Q&A: The Burden of Proof Lies with the Claimant
The Burden of Proof Lies with the Claimant
Question
Hello,
From what I understand, every claim about reality is based on some axiom, some foundational assumption. But if we really need to doubt everything, why not doubt even the foundational assumptions? For example, who says our senses are reliable? Maybe the whole world we see is not real. Or alternatively, who says the way we draw conclusions is correct at all? Maybe all of our logic is fundamentally mistaken from the outset?
Put a bit differently, my question is how the rule “the burden of proof lies with the claimant” is supposed to work. When do I need to prove that something is true, and until it is proven otherwise remain with my position? And when do I need to prove that something is not true, and until it is proven otherwise remain with my position?
Is it correct to say that with regard to axioms, one must prove that they are not correct, and until proven otherwise they are correct, whereas with regard to everything else, one must prove that they are indeed correct?
Sorry for the length, and thanks in advance.
Answer
I’ve written several times that it is impossible to answer a skeptic. So each person has to examine whether he really is a skeptic or not. Someone who is not a skeptic assumes that the intuitions that lead him to his axioms are correct unless and until he is persuaded otherwise.
Discussion on Answer
No. Just that he should check very, very carefully whether he really does tend in that direction. For example, in everyday situations: when you ask someone what time it is, do you doubt that he might be lying to you? If there’s a street sign, do you doubt that the information is false?
David, why do you think that what you think now is based on what you thought a few minutes ago?
That your immediate memory is correct?
Do you have any advice for a person who tends toward skepticism?