Question

...
Philip

Burden of proof

The general form of the burden of proof fallacy is claiming that something is the case simply because no one has proved otherwise. However, I think there are situations where it's not unreasonable to do so, because sometimes you don't need direct proof of something being the case to suppose that it is. For example, if you apply for a job and don't hear anything from the company after a long time, it's probably safe to assume that your application has been unsuccessful.

Would insisting on proof of something actually being the case when a lack of evidence to the contrary may in fact be sufficient be an exception to the burden of proof fallacy, or a fallacy in its own right?

asked on Friday, Apr 08, 2022 10:09:21 AM by Philip

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
0
Mchasewalker writes:

Well, you know what they say about assumptions? ( Ass U Me) Who knows? They could still be trying to get a hold of you? Lost your phone number. Or, you might be a bit neurotic and assume the worst when there's an entirely different reason. Demanding s not a fallacy, but shifting it on an unsupported claim or claimant might very well be.

posted on Friday, Apr 08, 2022 11:39:59 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
2

you don't need direct proof of something being the case to suppose that it is.

This is the idea that, in some cases, a lack of evidence where expected is evidence. Your not getting a call back after say two years is pretty clear evidence for not getting the job.

Would insisting on proof of something actually being the case when a lack of evidence to the contrary may in fact be sufficient be an exception to the burden of proof fallacy, or a fallacy in its own right?

One would have the right to insist on proof ("evidence," in most cases). The evidence would be the lack of something expected. The burden of proof still applies.

answered on Friday, Apr 08, 2022 10:33:23 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Ed F writes:

The general form of the burden of proof fallacy is claiming that something is the case simply because no one has proved otherwise. 

Is this the same as argument from ignorance ?

posted on Friday, Apr 08, 2022 01:50:45 PM
...
3
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Ed F]

The burden of proof isn't a fallacy (shifting it is). But the burden of proof essentially means that the one making the claim has the responsibility to support it if they want others to accept it.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Apr 08, 2022 05:10:21 PM