The Burden of Proof

Down yonder, I wrote:

I say the burden of proof is on them because I don’t believe the
claim (I think it’s a myth), and the burden of proof is always on the
person you disagree with.

Following, which a reader wrote:

Jimmy,

You wrote:

"the burden of proof is always on the person you disagree with."

Which struck me as being, well, simply wrong: if it were true, then
in every disagreement (where both sides disagree with each other), both
sides would have the burden of proof. So what did you mean?

And another reader wrote:

Jimmy, I think you might be being facetious here. But the real
reason the burden of proof is on them, of course, is that they are
making an accusation that the pope conspired with an industry and
established binding laws of multitudes of Catholics in order to
financially benefit that industry. The burden of proof is always on the
people making an assertion of fact!

If someone accuses me of conspiring, the burden of proof better be
on them! If not, I’ll have to materialize some sort of proof that I
*didn’t conspire*! In most cases that wouldn’t even be possible.

Sorry, guys.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant . . .

YOU SHOULDER THE  BURDEN, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

. . . if you’re trying to convince someone who disagrees with you. The nature of the claim doesn’t matter.

Kudos to the reader who took up and defended the proposition I was advancing!

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

6 thoughts on “The Burden of Proof”

  1. Jimmy,
    Thanks for the link, I’ll mull it over. 🙂
    At this point though, I think you are disagreeing with yourself. Here’s an example of what I mean:
    Suppose you’re an atheist. You’re trying to convince me that God doesn’t exist. You’re trying to do the convincing, so, as you’ve stated, you (the atheist) shoulder the burden of proof.
    Now noone is trying to convince you (the atheist) of anything, but “the person you disagree with” (me) would, by your original claim, bear the burden of proof. (??)

  2. Suppose person A is an atheist and person B is a theist.
    If A wishes to convince B that God does *not* exist then *A* shoulders the burden of proof to show this to B.
    If B wishes to convince A that God *does* exist then *B* shoulders the burden of proof to show this to A.
    If A and B each wish to convince the other of their position, they both shoulder the burden of proof with respect to the other.
    If neither A nor B wishes to convince the other of their position, neither shoulders the burden of proof.
    The burden of proof is a requirement of human psychology to overcome the inertia that keeps us believing what we have already decided to believe or what C. S. Lewis called “obstinacy in belief” (see his essay of the same title).

  3. I guess we were speaking of different things. I (the second reader) wanted to emphasize that in many arguments there is clearly one side that requires proof, whereas the other is a default position. Reasonable people often agree on this! For example, a physicist proposes a minor correction to a current model of quantum gravity. He and nearly all physicists with doctoral degrees will agree: the burden of proof is on the person who wants to initiate a change in a model developed from previous data. Second example: I believe X comitted murder in the State of New York, and I am a D.A. for that state charged with the case. It is objectively true that within the legal system, the burden of proof falls on my team.
    So I still agree with you Jimmy that practically, when the second party is not interested in the discussion (or is obstinate in his view), then the “burden of proof” does fall on the first person who wishes to convince the second. But this does not mean that reasonably and objectively, he needs proof to justify his position! I think I am perfectly reasonable to believe the pope didn’t ban meat on Fridays to benefit the fishing industry, even though I have no proof. It would be stupid or wretched of me to believe he did do so, w/o proof. The accusation against the Pope in this case is *unreasonable* if there is no proof, hence why I said the burden of proof, fairly and logically, is on that person.
    Real life isn’t always fair, and real people aren’t always logical, granted.

  4. Jimmy,
    Thanks for the futher clarification. I see what you mean now.
    Do you see why I still have to disagree with your original claim? (that the burden is always assigned to the one you disagree with?) I’m not talking about the case where both sides are attempting to convince the other (this is a good distinction you’ve made).
    Suppose you walk into two people who are debating some point. You’ve been told that one of them is trying to convince the other of some claim (but you don’t know who is who). Your job is to decide who has the burden of proof. Can you find out by asking “okay, who disagrees with who?”

  5. If you’re not talking about cases where one person is trying to convince another, then yes, I do see why you disagreed. If nobody is trying to convince anybody then nobody carries a burden of proof because no proving is going on.

  6. I was talking about a third possibility, and a common one: two people of good will are trying to convince each other of their view. In such cases not all argument are equal, and the burden of proof will lie sometimes more heavily on the person making the more ambitious assertion.

Comments are closed.