Burdens of Proof
by Joseph Rowlands
A lot of debates revolve around where the burden of proof lies. Which side needs to prove their point, and does the other side simply get to argue against that point, or do they have to prove their own position? A common example is found in discussions of the existence of god. The atheists rightly claim that the burden of proof is on the believers, since they are making the assertion. Some theists mistakenly believe that the burden is on the atheists, since they are "asserting" that god does not exist.
Why would each side like to be the winner in this particular debate? It's because the winner doesn't need to make a case for their own position. They can simply show that the other side's position is unwarranted, and their side wins by default. If the theist could somehow saddle the burden of proof onto the atheist, he could avoid having to come up with any evidence or arguments for the existence of a god. And on top of that, the atheist would be stuck trying to prove that a position with no supporting evidence, the existence of a god, can't possibly be true.
So who has the burden of proof, and why? The burden of proof rests on the side making an assertion about the world. In the religious debate, one side is saying that there is some kind of god. The other side is arguing that the assertion of a god is not justified. The burden rests on the religious because they are making a statement they claim is a valid identification of reality. The atheist does not need to prove that a god is impossible. He only needs to show that the religious assertion is not justified.
The burden of proof always rests on those making an assertion about the world. The justification for this burden is that statements about reality must be based on reason and evidence. This is not simply a requirement in debates. It's actually an epistemological requirement for correct reasoning. Even if we're simply thinking about things on our own, we must satisfy this requirement. We must provide justification for statements about the world. The burden of proof is just a restatement of the fact that an assertion must be backed up with reasons.
Another way to state the same thing is that you need reasons to believe something is true. It would be a violation of reason to simply accept something without any evidence. You would be practicing faith, not reason. You don't get to decide that it's true just because you have no argument ruling it out as impossible. It's for this reason that making an assertion requires reasons to back it up. In a debate, we just use the same epistemological standards. If one side wants to make an assertion, they're required to back it up. The other side of the debate, which challenges the validity of the assertion, wins by default. Since we don't accept assertions as true without proper justification, the default position is to not accept the assertion as true.
Consider the issue of taxation, the coercive taking of property from some people and transferring it to the government. There are people who disagree on whether a fully free society would allow taxation.
On one side you have those who say it would not be acceptable. Taxation is a form of theft. Theft is concept based on the idea of property rights, which exist in the wider concept of rights. Our rights are based on our requirements for living. We know that we need the product of our labor to survive. We know that we need to use our property in conjunction with our reasoning minds to pursue our lives. We know that when someone takes away our property, they are violating the conditions necessary for our survival. We call it theft. Is taxation a form of theft? Yes. It violates those same conditions in the same way. Every reason that theft is wrong applies to taxation. The position that taxation is a form of theft, and thus incompatible with a fully free society, has a strong foundation in reason.
On the opposite side is the position that taxation might not actually be a form of theft. The argument goes that if taxation is necessary to accomplish some purpose that's absolutely required by life, then it just appears to be theft. Sure, it would forcibly transfer wealth from one party to another, leaving the source of the wealth with a reduced ability to survive. But if there was no chance of survival without the taxation, then it would be the lesser of two evils.
And here's where the burden of proof steps in. To make this argument, those who assert the validity of this point are required to actually provide evidence that taxation would be necessary. If they can only show that it is convenient, or that they can't think of any alternative off the top of their heads, or they don't think other alternatives will work as well, then they fail. They're left with acknowledging that taxation is still theft, but that they support it anyway. And they're left with the contradiction of claiming that organized and systematic theft is compatible with a fully free society. Those arguing taxation would still be theft and thus incompatible with a free society win by default unless the pro-taxation side can justify their assertion.
The burden of proof must be on those making an assertion. It's irrational to try to claim that an assertion about reality, without any justification, is ever true. Sometimes this gets clouded by the fact that some arguments are over which of two theories is right. When that happens, we have to be careful to acknowledge that both maintain the burden of proof, and that neither wins by default.
Take the example of the intelligent design debate. Much of the debate revolves around finding holes in the science of evolution. The debate is often waged as if finding a problem with some non-essential part of the overall theory would prove that Darwinism has failed, and that the only alternative is intelligent design. But notice the tactic. They presume that intelligent design is the default winner. They're making an assertion about reality, and trying to avoid the burden required to prove it. Since the evolutionists also are making an assertion, they have their own burden, which they have met many times over. But even if they failed to meet their burden, it would not in any way support an intelligent design theory.
Understanding the burden of proof is necessary for any kind of debate to progress in a rational manner. But it's more important than that. It's a recognition of a fundamental epistemological principle. If we are going to make statements about reality, they need to be proven through the use of reason and the evidence we gather.
Discuss this Article (15 messages)
|
