Q&A: Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof
Question
Hello,
Is the following claim correct:
When there is doubt between two claims, and one claim asserts something sweeping while the second claim asserts something that is sometimes so and sometimes otherwise, the burden of proof falls on the second one because it is making an “inconsistent” claim (absent additional considerations). For example:
In the debate between determinism and libertarianism, the determinist argues that all our actions are predetermined and that there is no free choice at all. By contrast, the libertarian “admits part of it,” agreeing that there are actions a person performs that are deterministic, but says that there are also free actions. For that reason, a priori, before getting into the substance of the discussion, the burden of proof is on the libertarian, who is making a claim that is to some extent inconsistent.
Another example: postmodernism argues that all our tendencies are purely the result of social construction, and that there is no tendency that stems from personality itself. Those who disagree, by contrast, admit that there are such tendencies (for example, a boy’s attraction to cars and a girl’s attraction to dolls, for the sake of example), but say that there are also tendencies that are not like that (for example, men’s tendency toward combativeness and women’s tendency toward gentleness, again for the sake of example). Here the anti-postmodernist is making an inconsistent claim and must bring proof.
I do not mean for you to answer the examples themselves (as far as I know, your view on both is known and well publicized), but only this specific claim.
I argued with a friend who made this claim, and I argued the opposite: on the contrary, if anything, the one making the sweeping claim with no exceptions should have to bring proof. Is he right, am I right, or are we both wrong?
Another point is that a sweeping claim is much harder to prove (you would need to go over all human actions to prove determinism, and likewise go over all human tendencies to prove the postmodern claim mentioned above). Does that carry any weight in the theory of argumentation—that if we place the burden of proof on one side, it will probably not be able to prove its claim?
Thank you
Answer
Good question, and I don’t think there is a general answer to it. As a rule, a uniform and general explanation is simpler (for example, I explained in several places the common denominator that way). But it can depend on the context. In a scientific context and in the context of laws of nature, it is more reasonable to accept a general explanation without exceptions, because experience shows that the laws of nature are uniform and simple as opposed to the alternatives. But in a place where causality is not relevant (as in the example of postmodernism), then perhaps not. However, in the postmodernism example, we also know that both influences exist, so there is no problem with the claim that both are present. There I would say that whoever claims that everything is social construction or that everything is internal bears the burden of proof, because that is less plausible.
From this reason, this discussion is not really practical. That is because in almost all cases there are additional considerations and additional relevant knowledge that affect the starting point and the comparison between the two possibilities (as I showed in the postmodernism example).
Your final consideration is methodological, but it has no connection to the question of truth. Sometimes it makes sense to place the burden of proof on one side because it is easier for that side to prove, even though the truth is not necessarily with the other side. We find this also in Jewish law, for example in the laws of bailees, where an oath is imposed on the bailee because the depositor cannot know what happened there.
Thank you very much