Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes

Abstract

The concept of burden of proof is used in a wide range of discourses, from philosophy to law, science, skepticism, and even in everyday reasoning. This paper provides an analysis of the proper deployment of burden of proof, focusing in particular on skeptical discussions of pseudoscience and the paranormal, where burden of proof assignments are most poignant and relatively clear-cut. We argue that burden of proof is often misapplied or used as a mere rhetorical gambit, with little appreciation of the underlying principles. The paper elaborates on an important distinction between evidential and prudential varieties of burdens of proof, which is cashed out in terms of Bayesian probabilities and error management theory. Finally, we explore the relationship between burden of proof and several (alleged) informal logical fallacies. This allows us to get a firmer grip on the concept and its applications in different domains, and also to clear up some confusions with regard to when exactly some fallacies (ad hominem, ad ignorantiam, and petitio principii) may or may not occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    If the expert view is silent on some issue, arguably the BoP rests on whomever is making a new or interesting claim. Probably this is where the (misguided) idea stems from that the BoP is always on those who are making the "positive" claim, see How to Assign Burden of Proof section.

  2. 2.

    This, of course, most emphatically does not mean that the public at large has in fact been convinced of the truth of AGW. But equating the two conditions would be to confuse the public as it actually is with an ideally unbiased group of epistemic observers.

  3. 3.

    We distinguish here between Duhem’s and Quine’s theses, as opposed to treating them as one aggregate, as it is often done. There are very good historical and conceptual reasons to do so, as articulated in Ariew (1984).

  4. 4.

    The reader will notice the similarity between our argument and Hume’s famous critique of miracles. This point was explored in detail by Owen (1987) and Sobel (1987), and we will return to it toward the end of the paper.

  5. 5.

    Others versions of parsimony concern the syntactic of mathematical simplicity of a theory, which is more complicated.

  6. 6.

    As we pointed out above, any negative claim can of course be translated into a positive one: any existential claim can be translated into a negative universal, and vice versa (∃xAx is logically equivalent to ~∀x ~ Ax, and ~∃xAx is logically equivalent to ∀x ~ Ax). The claim that qi energy exists is obviously a positive claim in that, it posits the existence of a biological entity/force.

  7. 7.

    Instead of taking up the BoP when it is their turn to do so, creationists often try to shift a heavier burden back on evolutionists. For example, when biologists have pointed out possible intermediate forms leading up to some piece of functional complexity, which creationists had challenged them to do in the first place, the latter shifted the burden to the actual evolutionary history. The move is disingenuous, because ID arguments, such as “irreducible complexity” and “complex specified information,” had been touted as objections in principle against the power of evolution by natural selection. See Boudry et al. (2010).

  8. 8.

    Ufologists typically resort to invoking large-scale cover-ups to explain away this dearth of evidence—involving various governments, the Illuminati, the aliens themselves, or all of them together—but such explanations are blatantly ad hoc (Boudry and Braeckman 2011).

  9. 9.

    The first modern flying saucers were reported by American private pilot Kenneth Arnold on 24 June 1947, over Mount Rainier in Washington State.

References

  1. Alcock, J. (2011). Back from the future: parapsychology and the Bem affair. Skeptical Enquirer, 35(2), 31–39.

  2. Annas, G. J. (1999). Burden of proof: judging science and protecting public health in (and out of) the courtroom. Public Health Policy Forum, 89(4), 490–493.

  3. Ariew, R. (1984). The Duhem Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35(4), 313–325.

  4. Baker, A. (2010) Simplicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/. Accessed 23 Sept 2013.

  5. Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407.

  6. Borges, W., & Stern, J. M. (2007). The rules of logic composition for the Bayesian epistemic e-values. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 15(5–6), 401–420.

  7. Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145–161.

  8. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design. A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 473–482.

  9. Brown, R. (1970). The burden of proof. American Philosophical Quarterly, 7(1), 74–82.

  10. Caso, A. (2002). Three skeptics’ debate tools examined. Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 37–41.

  11. Cherkin, D. C., Sherman, K. J., Avins, A. L., et al. (2009). A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain. JAMA Internal Medicine, 169(9), 858–866.

