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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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
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