First, I want to thank this sub for what I perceive as becoming less radicalized and polarized over the last few years. There seems to be a growing respect for well-reasoned, well-argued OPs and comments rather than pure hive-mind voting. Do others feel the same?
A recent example is how universally well respected a comment I did about history with 5 sources. There seems to be a growing respect for well-reasoned, well-argued OPs and comments rather than a PURE hive-mind reactive voting. Do others feel the same?
Regardless, that exchange inspired this OP and what the burden of proof means.
So, let's discuss "Burden of Proof"!
The "Burden of Proof" in most literature, if you do a search, is a legal concept.
According to Cornell Law:
>burden of proof describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established.
According to investopedia:
>Burden of proof is a legal standard that determines if a legal claim is valid or invalid based on the evidence produced. The burden of proof is typically required of one party in a claim, and in many cases, the party that is filing a claim is the party that carries the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the claim is valid.
Burden of Proof is used in debate circles and according to the speciality website, Ethos Debate:
>The burden of proof is the general concept that when you make a claim, you have to back it up. Contrary to popular belief, the burden of proof does not apply only to the Affirmative side in a debate round. Anytime one makes a statement, one is responsible for backing it up. This means that whoever makes a claim has to prove it satisfactorily.
What is clearly not "Burden of Proof" is making a claim and shifting the burden of proof to prove you wrong onto your opponent. Many of these tactics can be the following:
And your personal worldview is not the burden of proof. Every definition above is about producing evidence to an opposition, not restating your beliefs more creatively. Analogies, reframings, and repetition are not evidence. They are rhetorical devices.
I will be honest. I sometimes agree with people's opinions on here. Here is an exchange where the person made false claims, but I am sympathetic to their angle. Unfortunately, they are calling me dishonest now, and I'm not sure how to respond currently. What I'm driving at is that basing arguments on the burden of proof allows many of us to find common ground...
Also, agreeing with an opinion doesn't mean the argument has met a burden of proof. Too many people on this sub argue from conviction rather than evidence. That's a habit worth breaking. Research your position. Source your claims. Argue from evidence. That is what burden of proof actually means in practice.
I think if people made a habit of arguing from the "burden of proof," there would be much more constructive discussions.