Question

...
Alex

Burden of proof and Occam’z razor

Yes this is directly related to my very previous question and I can’t help but ask this one too so please bear with me.

 

Very  specifically , who has the burden of proof? If someone claims something ordinary like owning a cat, and then a person claims he’s lying, then who has the burden of proof in this case? From what I understand, the owner has to prove they own a cat, right? If this is so and everything required solid evidence, then really it’s not practical nor realistic nor even reasonable, correct? If the burden of proof is on the one who’s claiming they’re lying, then is it because of probability and Occam’z razor? The probability of them actually having a cat in a normal situation is fairly high, and so does it follow that the default position is that they’re saying the truth? Is this what Occam’s razor is all about then? (That the default position is with the highest probability?)

 

Finally, sorry for the many questions :P

asked on Wednesday, Feb 16, 2022 03:19:46 PM by Alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
4

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. If someone claims they have a cat, it is not practical nor reasonable to demand evidence for that claim, and if someone were to demand evidence, the person would simply say they don't care if they’re believed or not.

The Burden of Proof is only a thing in argumentation. When one's goal is convince another that a claim is true, they have the burden of proof. If the theist claims God exists, they have the burden of proof. If an atheist claims that God does not exist, they have the burden of proof.

answered on Wednesday, Feb 16, 2022 03:58:12 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
Ed F
2

First, Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply.  That’s the principle that all other things bring equal, the simplest explanation should be preferred.  So if a phenomenon needs to be explained, a simpler explanation should be considered rather than a more complicated one.  As additional information is obtained, the theory may need to be revised and become more complicated to accommodate the new evidence.  But that has nothing to do. in your example, of who owns the cat. 
Burden of Proof is a legal concept.  The party making the claim has the burden of proof.  So if I claim the cat you’re keeping us mine, I’d have the burden of proving it.  

answered on Wednesday, Feb 16, 2022 03:54:33 PM by Ed F

Ed F Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

You may be right about Burden of Proof being a legal concept and that Occam's Razor doesn't apply although I can think of a situation where to my mind both do.

When I tell those who don't believe in the moon landings that the visual artefacts are completely consistent with the unique lunar conditions their immediate response is, "But we don't know the conditions on the moon because we've never been there."

Burden of Proof
No one disputes what the conditions are said to be (and obviously they worked out a lot BEFORE they went) and if you wish to dispute them you'd have to say why you think what the conditions are said to be is flawed.

Occam's Razor
In the absence of argument to the contrary, the conditions are accepted as being as stated and consistency of artefacts with those conditions favours the hypothesis that astronauts landed on the moon.

posted on Thursday, Feb 17, 2022 06:15:41 AM