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.
