Home For Fiction – Blog

In philosophy, the burden of proof refers to the obligation of someone to provide evidence for an argument. In simple terms, when you and I have a philosophical disagreement, the burden of proof dictates whether it’s me or you who has to prove their position.

Now, this might sound a bit odd. “Surely”, you might say, “we both need to prove our point, isn’t that how philosophy works?”

Not quite.

Recall the post on the only game in town fallacy. If our philosophical argument is whether there are invisible, undetectable pink unicorns flying over the house (as, let’s assume, you might argue), it makes a heck of a difference whether it’s you who has to prove there are or me who has to prove there aren’t.

The burden of proof is basically the philosophical rules of engagement. The burden of proof decides who has to prove what in such arguments. Of course, as it becomes apparent, things get complex (and ugly) quickly, because there is often disagreement as to who has the burden of proof.

The Burden of Proof as Philosophical Rules of Engagement

Philosophy, in its ideal form, is to seek the truth. In order for this truth to emerge during an argument, certain rules have to be observed.

Of course, in realistic, non-ideal contexts, people are less interested in the truth and more interested in arguing for the truth. In other words, people often want to be right, not to learn. That’s why there are so many fallacies out there.

Accidental Versus Deliberate Fallacies

Sometimes a fallacy can be innocent, in the sense that the person committing it doesn’t do it deliberately. That is, the person might argue their position poorly, committing a fallacy, out of ignorance. The bandwagon fallacy could be an example.

On the other hand, there are clear cases where a person knowingly commits a fallacy in order to improve their argumentative position. Ad hominem attacks, such as the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, are a good example.

We need philosophical rules of engagement to be able to clearly indicate whether one’s argument gets us closer to the truth or further away from it.

Why Deciding on the Burden of Proof Is Important

Let’s get back to the unicorn example. It can help us better visualize the dynamics involved.

You put forward the following argument: “I argue there are invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable pink unicorns flying over our heads all the time.”

I disagree, and argue that no, there is no such thing.

In order to get to the truth of the matter (are there such creatures or not) we need to establish who needs to prove their position. Do I need to prove that there aren’t, or do you need to prove that there are?

This case is pretty self-evident. It goes without saying that the person putting forward the argument for the existence of such creatures (“you”, in the example) needs to provide evidence. How could one (“I”, in the example) prove that something doesn’t exist?

Consider the following example, similar to the one above.

Person A: I argue there are black elephants hidden in some clouds.
Person B: I argue that there aren’t.

Now, do this: Substitute black elephants with absolutely anything you want: silver rocks, azure cats, or green sparrows. Would person B need to take every possible suggestion put forward and prove they do not exist? That would be ludicrous.

Falsifiability: from Azure Cats to Black Swans

A perceptive reader here would suggest taking a look – say, using binoculars from a helicopter. Surely, that would settle the matter, right? It would, but only if we saw black elephants (or azure cats, or whatever we were looking for).

In other words, taking a look implies an attempt to prove by presence. If we saw a black elephant there, the matter would have been settled and person A would have won the argument.

However, this clearly indicates the burden of proof must be placed on person A. Otherwise, if no elephants were seen, person B could not claim victory, as person A would offer some ad hoc explanation. For instance, they could claim there were no elephants in that cloud, but there were in others. Would, then, person B be obliged to visit every single cloud in the atmosphere to prove that there weren’t any elephants hidden there?

The importance of this lies in understanding something I would refer to as a “default position”. We could conceive of this default position as an assumption we currently share about truth and the world – based on past observations, intuition, etc.

It is a default position that there are no black elephants hiding in clouds. “All swans are white” used to be a default position, until actual black swans were observed. Today, the existence of black (and white) swans is a default position because scientific observation has proved they exist.

“All swans are white” is a falsifiable proposition. Seeing a single non-white swan is enough to settle the matter – the way seeing a single elephant in a cloud would also be enough.

But we need to be careful.

Falsifiability is Helpful, if You Know how to Play with It

The proposition “There are no elephants in any clouds” is falsifiable for the reasons we saw just above. Seeing a single elephant in any given cloud would falsify the proposition.

Now, consider the proposition “There are elephants in some clouds”. This proposition is not falsifiable. As I explained further above, all kinds of ad hoc explanations would be given. “There were no elephants in this cloud, but there are in others”.

Back to the swans, we saw how the statement “All swans are white” is falsifiable. But how about “In some areas, there are only white swans”? Unless we specified the area (say, “In this lake, at the present moment, there are only white swans on the surface of the water”), it’s impossible to go about falsifying it.

What It All Means

All this links back to the burden of proof. In simple words, whenever you claim something away from the default position, you need to provide evidence. You have the burden of proof.

Moreover, in order for the argument to be solid, it must be presented in a properly falsifiable way. If you argue that there are undetectable unicorns over the house, it is impossible for me to prove that there aren’t.

Of course, things are never easy. There are complications. The most typical problem is when people disagree about who has the burden of proof. Even without any bad intentions involved – that is, even when people genuinely try to discover the truth – the placement of the burden of proof is not as clear-cut as in the examples we saw. The situation only gets more complicated when the other party puts ideology rather than facts first.

It’s really difficult to wake up someone who pretends to be asleep!