Talk:Burden of proof (philosophy)

Removed false statement about constructivism/intuitionism.

The article recently read thus.

In mathematics and logic, a "proof of a negative" often takes the form of a proof by contradiction. To prove that some object or thing does not exist, one first assumes the contrary, i.e. that it does exist, and then proves that this assumption leads to a contradiction[citation needed]. By the Law of excluded middle, the assumption must be false, hence the object or thing does exist. The Intuitionist and Constructivist schools of thought disallow some of these arguments, known as non-constructive proofs.

I removed the final sentence, because it isn't true. Intuitionism and Constructivism allow one to conclude NOT (Ex)Px whenever (Ex)Px entails a contradiction. Whoever added this was presumably thinking about the fact that once cannot conclude (Ex)Px when NOT (Ex)Px entails a contradiction.

I'm not sure why the "citation needed" tag is there. Whoever added it seems to require a citation for a very basic example of indirect argument. Phiwum (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is essentially a rationalwiki page

For as long as it talk of Matt Dillahunty and "cant prove a negative" and other such nonsense. Cake (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that the specific Matt Dillahunty example is not necessary, a situational example of applying burden of proof is valuable. The original tone of the example was indeed biased but has been smoothed out by several contributors to fit the purpose of a meaningful and unbiased example. There are many misunderstandings and disagreements about how burden of proof works; hopefully we can continue crafting this article to the best form it can be. I reversed the deletion of the example. If we can reach a consensus about a more preferred example or a better way to rewrite the example we can move forward from there. Ephemerance (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a dreadful example by a nobody meant to beg the question. One is committed to saying the number is even if it isn't odd. There aren't misunderstandings or disagreements outside of youtube and fundamentalist churches spawning eventual youtube atheists. Changing it to "god exists" makes only more apparent this article is little more than a wing of their operation. This all stems from the utterly false assertion that one has no need to provide justification for atheism if he wants to argue for it, and that atheism is synonymous with agnosticism (an atheist does not suspend judgment). In the Dillahunty (why do we care what he says) example, he uses that and a hamfisted empiricism to demand a debate arguing pro or con is the same as voting not guilty or guilty (I guess truth isn't binary in Scotland). He also says DeMorgan's Laws are false and one cannot move a negation around such as to say one who does not believe in any gods believes there are no gods. IMO, just say "we need an example" and remove it unless one is trying to confuse people. And as for see also, one wonders what this has to do with metaphysics. Cake (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Dillahunty is off kilter with some of his concepts about "lack of belief" and burden of proof. According to modern metacognition concepts about how the brain sorts through information, your mind is made of diametrically opposing elements that clash against each other; the balance between the opposing beliefs and thoughts determines whether we as a whole believe one way or another (or conversely, feeling entirely conflicted about the issue). There are four mental states that can be assumed: nonvalence, positive univalence, negative univalence, and ambivalence (also known as: apathy, believing yes, believing no, and mixed belief). Dillahunty loves to throw out modern cognitive science in favour of his own Tabula Rasa based thinking. Atheism, when defined as a "lack of belief," seems to just mean someone is overwhelmingly apathetic or skeptical about the issue. Dillahunty likes to arbitrarily discard lexicography in the fact that atheism has two connotations (apathy and believing "God does not exist"). Dillahunty tramples over cognitive science when he tries to conflate "not knowing" or having mixed feelings with atheism (i.e. apathy or believing "God does not exist"). Someone with mixed feelings is ambivalent and therefore in no way is "lacking belief."

Burden of proof is an entirely different animal than that of the question of mental attitude. Burden of proof is a social convention that only applies when 1) someone makes a claim, and 2) someone else disagrees. No one inherently has a burden of proof for anything. A theist doesn't have a burden of proof until something they are saying is challenged, and vice versa for an atheist. There are some circles of thought that prefer reductionism/parsimony/Ockham's razor over pluralism /epistemological pluralism, and through that try to argue that assuming something doesn't exist by default is the way to go. That itself is a claim and requires justification when proof is demanded. Saying we believe that someone is "not guilty until proven guilty" is a convention and not a rule; some reductionists forget that.

I completely feel you when you're griping about Dillahunty and the ridiculousness of some newage atheist internet movements (rationalwiki is absolutely terrible for their biases). If you look back at this article's history, you'll see how badly the Dillahunty example _was_ used to beg the question. I think the article could get away with erasing the reference to Dillahunty and just listing the question of two gumballs (or another better example). Ephemerance (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting point if I understand it. I am more into the philosophy than the science, natural or social; but yes if atheism were mere "lack of belief" one wonders how he could ever feel cognitive dissonance. For me, the issue is simpler, such as how when I assert "5 is a prime number" I am saying nothing about psychology, atheism is a proposition and says nothing about mental states. A "lack of belief" cannot be true or false. I fear this article was just a copypasta of a rational wiki article which one is now trying to force into a proper wiki article. Cake (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close, no rationale for the proposed move has been given. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Philosophic burden of proof → Burden of proof (philosophy) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.109.162.133 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 203.109.162.133 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does probability play any role?

I do not understand that probability does not play a role in this article. For example, if I said that the person writing this very sentence is human then the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I am human, and that not an alien or a robot is writing this? The probablity that the person who writes this is human is more than 99.9% to me, (as of 2017 because robots improve in the course of years). But still the burden of proof would be on me, because I make a claim, according to this article? This contradicts common sense to me. Andries (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that assigning probability to a statement depends on one's world view and in this particular case there may be people who believe strongly in aliens who will asssign the chance that an alien is writing this as 1% instead of 0.000001%. See e.g. UFO religion. Andries (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a bit of an unaddressed problem at the intersection of logic and probability: Logical inferences do not preserve probability ascriptions. For instance, given a sound a deductive argument, the probability of the conclusion is not a function of the probability of either of the two premises. Work on this issue gets very complicated, however, and far beyond the scope of a typical encyclopedia article on this subject. Approaching (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is not a typical encyclopedia and articles in this encyclopedia can be long and complicated if there are reliable sources and if there is a good summary. I could not learn anything new from this article in its current state even though I never studied philosophy. Andries (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It will take me a long time to get going with this issue. But I would like to when my current work is finished. For now, however, I think the page move listed in the previous section is apropos. Would you be willing to work with me to make that happen? Approaching (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Burden of proof (philosophy) is a better title. Andries (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Done! As for the issue of probability, if I link to a few possibly relevant articles, would you be interested in working through them? Approaching (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I could try but this week is the last week of the year when I still have quite a lot of time. Andries (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)