“The Burden of Proof” — Not a burden, but a Responsibility to provide Support.

In any given social context, some claims can be asserted without argumentative support since they are considered settled and common knowledge, or it is appropriate to just take the speaker’s word for it.

Some assertions, however, need to be supported with reasoning. They carry a social obligation to provide supporting reasons.

This is commonly called “The Burden of Proof.” It’s not a burden so much as it is a Responsibility to Support a claim.

The Right to Believe

There may be ways to defend or justify the holding of a belief without using supporting evidence and, hence, not defending the belief itself as truthful.

Thus, the phrase “supporting a belief” is ambiguous.
—> It can refer to demonstrating the truthfulness of the content of the belief.
—> Alternatively, it can refer to justifying, legally, morally, or pragmatically, the holding of the belief:

Legal right: Freedom of thought and freedom of expression, the First Amendment
Pragmatic justification: short-term denial to protect mental health?
Social justification(?): mythology or folklore to enhance social cohesion?
a moral duty to have faith in someone close to you? (People in this situation tend to use the phase “believing in” someone, or some cause, etc.)
an existential imperative to take a stance on religious claims?

“Defending a belief” might refer to such justification of holding a belief in a given situation.

NOTE: Keep in mind that explaining why someone holds a belief does not automatically justify either the holding of the belief or the content of the belief. It might be just mindless conformism or bigotry, etc.

What “Support” means for Critical Thinking

Critical thinking focuses, however, on reasons supporting the content of a belief, reasons that should be indicative of truth for any reasonable person.

We will refer to this as “Supporting a claim (assertion).”

Possibility is Not Support

Demonstrating the mere possibility of a claim does not count as support for belief! Extreme beliefs, such as belief in conspiracy theories or paranormal phenomena, are often defended with nothing more than showing that they could possibly be true. This does not justify belief, since opposing claims are likewise possible.

Similarly, explanatory power of a theory (which conspiracy theorists often trumpet) does not by itself count as evidence of truth, since there are countless imaginable theories to adequately explain what we observe.

Recommended: Explaining the nature of conspiracy theories: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200522-what-we-can-learn-from-conspiracy-theories.

Recommended Videos:

Shifting the Burden

Watch out for people SHIFTING THE BURDEN of proof inappropriately! This is a common trick.

An exterminator claiming I have termites only because I can’t prove that I don’t is inappropriately putting the burden of proof on me, but I have no such responsibility!
A pilot claiming gremlins are real only because I can’t prove they aren’t is inappropriately shifting the burden of proof!
A believer in fortune telling saying, “You can’t prove that there’s no such thing” is inappropriately shifting the burden.

This is the FALLACY of APPEAL TO IGNORANCE. ‘Ignorance’ here does not mean stupidity; it refers to a lack of relevant information, as in, "I am completely ignorant as to the whereabouts of the suspect at the time of the robbery."
An appeal to ignorance is then an appeal to a lack of relevant information against your claim.Relevant information counts as evidence, so a lack of relevant information = a lack of evidence. This is the fallacy of arguing for a claim only by citing a lack of evidence.

There are times, however, when we can believe something, like “I don’t have termites,” just from a lack of evidence to the contrary if any such evidence would be apparent and we have been paying attention. The burden of proof is on the positive assertion that I have termites.

Ultimate Support

ULTIMATELY, all claims need support. It is generally irresponsible for intellectually mature individuals to believe something without some appropriate supporting reason.

But there is an important social skill for critical thinkers to correctly identify in a practical setting what sorts of claims carry a responsibility to communicate your support to your audience.

The type of support relevant to critical thinking is logical support from relevant evidence.

Logical Support comes from Evidence

WHAT IS EVIDENCE? Any fact that is logically relevant to a given claim counts as relevant evidence for or against. One of the central critical thinking values is RELEVANCE. A fact is logically relevant to a given claim if and only if that fact makes the claim more likely to be true, or makes the claim less likely to be true. We say that fact has some bearing on the truth of the claim.

Logically Relevant Supporting Information – A statement (A) is positively relevant to another statement (B) if and only if the truth of A increases the probability of B.

For example, (A) “Scott is a heavy smoker” increases the probability of (B) “Scott will get lung cancer.” Although (A) does not give high probability to (B), it increases the likelihood of (B).

Logically Relevant Negative Information – (A) is negatively relevant to (B) if and only if (A) decreases the probability of (B).

For example, (A) “Scott has no family history of lung cancer despite having many heavy smokers in his family history” decreases the probability of (B) “Scott will get lung cancer.”

Logically IRRELEVANT Considerations – (A) is logically irrelevant to (B) if and only if (A) has no influence on the probability of (B).

