The burden of proof

[stonehart]

I will be blunt at the start that this is not an outright dig at Religion from me.

It is a good look into critical thinking as these are the skills that all those who are interested in the paranormal field should have.

As the title implies
The burden of proof

This should always be foremost in our minds.

The series has a religious slant but the concept is the same for all supernatural claims and the positions discussed can be transposed onto any argument about the paranormal.

This is a web series by a UK artist and secular humanist (QualiaSoup) discussing critical thinking, science, philosophy and the natural world.
He discusses the following: Makers of supernatural claims have an inescapable burden of proof. Explaining the concept, refuting common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are sometimes ‘fervent’.
A look at some of the principles of critical thinking. Faith has no place demanding agreement or punishing disagreement.
A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don’t to be more open-minded. A brief look at the pointless exercise of telling people, rather than asking them, what they believe.
A poor understanding of probability leads many people to put forward supernatural explanation for events that are far more common than they think. A look at the pitfalls of arguing against science from incomprehension or emotion. A challenge to the claim that a belief in science requires equal faith to the belief in a god.

This has not been posted to spark a religious debate so do not go there please.
But instead a discussion on critical and rational thinking and why many chose not to use them and chose faith and belief instead would be very welcome.

 

[Muadib]

I believe your intentions in posting this were honorable, but I predict this will not go well.

 

[stonehart]

I believe your intentions in posting this were honorable, but I predict this will not go well.

Yeah I get the feeling you are right... But I stand by what I said this is about critical thinking and rational thinking not a religious debate.
Frankly if it turns into one I will ask the mods to lock the thread

 

[Muadib]

The thing about it is, the whole video was basically about debunking religion and shooting down supernatural arguments, which doesn't bother me in the slightest, but will probably irk some believers out there. I liked the way he illustrated how some people build their entire lives around beliefs that they can't prove, so when someone challenges that belief it's like their entire existence is being challenged.

 

[stonehart]

I liked the way he illustrated how some people build their entire lives around beliefs that they can't prove, so when someone challenges that belief it's like their entire existence is being challenged.

That was the reason that prompted me to post the video as I often see this in the paranormal field as well.
For the UFO areas etc to ever be taken seriously we need to challenge this as often as we can.

 

[pixelsmith]

My father and I were just discussing this subject last week when comparing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming believers to religious people. We think it is basically a new religion replacing an old religion. Both are based on faith and a belief system rather than facts and evidence.

 

[Wade]

Maybe I missed something in what was a well reasoned argument BUT if the burden of proof rested on the person making the claim, if someone made the claim that God or ufos didn't exist would that not mean it is up to them to up back that up? Or would having a number of viable alternative theories (possible schizophrenic episodes or under the influence of drugs ) which could cast doubt on a supernatural cause be enough to bolster the claim ?

 

[pixelsmith]

Maybe I missed something in what was a well reasoned argument BUT if the burden of proof rested on the person making the claim, if someone made the claim that God or ufos didn't exist would that not mean it is up to them to up back that up? Or would having a number of viable alternative theories (possible schizophrenic episodes or under the influence of drugs ) which could cast doubt on a supernatural cause be enough to bolster the claim ?

you missed the part where god/religion is man-made bullshit in the first place.

 

[trainedobserver]

Maybe I missed something in what was a well reasoned argument BUT if the burden of proof rested on the person making the claim, if someone made the claim that God or ufos didn't exist would that not mean it is up to them to up back that up?

Logic and reason can only be applied to things that exist. The burden of proof is not on proving the negative, "Bigfoot does not exist" but on the positive, "Bigfoot exists."

 

[Wade]

The one aspect of those videos I embrace wholeheartedly is that there is few black and white issues, my whole point of view on many things is filled with shades of grey and there is almost always more beneath the surface on most any issue and to that end I've always been open to a more exotic answer on many things even if there is no proof that it existed, so It seems I sort of perverted one of the tenants of critical thinking.

 

[Wade]

you missed the part where god/religion is man-made bullshit in the first place.

".. But I stand by what I said this is about critical thinking and rational thinking not a religious debate.
Frankly if it turns into one I will ask the mods to lock the thread "

QUICK , LOCK the G@D damned thread!!

 

[stonehart]

".. But I stand by what I said this is about critical thinking and rational thinking not a religious debate.
Frankly if it turns into one I will ask the mods to lock the thread "

QUICK , LOCK the G@D damned thread!!

lol no its not one yet and the comments here have been good.

As for the first question you made Spooky you can not argue a negative so there is no burden of proof on the person arguing against a claim that has no evidence to support it.

 

[stonehart]

An example of working the burden of proof:

You could say I believe in Big Foot and it exists ... This is a claim
As such you have now taken on the burden of proof to provide evidence for its existence.
Now lets say you have a blurry photo.... this is not substantial evidence enough to lift the burden of proof from you as more needs to be provided.
So let us say in time you are able to gather better photo evidence and foot casts, hair samples etc......
This still will not lift the burden of proof but shows that you are trying to meet the requirements of it.

As such even if you obtain all of these things as evidence you still do not have proof as what you have is a working hypothesis with evidence to support it, but the validity of that evidence must still be validated by others in pier-review.
In this review stage the evidence must be shown to be valid and testable.

If after the review the evidence still stands we have a working theory... as such the burden of proof is at the core of the scientific method from start to finish.

Note that the burden of proof never left the claim maker.

This is how the paranormal field must work if it is ever to be taken as a serious field of investigation.

 

[Wade]

Well I did agree with the opening salvo in that if I made a spurious claim and if questioned come back with "you can't prove that I'm wrong" is not grounds for a logical debate. I did not initially see the connection with the scenario I brought up, but yeah, either way you are still trying to prove a negative which is not doable. I know that the burden of proof reasoning falling on the claimant is part of russell bertrand's teapot theorem, but is the can't prove a negative argument a part of this analogy as well ?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Burden of proof can be manipulated by those with hidden agenda's
Ja Love

 

[stonehart]

Well I did agree with the opening salvo in that if I made a spurious claim and if questioned come back with "you can't prove that I'm wrong" is not grounds for a logical debate. I did not initially see the connection with the scenario I brought up, but yeah, either way you are still trying to prove a negative which is not doable. I know that the burden of proof reasoning falling on the claimant is part of russell bertrand's teapot theorem, but is the can't prove a negative argument a part of this analogy as well ?

Yes you could look at teapot theorem that way indeed.

 

[stonehart]

Burden of proof can be manipulated by those with hidden agenda's
Ja Love

yes sadly it can.

 

[exo_doc]

Burden of proof can be manipulated by those with hidden agenda's
Ja Love

That is where critical thinking skills must come into play. Agenda driven arguments in general fail critical analysis.

Critical thinking gets thrown out the window when someones life view, emotions, and self image are involved and threatened. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible to have a rational discussion with someone like that.

 

[nameless]

fricking scientologists

 

[trainedobserver]

Another reason the burden of proof rests on those making claims for the existence of something or another is that only THEY know what it is they are asserting the existence of that they want disproven! This could not be more true than when considering paranormal subjects like supernatural beings. The burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of largely undefined and unknown things and not the other way around. If person A approaches person B and says, "Prove that X [X is your favorite supernatural being or creature] does not exist!" The first order of business would be for person A to communicate what X was to B! B has no reason or obligation to mount an argument against the existence of something they know nothing about and quite possibly have not interest in.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the one making the assertion that something exists to be disproved in the first place.