Talk:Burden of proof (logical fallacy)

The only position
In the current article one can find the following line: Weak atheism is the only position that does not have a burden of proof, because there is no belief in weak atheism to prove. In the previous version (before the last edit) the line was as follows: (…) and the Agnosticism (in fact, Weak agnosticism) position is the only one that does not have a burden of proof. It seems this Wikipedia-article is being used by some individuals in defence of their own set of beliefs/ideas, claiming only their (two different!) stances have no burden of proof. Wouldn’t it be fun in a discussion, not having to prove anything?

Yet, in a discussion, everyone who does a claim has a burden of proof concerning this assertion, whether one is a Theist, an Atheist, a Gnost or an Agnost. Without it, a debate will simply 'bleed to death'. Also the statement there is no belief in (weak) atheism/agnosticism/theism/etc to prove is one that has a burden of proof, even more since it is not a core doctrine of rhetoric. In any case, it is not Wikipedia’s task to claim which single theological or philosophical position is cleared from the burden of proof. Regarding logical fallacies, Wikipedia her task is just about addressing which fallacies exist.

Therefore, I will change back this article, and I will delete some lines which are a bit biased, so this article will take a more neutral position concerning the current debate between Theists and Atheists, while still explaining the fallacy of the excluded middle concerning the burden of proof (logical fallacy). If someone has a better suggestion for the article, feel free to jump in! Sincerely, Averroes 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The example
The original example was not meant to use this article as a defense of a belief, but simply an example of the fallacy. The point is that there IS a position in that particular philosophical debate which is not making a claim, and hence has no burden of proof. The referenced Wikipedia articles were meant to define those terms such as Atheist, Agnostic, etc., so that the one without the burden of proof would be apparent to the reader. However, it seems as though the editors of this article suffer from the exact fallacy that is being described. Isn't that ironic. In any event, I am not changing the article back, since the example seems to be a bit too controversial, which was not the original intention. Irritate 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

merge to Negative proof
i decided to be bold and merge, i will understand if its reverted Spencerk 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

re-starting article
As you can see I have re-started this article. I think there's quite a bit to be said, and have started to say it, but it could do with additions. I don't think it duplicates the old merged material, but to be honest I haven't looked at it because until I re-started this article the history was invisible. NBeale 23:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you use smaller, less fancy words that I can understand :(((

Er, so what is the fallacy?
I just don't get any coherent sense of what the "burden of proof" means here, nor what the fallacy is. I think this is not surprising, since I'm not sure there is much sense to be made about "burden of proof" claims from the standpoint of logic or critical thinking (the case may well be different in legal settings). At least, I can't see any indisputable principle that suggests who should have the burden of proof in arbitrary conflicts.

In any case, this article doesn't do much to answer my question. It seems to me that we need some references to logicians, philosopher, rhetoricians, etc., using the term, explaining what it means, when it applies, what the fallacy is, etc. As it is, we have a quote from Bourbaki that is not clearly about burden of proof at all; an extended quotation from Midgley which appears to be an example of misplaced burdens, but does not serve to define the term at all and finally a discussion by an honest-to-gosh philosopher, but he dismisses talk about burdens. I guess it would make sense to include this dismissal if only we had first some citation explaining what the burden of proof is.

So far, I'm simply not convinced that there's a coherent notion of burden of proof examined in this article. Hopefully, that can be fixed. Phiwum (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article needs serious help from the authors of Burden of Proof. This article seems to go through confusing circumlocutions even to define "burden of proof," let alone describe the fallacy. It should be noted that this is a fallacy of informal logic, not philosophy, as the article states; the fact that philosophy features debates over burdens of proof does not make it exclusive in that regard. The article seems almost entirely predicated over its single, massive quotation, the bulk of which could simply be removed. The article should also describe what a proper burdens analysis would entail, since clearly such analysis is always subjective. The article also presents a fairly biased point of view in the sentence stating that burdens analyses are generally unproductive; while this may sometimes be true, the fact that they do occur (and occur often) makes this claim a rather strong one which needs backing up.

Really, the article is a stub as it is, and needs a total overhaul. I could contribute myself, but I want A) some sort of consensus on some of these points, and B) either agreement, oversight, or help from somebody who knows more about informal logic. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I welcome a serious rewrite, but I wouldn't want to do it myself since I really haven't much clue what the article is supposed to be about. Nonetheless, I do have a background in logic (formal logic, mostly, but I also have taught undergrad courses including informal logic) and I'd be happy to give feedback as it progresses.  If I miss some development, drop me a line on my talk page.  Phiwum (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to me to be interesting and well referenced. I would rather see it expanded than deleted. The problem seems to be in the title rather than the content -- is "burden of proof" the name of a logical fallacy. I think not. But it is an interesting topic. I suggest we rename the article, removing the parenthetical addition to the title. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's an interesting topic, but we have only one source that discusses the problem of unreasonably heavy burdens, and that only for a particular historical example. I don't regard that as well-sourced.  We need at least one source that discusses this fallacy/topic/whatever in a quite general way. (Note that the Lehrer quote isn't really about burdens that are too heavy, but rather about the unfruitfulness of burden arguments generally.)  As it is, the topic is either a case of original research or synthesis. Phiwum (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)