For example, “Scott is a heavy smoker” does not affect the probability of “Scott’s arguments for stronger penalties on drug users are no good.”

—> KEEP THE IRRELEVANCIES OUT! A central critical thinking skill is to leave all logically irrelevant considerations out of your arguments (thus valuing relevance). Logically irrelevant information can only function as SPIN!

—> TAKE ALL (available) RELEVANT INFORMATION IN! Critical thinkers must take into consideration all relevant evidence (as much as possible, thus valuing completeness), not just the relevant evidence that supports their position.

—> AVOID BIAS! Critical thinkers have to work hard to avoid confirmation bias, one sided thinking, or cherry-picking evidence, i. e., the tendency to consider only relevant evidence that supports your thesis and to ignore all the negative evidence that counts against your thesis.

—> FOLLOW HONESTLY WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS! Critical thinkers face honestly all the relevant evidence, including both the pros and the cons of a position, following wherever it logically leads them.

:-/

What Counts as “Proof?”

The phrase ‘burden of proof’ is possibly misleading with its reference to “proof.”

Sometimes ‘proof’ means absolute proof, beyond any possible doubt. This is the intended meaning of the term in mathematics and deductive logic.

Much more common usage refers to a very high level of support, but not absolute proof. We might demand proof beyond any reasonable doubt in very important matters. When less is at stake, we might be satisfied with a mere preponderance of the evidence.

When someone gives the kind of support relevant to critical thinking, it is expressed in a logical argument. (Not argument as in a fight, remember.)

The first thing to look for when trying to correctly identify when someone is giving this sort of support is, what sorts of claims carry the “burden of proof,” (a responsibility to support).

.

CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING WHAT CLAIMS CALL FOR ARGUMENTATIVE SUPPORT IN A TYPICAL SOCIAL CONTEXT DEPENDS ON HAVING SUFFICIENT SOCIAL/CULTURAL AWARENESS.

“Fact vs. Opinion”

It seems to be common in schools and in popular media to work with the (in)famous distinction, "FACT versus OPINION." The idea is that only opinions need argumentative support. Facts have been proven. (Can YOU distinguish factual claims from opinion? Try HERE)
Merriam-Webster's definition of "fact"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

Merriam-Webster's definition of "opinion"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

*** Those two simple terms, however, are INADEQUATE, SIMPLISTIC! ***

What they are meant to convey is the distinction between established, or settled, fact and controversial, debatable opinions (i.e., matters of differing opinions). Controversial opinion requires argumentative support. Established facts do not, in typical social contexts.

Be careful, though! Some facts are NOT established.

While many value judgments are debatable, some are socially settled.

Subjective versus Objective

Another important set of terms in this context is in the distinction between subjective and objective claims. It is important to be clear about the basic meanings/definitions of these terms. Only then can one have an intelligent discussion of the nature of objectivity and subjectivity.

The term “objective” refers to objects existing independently of being apprehended by a perceiving subject. For example, thinking that my kitchen table continues to exist even when no one is seeing it or even thinking about it amounts to the claim that it is part of objective reality. Whether one thinks there is any objective reality, calling something objective is the claim that it exists independently of being perceived.

The term “subjective” refers to a thinking, perceiving subject. While I might be looking at a rectangular tabletop (object), my subjective perceptual image might be trapezoidal.

There are complex philosophical debates about the ultimate nature of objectivity and subjectivity. Standard critical thinking, however, must correctly grasp the standard common meanings of the terms and ordinary intuitions about them, even if one reasons from those to some theory that refutes ordinary intuitions.

What Calls for Support

In general, what typically DO NOT NEED support in normal social contexts are claims about

clearly established (objective) facts,
matters of simple first-hand observation
matters that are clearly and convincingly documented
anything more on the “settled” side of the debatable—settled spectrum

REPORTING A “FACT” Statements about these sorts of things are often called REPORTS. A report is an assertion that, in the context in which it’s given, does not carry a responsibility to recite supporting evidence. You can appropriately expect others to take your word for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In general, what typically DO NEED SUPPORT in normal practical contexts are

extraordinary claims (requiring extraordinary support)
accusations of wrongdoing (in any just system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution)
debatable claims about current conditions
debatable value judgments (including should-statements)
non-obvious predictions
contested claims about the past
any claim that’s more on the “debatable” side of the ‘debatable—settled’ spectrum.

Unsupported Assertions

Asserting any of the above without giving support counts as UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION, i.e., just “spouting off.” You shouldn’t give any credence to people just spouting off! Whether what they say is true or false, they are all equally unsupported.

Unsupported Assertions include claims for which nothing more than mere possibility has been demonstrated.
…