Home | Join! | Help | Browse | Forums | NuWorld | NWF | PoPo   
Crowd Sourcing Logic
Wednesday. 10.8.14 11:39 am
Preface: I have no formal training in the art of logic and debate. I think I have a pretty excellent working knowledge of how to debate something but I don't know any of the formal rules or ideas behind it. Arguing with people is something I've long since gotten tired of. Now, I present to you my thoughts and impressions with the intent of getting your feedback. If you have a formal knowledge of all this, then I especially look forward to your feedback. I'm essentially asking you guys to teach me if what I'm thinking makes sense or if I'm just making it up.

So I was thinking about the concept of the burden of proof. I've never heard anyone really discussing what it means before, so my only experience is with people claiming that other people have the burden in a given discussion. It seems, from those discussions, that on whom the burden falls is something of an intuitive "common sense." When asked a related question, a friend of mine said, "Honestly it comes down to who is claiming the more ridiculous thing."

Now, that makes a little sense, but it seems ridiculous itself. How do you judge which claim is sillier? Wouldn't both people think the other person's claim is more ridiculous than their own, in most cases?

According to Wikipedia (kill me), the burden falls on anyone who is making a claim. If you make Claim A, and I say, "I don't think Claim A is true," then you have the burden. But if I respond with, "I believe that Claim A is false," then I've made a new Claim, and the burden shifts to me. There is a difference between disbelieving in a claim, and believing in the falsehood of the claim. I think many of you can appreciate this difference.

The difference comes from this (again, from Wikipedia): in a case where there are two possibilities, and no evidence has been put forth to believe in one or the other, one cannot logically favor one or the other, and must therefore suspend belief in both. A so-called default position. It is claims against this default position that hold the burden of proof. The example from Wikipedia is that of a gumball machine: is the number of gumballs even or odd? Until I have a reason to think one way or another, I can refuse to choose a logical position. If you claim that it's even, and I challenge that claim, then you have to put forth evidence. But if you say it's even, and I challenge by claiming instead that it's odd, then I have to put forth evidence.

This makes sense. I think involving the order that claims are made muddles things a bit, but essentially it means either claim will have the burden of proof.

This is where I diverge from what I've read and start playing around.

The gumball machine is a great example, and like all great examples it is over-simplistic. What if I have to make a decision based on the even/odd status of the gumballs? I could guess, which I think protects the tenuous "default position" that I've adopted, but I could also try to find evidence to support one claim or the other. Depending on how much I care, I could find a little or a lot of evidence, and come to the logical conclusion that either Claim A or B is correct.

In this situation, there is no "practical" default position (unless I'm being irresponsible and, I don't know, flipping a coin or something.) When I'm solving my gumball machine problem, whatever it is, I have to act like I believe in one of the claims, even if from a logical standpoint, I have little reason to do so. So, even though I would prefer to be agnostic about the number of gumballs, I can't.

This is the weakest point of my argument: if there's no practical agnostic position, we can't expect the burden of proof to behave the same way, can we? Who holds the burden in a situation where we have no way to act neutrally? From a purely logical standpoint, the way we act is completely beside the point, but this is the real world, and we have to marry logic and reality somewhere.

The way I see it, having the burden of proof means I am obligated to provide evidence to support my claim. Duh. And it also means you have no obligation to change your mind unless you find my evidence meets your standards. (And how we come up with these standards is a wholly different issue that I'll look into later.) If you can adopt the default position, you should stay there until a claim is sufficiently proven to you. But what if we're all forced to adopt one claim or another? Well, we could be irresponsible and flip a coin, but logically, we would be forced to seek evidence until we're comfortable adopting one claim or another.

Or I suppose we could just pick the one we like best.

So, what do you guys think? Have I made any major errors in my reasoning? Are my sources wrong (lol)? Is this something you've thought about before?
5 Comments.


i see "burden of proof" come up in legal matters more than debate, as debate is normally two opposing sides with opposite thought, usually where there is no solid proof one way or another. i normally think of debate as a moral argument. the gumball machine is a weird example to me, as (and you stated) there is no logical default position, and, as far as i'm concerned, no way to provide proof of even or odd gumballs without literally pulling them out of the machine and counting them.

burden of proof in the courtroom always falls to the prosecutor. i can see a debate between "there are an odd number of gumballs" vs. "there's no way you could possible know that", but not between odd and even.

sorry, this comment is long.
» thaitanic on 2014-10-12 09:44:36

You know, I've read this entry several times since you wrote it, but couldn't figure out what to say about it. I feel like I agree with thaitanic's take on the gumball machine example though. I can't think of any real life examples where this issue has come up, otherwise maybe I'd have more of an opinion on it...
» randomjunk on 2014-10-14 04:20:30

I never actually hang around frat boys, I just have kind of a stereotypical image in my mind. I think "jock" probably would have been a better term, but he was dressed in a specific style that "jock" seemed too broad for.
» randomjunk on 2014-10-21 07:37:42

I love it
Ha ha ha! I loved reading your blog. Very philosophical like why are some apples and red and others green?

I wish dialted where here.. I'm sure he would address the question, " Who holds the burden in a situation where we have no way to act neutrally". I would think that in this situation the burden would be shared by both parties or by everyone involved? im realy not sure since I did not need to take law or business law. :(
» KKama67 on 2014-10-29 04:23:24

Yeah, it just feels weird to me. I can't think of a reason for there to be continuity, so I feel more like it's an illusion than that there really is an essence external to the mind and body. No formal reason other than that.
» randomjunk on 2014-11-07 11:38:51

Sorry, you do not have permission to comment.

If you are a member, try logging in again or accessing this page here.

middaymoon's Weblog Site • NuTang.com

NuTang is the first web site to implement PPGY Technology. This page was generated in 0.238seconds.

  Send to a friend on AIM | Set as Homepage | Bookmark Home | NuTang Collage | Terms of Service & Privacy Policy | Link to Us | Monthly Top 10s
All content � Copyright 2003-2047 NuTang.com and respective members. Contact us at NuTang[AT]gmail.com.