, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 487–502 | Cite as

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

  • Massimo PigliucciEmail author
  • Maarten Boudry


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.


Burden of proof Pseudoscience Logical fallacies Bayesian theory 


  1. Alcock, J. (2011). Back from the future: parapsychology and the Bem affair. Skeptical Enquirer, 35(2), 31–39.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  3. Ariew, R. (1984). The Duhem Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35(4), 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, A. (2010) Simplicity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, R. (1970). The burden of proof. American Philosophical Quarterly, 7(1), 74–82.Google Scholar
  10. Caso, A. (2002). Three skeptics’ debate tools examined. Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 37–41.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  12. Consonni, G., Moreno, E., & Venturini, S. (2011). Testing Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium: an objective Bayesian analysis. Stat, 30(1), 62–74.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. M. (2003). Beliefs on trial, and the legality of reasonableness. Skeptical Inquirer, 27(1), 31–34.Google Scholar
  14. Flew, A. (1984). The presumption of atheism. In God Freedom and Immorality: A Critical Analysis. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, S. T. (1991). Carrying the war into the never-never land of psi. Skeptical Inquirer, 15(2), 269–273.Google Scholar
  16. Hájek, A. (2012). Pascal’s wager. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 18 March 2013.
  17. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74(1), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  19. Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Laudan, L. (1965). Grünbaum on the Duhemian Argument. Philosophy of Science, 32(3–4), 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lloyd, E. A. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: the burden of proof. Biology and Philosophy, 14(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mepham, B. (2011). Food additives: an ethical evaluation. British Medical Bulletin, 99(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Owen, D. (1987). Hume versus Price on miracles and prior probabilities: testimony and the Bayesian calculation. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37(147), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  33. Reay, D. S. (2010). Lessons from Climategate. Nature, 467(7312), 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rowbottom, D. P. (2010). Corroboration and auxiliary hypotheses: Duhem’s thesis revisited. Synthese, 177, 139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowbottom, D. P. (2013). Group level interpretations of probability: new directions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 188–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheaffer, R. (1998). Ufo Sightings: The Evidence. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  38. Shermer, M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walton, D. N. (1988). Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2(2), 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walton, D. N. (1996). Plausible deniability and evasion of burden of proof. Argumentation, 10(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13(4), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williamson, J. (2011). Objective bayesianism, Bayesian conditionalisation and voluntarism. Synthese, 178, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yap, A. (2012). Ad hominem fallacies, bias, and testimony. Argumentation, 26(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Program, The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations