https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/geb4fe/why_isnt_the_burden_of_proof_considered_a/
created by MichaelLifeLessons on 06/05/2020 at 01:59 UTC
9 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)
The typical list of philosophical razors looks something like this:
Occam’s razor: When you’re presented with multiple competing hypothesis for a phenomenon you should start by selecting the one most parsimonious one, the one that makes the fewest assumptions
Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Hitchens razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
Hume’s razor: Causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them
Duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck
Popper’s falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to disprove or refute it
Newton’s flaming laser sword: If something cannot be settled by experiment, it is not worth debating
Grice’s razor: Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity
It seems to me that the burden of proof (is always on the one making the positive claim – not on the doubter or skeptic) should be considered a philosophical razor too. Yet when I look at such lists of razors on rationalwiki etc. I don't see it.
Comment by SalmonApplecream at 06/05/2020 at 02:59 UTC
25 upvotes, 2 direct replies
These "razors" aren't really an officially recognized part of the philosophical canon. Really the only philosophers on that list are Occam, Hume and to some extent Popper. Most of the "razors" that you listed face serious problems, which I can describe if you wish, and are not in any way used regularly to do philosophy. Obviously a lot of the time the advice given by these razors are useful, but they are in no way definitive rules to be categorically followed.
Just to let you know, rationalwiki is not really a good source of philosophy. It is mostly a source to debunk conspiracy theories and the like, and it really isn't heavily moderated so I wouldn't trust much of what you see on there, and has become largely an entertainment website in recent years. If you want a better online source for philosophy, I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is much more useful for philosophical inquiry.
To actually answer your question. The idea that burden of proof should always be given to the one making the positive claim is not obviously true to me. I might make a claim such as "My hands are in front of me." If someone wanted to doubt me (which of course they could) they might say that I am just imagining my hands or something similar. However it seems more intuitive that my hands are actually there, and so the doubter in this case ought to present some pretty convincing evidence to suggest that my hands actually are not there.
Comment by sguntun at 06/05/2020 at 03:16 UTC
11 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The typical list of philosophical razors looks something like this
There is no such thing as "the typical list of philosophical razors." In general philosophers don't worry about consulting lists like this. Why RationalWiki (for instance) doesn't mention a razor involving the burden of proof is a question for the editors of RationalWiki, or for sociologists who study the culture of sites like RationalWiki. It's not a question that philosophers are equipped to answer.
If you just want to ask whether philosophers typically accept that the person making a claim bears the burden of proof to justify their claim, while a person who merely doubts a claim does not bear a burden to justify their doubt, then I think yes, philosophers do typically accept this.
Comment by TychoCelchuuu at 06/05/2020 at 03:15 UTC
13 upvotes, 0 direct replies
You'd have to ask the people who spend their time coming up with lists of razors, which does not include philosophers. Despite their use of philosophical terms and so on, none of this is really the sort of thing that constitutes genuine philosophical inquiry. Mostly this is all in service of coming up with terrible arguments for atheism to spew at people online.
Comment by bunker_man at 06/05/2020 at 07:17 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It seems to me that the burden of proof (is always on the one making the positive claim – not on the doubter or skeptic) should be considered a philosophical razor too. Yet when I look at such lists of razors on rationalwiki etc. I don't see it.
This isn't really a thing. You have to justify both positive and negative claims. You even have to justify skepticism. After all, its not justified to not believe something if that thing is true and the evidence points to it.
Comment by [deleted] at 06/05/2020 at 02:30 UTC*
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by AutoModerator at 06/05/2020 at 01:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules[1] before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy
Comment by SMW1984 at 07/05/2020 at 23:07 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I wouldn't say that this is Hume's razor, maybe Hume's guillotine would be more accurate. I have only ever mentioned his fork and law other than that!
But, as another commentor mentions: rationalwiki is not the best.