BURDEN of PROOF
In a dispute between one whose point is provable and one whose point is not provable, b.o.p. is an obligation on him whose point is provable to do so. e.g.
Joe asserts, "All S are P."
Fred asserts, "Some S are not P."
Fred asserts, "Some S are not P."
B.o.p. is on Fred to show at least one S that is not a P, not on Joe, who must show all of set S in order to prove none of them is a P.
Joe asserts, "Some S are P."
Fred asserts, "No S are P."
Fred asserts, "No S are P."
B.o.p. is on Joe to show at least one S that is a P, not on Fred, who must show all of set S in order to prove none of them is a P.
Joe asserts, "X exists in this box."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
B.o.p. is equal or not applicable. Just open the box and see if X is in it.
Joe asserts, "X exists in this building."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
B.o.p. is shifting to Joe proportional to the difficulty of searching the building.
Joe asserts, "X exists."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
Fred asserts, "No it doesn't."
B.o.p. is totally on Joe, not on Fred, who must show all of existence to prove X is not in it.
But what if X is something that could not be shown to exist even if it did exist? Then no proof is possible, and therefore no burden either way.
It can be argued that b.o.p. is to probability as inertia is to physics, a bias in favor of the status quo. And though most of us would agree that a pattern, once established, is likely to continue, there are no laws to force a person who argues for a pattern break to accept b.o.p. There are also no laws to forbid those of us who perceive probability normally to dismiss such a person as unworthy of attention if he fails to accept b.o.p.