  12. Consonni, G., Moreno, E., & Venturini, S. (2011). Testing Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium: an objective Bayesian analysis. Stat, 30(1), 62–74.

  13. Fisher, R. M. (2003). Beliefs on trial, and the legality of reasonableness. Skeptical Inquirer, 27(1), 31–34.

  14. Flew, A. (1984). The presumption of atheism. In God Freedom and Immorality: A Critical Analysis. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

  15. Gill, S. T. (1991). Carrying the war into the never-never land of psi. Skeptical Inquirer, 15(2), 269–273.

  16. Hájek, A. (2012). Pascal’s wager. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager. Accessed 18 March 2013.

  17. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.

  18. Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.

  19. Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9662. Accessed 18 March 2013.

  20. Kopelman, L. M., Resnick, D., & Weed, D. L. (2004). What is the role of the precautionary principle in the philosophy of medicine and bioethics? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(3), 255–258.

  21. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  22. Laudan, L. (1965). Grünbaum on the Duhemian Argument. Philosophy of Science, 32(3–4), 295–299.

  23. Lloyd, E. A. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: the burden of proof. Biology and Philosophy, 14(2), 211–233.

  24. Lycan, W. G. (2010). Free will and the burden of proof. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Minds and Persons (pp. 107–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Madruga, M. R., Pereira, C. A. B., & Stern, J. M. (2003). Bayesian evidence test for precise hypotheses. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 117(2), 185–198.

  26. Mepham, B. (2011). Food additives: an ethical evaluation. British Medical Bulletin, 99(1), 7–23.

  27. Owen, D. (1987). Hume versus Price on miracles and prior probabilities: testimony and the Bayesian calculation. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 187–202.

  28. Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  29. Prakken, H. (1999). On formalising burden of proof in legal argument. In H. Jaap van den Herik et al. (Eds.), Legal Knowledge Based Systems (pp. 85–97). Nijmegen, NL: GNI.

  30. Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. (2006). Presumptions and burden of proof. In T. Van Engers (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 176–185). Amsterdam, NL: IOS.

  31. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2005). Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In F. Grasso et al. (Eds.), 4th Workshop on Computational Methods of Natural Argument (pp. 81–86). Valencia, Spain: ECAI.

  32. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2006). Dialogues about the burden of proof. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 115–124). New York City: ACM Press.

  33. Reay, D. S. (2010). Lessons from Climategate. Nature, 467(7312), 157.

  34. Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., et al. (2012). Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLoS One, 7(3), e33423.

  35. Rowbottom, D. P. (2010). Corroboration and auxiliary hypotheses: Duhem’s thesis revisited. Synthese, 177, 139–149.

  36. Rowbottom, D. P. (2013). Group level interpretations of probability: new directions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 188–203.

  37. Sheaffer, R. (1998). Ufo Sightings: The Evidence. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

  38. Shermer, M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Freeman.

  39. Sobel, J. H. (1987). On the evidence of testimony for miracles: a Bayesian interpretation of David Hume’s analysis. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 166–186.

  40. Tang, Y.-Y., Ma, Y., Fan, Y., et al. (2009). Central and autonomic nervous system interaction is altered by short-term meditation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(22), 8865–8870.

  41. van den Belt, H., & Gremmen, B. (2002). Between precautionary principle and “sound science”: distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 103–122.

  42. Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., et al. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.

  43. Walton, D. N. (1988). Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2(2), 233–254.

  44. Walton, D. N. (1996). Plausible deniability and evasion of burden of proof. Argumentation, 10(1), 47–58.

  45. Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13(4), 367–377.

  46. Williamson, J. (2011). Objective bayesianism, Bayesian conditionalisation and voluntarism. Synthese, 178, 67–85.

  47. Yap, A. (2012). Ad hominem fallacies, bias, and testimony. Argumentation, 26(1), 1–13.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Massimo Pigliucci.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes. Philosophia 42, 487–502 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9500-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Burden of proof
  • Pseudoscience
  • Logical fallacies
  • Bayesian theory