The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation

The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation, and has been used to explain a range of classic argumentation fallacies. We argue that in law the goal is to make practical decisions whereas in critical discussion the goal is frequently simply to increase or decrease degree of belief in a proposition. In the latter case, it is not necessarily important whether that degree of belief exceeds a particular threshold (e.g., ‘reasonable doubt’). We explore the consequences of this distinction for the role that the “burden of proof” has played in argumentation and in theories of fallacy.

[1]  R. Gaskins Burdens of Proof in Modern Discourse , 1993 .

[2]  F. Kauffeld Pivotal Issues and Norms in Rhetorical Theories of Argumentation , 2002 .

[3]  A. Feeney,et al.  The story of some: everyday pragmatic inference by children and adults. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[4]  J. Räikkä Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism , 1997 .

[5]  T. Govier A practical study of argument , 1985 .

[6]  Frank Boardman,et al.  Logic and contemporary rhetoric , 1971 .

[7]  Bart Verheij,et al.  Douglas Walton, The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Book Review) , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[8]  Alex C. Michalos Principles of logic , 1969 .

[9]  D. Walton Arguments From Ignorance , 1995 .

[10]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument , 1998 .

[11]  Irving M. Copi,et al.  Introduction to Logic , 1962 .

[12]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Burden of proof , 1988 .

[13]  Ralph H. Johnson Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument , 2000 .

[14]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Anyone Who Has a View , 2003 .

[15]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Dialogues about the burden of proof , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[16]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Is there a Burden of Questioning? , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[17]  J. Kokott The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law , 1998 .

[18]  M. Oaksford,et al.  The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. , 2007, Psychological review.

[19]  A. Zuckerman The principles of criminal evidence , 1989 .

[20]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge , 1977 .

[21]  F. Kauffeld,et al.  Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing , 1998 .

[22]  F. Kauffeld,et al.  The Ordinary Practice of Presuming and Presumption with Special Attention to Veracity and the Burden of Proof , 2003 .

[23]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Anyone who has a view : theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation , 2003 .

[24]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[25]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Decision Theory , 1996 .

[26]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Informal Argument Fallacies , 2006, Synthese.

[27]  C. Lumer Practical Arguments for Theoretical Theses , 1997 .

[28]  Kevin B. Korb,et al.  Bayesian Informal Logic and Fallacy , 2004 .

[29]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  Speech acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion (vertaling in het Russisch) , 1984 .

[30]  T. Govier Arguing Forever? Or: Two Tiers of Argument Appraisal , 1997 .

[31]  F. H. van Eemeren,et al.  Advances in Pragma Dialectics , 2002 .

[32]  M. Oaksford,et al.  A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. , 2004, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.