only obligated (by 'burden of proof') to prove that he doesn't believe "Murder is wrong". That is all he claimed. He doesn't need to prove that Murder isn't wrong. (And he doesn't need to even believe that Murder is 'not wrong'. Person B could later say: "I have no opinion about the rightness or wrongness of murder", and it would be consistent with his earlier statement.)

Of course, if Person B wants to be lazy, the way to go is:

Person A: Murder is wrong.

Person B: Why?

So many debates seem to turn into a MetaDebate?, where the original debate is almost lost and it becomes a debate over what is valid debating techniques.

That's because some people feel it okay to use invalid or misleading reasoning to support their positions or at least do so unwittingly. If you simply accept invalid reasoning without challenging it, you're basically allowing the other person to win every argument and still be wrong... and you'll follow said person directly into the darkness. If you reject invalid reasoning and challenge it, and the other person doesn't wish to hear it, you end up in a MetaDebate?. If you don't accept invalid reason, but don't challenge it, and do continue the debate, you simply delay the inevitable: you'll later end up in a situation where the other debater assumes you've accepted as fact something that you have not, at which point a MetaDebate? will occur. (Further, you would also be at fault for implying acceptance where you have not, and the error would now be a significant digression.) If you ask for further clarification, it's my experience that you'll almost certainly just get more fallacy (whether it's due to ignorance or sophistry, people that use invalid reasoning tend to continue doing so when asked to defend or expand upon their invalid reasoning). Really, the only way to avoid a MetaDebate? is to either smile and nod and avoid further debate when someone says something unreasonable, or to accept it at face value.

The MetaDiscussion? might help in case of ignorance, but not in case of sophistry at work. In that case subversive thinking is needed. See the reference at the bottom of DogmaticFallacy.

Consider this as a position:

The requirement of B that A prove what is believed, is an imposition of an unnecessary burden upon A. That B does not believe as A does, is not a problem for A, but it seems to distress B, who must have proof. What B fails to understand is that for A, beliefs may have as their main component that they are based upon faith, hope and charity.

A realizes a belief, B does not share it. A is secure in a belief, B questions it. Those who believe do so for personal convenience, not as a place to begin to make others believe as well. A allows for views which may oppose or which do not support the belief. A appreciates differences, B may not allow personal views which do not pass a proof test.

A might make this response: "That's the way I see it, I will leave it to you, to provide any required support for how you see it."

Person A doesn't need to make any significant effort to prove he believes something he has stated he believes. "If you can't take me at my word that I believe X based on my statement that 'I believe X', how would you believe any description of my belief-structures that lead me to believe X?" But Person B is very rarely interested in proof that Person A actually believes Murder is wrong. In practice, Person B is usually interested in either (a) changing Person A's mind, (b) deciding upon whether Person B should believe the same, or (c) trolling.

Debates most often occur when the "I believe" is left off. Sometimes it is implied, but "Murder is always wrong" can easily be read as an absolute statement, not as "I believe that Murder is always wrong" - which doesn't say anything about Murder except that somebody in particular believes it is wrong. Reason-based acceptance of "I believe that Murder is wrong" has an entirely different set of proof requirements than does reason-based acceptance of "Murder is wrong."

And this may be a little naive: "Those who believe do so for personal convenience, not as a place to begin to make others believe as well." Motivation for belief, I think, is somewhat more complicated in reality. Children, for example, often believe what they are told to believe, sometimes at great inconvenience to themselves. And people who state their beliefs aren't always honest about it; charlatans exist aplenty. And in reality, "[Person A] allows for views which may oppose or which do not support the belief. [Person A] appreciates differences," seems rather optimistic about human nature. Some people vehemently believe "Thou shalt not kill" and will murder you in your sleep if you violate it. HolyWar erupts all the time between people who hold different beliefs, especially between those who have no standards of reason for that which they believe. Scientists would just be a bunch of cult-philosophers at each other's throats about what is 'truth' if they didn't have a standard when it comes time to "prove it". And burden-of-proof is among those standards.

While some may "believe" that there are charlatans, and dishonesty such that it is doubtful that one can have views which are honest and which allow for differences and diversity of opinion to exist and that there are those who apply personal beliefs personally, and do not place the burden of believing or behaving in the same way, (or they will violate their beliefs and behave in such a way as to ("murder you in your sleep")). I know many such honest and sincere individuals do exist and count myself fortunate to have such as friends. I also seek and establish friendships and PositiveDialogue with those who have contrary beliefs and behaviors. This is a GoodThing. -- DonaldNoyes

Oh, certainly! I never meant to imply that such people don't exist. What you state now, though, is only true of "Some who believe". Some who believe do so because they were told to believe. Some who believe do so because they've a faith developed in maturity. Some who believe do so because they possess evidence. Some who believe do so because they wish it to be true. The crux of my statement above is that motivation for belief is considerably more complicated than you implied, and behavior involving acceptance of contrary views is considerably more varied than you described. Seeking friendships and PositiveDialogue is in many ways admirable, especially if you can continue doing so after getting burned.

NovemberZeroSeven

CategoryEvidence, CategoryCommunication