BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof [1] plays a fundamental role in argumentation. It is a conservative principle of action in general, like the principle of inertia in physics: “I carry on as before, unless I have a good reason to change”.

Mill tells an anecdote that vividly illustrates the heavy burden of proof that a conservative society imposed on social innovators, see calm.

The propounder of a new truth, according to this doctrine should stand, as stood, in the legislation of the Locrians, the proposer of a new law, with a halter round his neck, to be instantly tightened if the public assembly did not, on hearing his reasons, then and there adopt his proposition. People who defend this mode of treating benefactors, cannot be supposed to set much value on the benefit; and I believe this view of the subject is mostly confined to the sort of persons who think that new truths may have been desirable once, but that we have had enough of them now. ([1859]. p. 88)

In a court of law, the burden of proof is expressed in the presumption of innocence “a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty”; that is, the accusation must provide positive evidence of the guilt of the accused. The stabilization of the burden of proof is an institutional decision that organizes the situation; the last word is left to the accused.

In informal social debates, there is no clear preliminary agreement on who supports the burden of proof, and the proponent can try to shift it to the opponent. ​​It becomes a stake in the debate.

The doxa can be defined according to the same principle: an endoxon, i.e. an element of the doxa, is best defined not as a “probable” belief, but as a belief that does not support the burden of proof, and is, therefore, considered to be “normal” by the given group. The individual who challenges an accepted proposition bears the burden of proof, and must provide good reasons. This is why Descartes, ready to reject all his previously established beliefs, must support this radical doubt with the hypothesis of the Evil Genius (Descartes [1641], First Meditation). S. Rules.

When it comes to current trends and fashions, the burden of proof is reversed: “it(s new, it just came out!” is a direct argument for buying the product in question. On the contray, good reasons are needed not to follow fashion, not to adopt new theories, and not to vot for the emerging candidate.

Burden of proof and initiative

Hamblin has redefined the burden of proof in a language game as being on the player who takes the initiative, i.e. makes the first move. This definition can be applied to highly argumentative multi-speaker interactions, where the first turn of speech is usually assigned to the person who supports the proposal under discussion. In a debate on the legalisation of drugs, the facilitator will ask the first question to a supporter of legalization, not to an opponent.

The burden of proof is on a question and a proposal. If the opponent proposalmakes a counter-proposal, he will bear the corresponding burden of proof.

The burden of proof may vary depending on the group involved, and where the debate takes place. If the doxa of the group is that there should be no prohibition of drug use, then, in this group, the supporter of the prohibition will have to justify his position.

[1] Latin onus probandi; Lat. onus “charge, burden”; probandi, from probare “to make believable, to make accept, to prove”.