Burden of Proof (was: A note to the exorcists)

[Ken Hanly]

The fallacy you refer to is called The Burden of Proof. It has nothing
specifically to do with proving a  negative  and makes no reference to any
special difficulty in doing that. In the list there is nothing that refers
to some fallacy associated with proving a negative. As Yoshie pointed out it
may be that some conspiracy theories appeal to ignorance but that has
nothing specifically to do with proving a negative. By the way I taught
common fallacies for many years.  I know about the most common ones,
although I can't remember the burden of proof fallacy. I find it a rather
contentious fallacy since there can always be debate about which "side"
requires the burden of proof. It could very well be used to justify any
critique of an established but unsupported position against critics. Many of
the fallacies are contentious including ad hominem (sic) should be ad
personam I guess but I am not sure that feminists object.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the
wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is
taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof
actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.
This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on
side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This
side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the
other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be
true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining
which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling
this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden
of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is
assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on
the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is
placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden
of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic
powers, universals, and sense data).

----- Original Message -----
From: "John K. Taber" <jktaber at tacni.net>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: Burden of Proof (was: A note to the exorcists)


> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org> wrote:
>
> > Uh, Ken, the issue of the difficulty in proving a negative in
> > logic is not
> > something I came up with in a dream. It is a common idea.
> > Been around for, oh,
> > centuries. You can check this out by using any major search
> > engine and typing in
> > terms like "proving" "negative" and "fallacy" etc.
>
> [snip]
>
> Some time ago Louis Proyect put me on to this site:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
>
> It's pretty inclusive of the logical fallacies. In particular,
> look at no. 19 "Burden of Proof."
>
> As Chip says, this isn't anything dreamed up recently. I'd
> guess it goes back to the ancient Greeks who more or less
> codified logical argument.
>
> I recommend dipping into the various examples from time to
> time.
>
> --
> John K. Taber