Tutorial: The Burden of Proof.
Jan. 13th, 2012 12:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Since it came up lately, I thought I'd take an opportunity to explain the burden of proof. Though I doubt any of my regular readers will need it.
The burden of proof refers to whose job it is to prove something when a claim is made. Some say it's on the person making the claim to prove what they are saying is right. Others say it is up to the person hearing the claim to "prove them wrong".
To demonstrate which is correct, here is an example.
"You owe me ten thousand dollars. Pay up."
Is it up to hypothetical-me to prove hypothetical-you has a $10,000 debt, or up to hypothetical-you to prove the claim false and that there is no $10,000 debt?
Obviously the former.
Now this comes up in political and religious debates all the time, with articles of faith like "trickle down economics" and so on. But the same rule applies, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.
Case in point, this oft-repeated conversation.
"Obama is a muslim!"
"Wow, really? Prove it."
"No, prove me wrong."
And the matching one about his frequently shown birth certificate.
Or the religious version:
"All my beliefs are true, all yours are false".
"How insulting. Prove it."
"You can't prove my god doesn't exist"
"I don't have to, and you can't prove my god doesn't exist"
*cue the holy war*
Or the similar version vs atheists.
What inspired this exploration of supporting our claims if we want to convince others? You guessed it, exposure to Glen Beck and his completely unsubstantiated historical revisionism and alternative version of reality.
Thanks for listening.
Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 03:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 03:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 04:10 am (UTC)Evidence to Disprove: If Obama was a Muslim why on Earth would he have been a regular at Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church in Christ (a Christian megachurch) from 1984 to 2008. You may recall his attendance with the church was called into question because Wright was a controversial firebrand preacher during those years. Common sense would dictate that a Muslim would not be a congregant of a Christian megachurch for close to 24 years.
Evidence to Prove: According to soem interpretations of the Koran, if a single parent is Muslim, then the children are Muslim too (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, number 6426). His father was born Muslim, and some would consider the linage good enough to render him a Muslim even if his father committed ridda/aposty twice; once to become a Catholic (this was also before he met and married Stanely Ann Dunham), second to become an atheist.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 04:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 04:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 04:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 04:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 09:48 am (UTC)No, it's not. Prove me wrong! ;)
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 10:18 am (UTC)Which means, time to give me my $10,000. Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 05:19 pm (UTC)He's a fabric?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-13 07:52 pm (UTC)That reminds me of the various "hail satin" incidents, some were incompetent wannabe satanists (extra incompetent because satanists don't hail Satan at all) and some were people trying to make their church look persecuted but didn't want to write hail Satan so deliberately misspelt it. Both as daft as each other.
Actually no, the fail-satanists would be dafter come to think of it.