Burden of proof

"The burden of proof lies with the one who asserts, not the one who denies."
- Latin legal maxim, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Overview

The burden of proof is the obligation to provide sufficient evidence or argument for a claim. It rests with the person making the claim, not with the person who declines to accept it. Declining a claim for lack of evidence is not itself a claim and carries no burden of its own.

The principle matters because without it any assertion would stand until disproved, and there are infinitely many assertions. "There is a teapot orbiting the Sun" does not become reasonable because nobody has checked (Russell's Teapot).

Notes

• "I do not believe your claim" and "I know your claim is false" are different statements. Only the second carries a burden. This is the distinction between atheism and hard atheism.
• A common move is to try to shift the burden: "prove there is no god", "prove the landings were not faked". The correct response is to decline. See the Appeal to Ignorance, which is the fallacy of treating an unmet burden as if it were evidence for the opposite conclusion.
• How much evidence discharges the burden depends on the claim. Ordinary claims need ordinary evidence; extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence (Sagan Standard). A claim asserted with no evidence at all may be dismissed with none (Hitchens' Razor).
• Where both parties make positive claims, both carry a burden. "The universe had a cause" and "the universe is eternal" are both assertions.

Also see

• Hitchens' Razor
• Sagan Standard
• Russell's Teapot
• Appeal to Ignorance
• My Presuppositions

#evidence #Razor