The Burden of Proof

The Burden of Proof

Skeptics are constantly barraged with the arrows of blind belief. Skeptics are seen as the challengers to status quo, but in reality, they are the upholders of natural law. Simply put, everything is, or was, a blank slate. Let’s use religion as an example. In today’s world, in the US, religion is something that we aren’t ’allowed’ to question. Churches are given a tax-exempt status by the government. Religious officials are often called to consult on political or even medical issues, sometimes with no other credentials other than expertise of their religion. Religion is a human-made concept, imposed upon a natural world.

Skeptics, who question this challenge to the status quo, are constantly told, in crude terms to ‘put up or shut up’. To provide sufficient proof of their skepticism. Skeptics are wrongly assigned the burden of proof. It’s time to set the record straight.

First let me start off by admitting that I am not a lawyer. In fact, researching this article had me reading legal text, consulting an actual lawyer, and pulling my hair out. I keep telling my mother that there was a very good reason I never followed through with law school. Basically, I read some basic articles and book chapters and to find some support for my argument. If you have better information, please share it, because I’d really like to learn more.

Nearly all of us are familiar with burden of proof on it’s most basic legal level: innocent until proven guilty. In US law, the burden of proof is defined as the ‘obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him against another party.’ In law, there is a saying in latin (why lawyers still get a boner for latin is beyond me) that goes ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’. This translates into ‘the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.’ This means the person challenging status quo, making a claim, has the legal responsibility of proving it.

In law, there are 2 burdens of proof. First is the burden of persuasion, meaning that the presumption of innocence places all burden on the prosecution, like I said above. The second is evidential burden. This is where things get a bit interesting. Evidential burden is when prosecution presents evidence to challenge the defense. This is where the back-and-forth comes in. To use religion as an example, the status quo is that there is no religion. The religion is the prosecution, they are the ones that have to present evidence to support their claim. The prosecution then gets to examine the evidence and challenge it. Of course, that challenge isn’t accepted, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

This is where Standard of Proof comes in. In law, there are 3 basic kinds. In criminal defense, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, which is the closest to iron-clad as one can get. In civil cases there are 2 types of standards of proof: clear and convincing evidence and preponderance. You see this type of evidence on TV court shows, the basic idea that ‘its more likely than not.’ The reason the standard of proof in a criminal case is so high is because once someone is convicted, it’s there forever. Nobody has to disclose a civil case on a job application, for example. There are no criminal charges in a civil case (although there can be two cases, in each court, for the same issue).

The philosophical burden of proof is very much in line with the US legal burden. In philosophical debate, it is argued that both sides have a burden of proof, but most of the time it will be unbalanced. One side will have more to prove than the other. This too falls in line with US legal burden of proof, in that when evidence is presented, both sides have to either support or refute it.

So how does this apply to, again, our religion debate? Simple. We can accept the lowest standard, the ‘more likely than not’ standard. However, that standard is negated when strong, solid evidence is brought into the discussion. Basically, it’s a weak debate best left to people arguing over cell phone bills on daytime TV.

In science, the burden of proof is empirical and open to falsification. The field understands that it’s ‘proof’ in any claim can, will and needs to be examined by the other parties and challenged if any progress is to be made. Whether this be to search for the truth or to solidify theory and evidence already in place, it needs to be examined. In science, the standard for proof is very strong, and there are set methodologies to examine data. Science looks for connections and avoids the fallacy that there can be a single cause to anything. Science looks for relationships. Those relationships help to strengthen claims and evidence. I would argue that, since science is a method used to explain the natural world, science is the defendant. The burden of proof lies in those who question the natural world. Everything from God to evolution to miracles, the paranormal and back again.

In his book ’The God Delusion’, professor Richard Dawkins discusses a 2006 case in which the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that a church in New Mexico would be allowed to break the law and use hallucinogenic drugs in its services and rituals. Furthermore, the church did not have to provide any other proof that this drug worked, rather the US Supreme Court took the line ‘we believe it works’ as sufficient cause to allow them to break the law.

So, if there is a high standard of the burden of proof in US law, then why would ‘we believe it works’ serve as irrefutable evidence? This is obviously a failure of our legal system to uphold its own values. Why is this? Our society has allowed this type of evidence to be ‘good enough’. The notion that religion is untouchable has permeated our society and framed any sort of debate, including legal debates. Suddenly the standard of proof is lower.

Linguist George Lakoff discusses the notion of framing in his book ‘Don’t Think of An Elephant.’ While he talks about debate in terms of politics, the same notion applies to skeptical debates. One of Lakoff’s arguments during a debate is that we not think of an elephant. What does this mean? He means that, in a debate, we can’t argue with a frame, especially a frame set by those who are posing the challenge. If we get caught in that loop, we are no longer examining the evidence. This is when the standards of evidence are lowered and those lower standards are accepted. Soon, we accept belief as evidence enough to change our laws. The very laws that protect us and hold us accountable mean nothing if we believe in something. It’s sad, really.

So what does any of this mean? I argue that since science is the study of nature, which is the defendant, anything that comes to question it has the burden of proof. Be it religion, a psychic, a ghost hunter with an EVP, they have the burden of proof in any argument or debate. Basically, if you don’t have anything to back up what you bring to the table, then don’t bring it. So the next time a skeptic is brought a ridiculous claim, they should be brought the evidence to support it. Hand them a law book, or even a dictionary, and let them get back to you.