Burden of Proof

In the last post on witches and a few other times I have referred to the concept of "burden of proof."

This is the idea that if one asserts something (say being a witch or that the Buddha existed as an actual figure with all the miraculous things that happened), which is both important and hard to believe, then one must provide what is called "extraordinary proof."

This burden is in fact so great that pretty much nothing is enough.  Testimony is useless, as are historical documents and even experimental demonstration.

Of course people don't like this burden -- they want to believe what they want to believe, and some are such that if they have seen something they will believe it without doubt, even when many possible explanations are available.

Of course at issue is always the question of whether or not something is "hard to believe," since for some many things are quite easy to believe, mainly because they were brought up believing it.

Things at the frontier of science make a good example.  The debate about whether too little salt is possible, and the assertion that the Heart Association's recommendation is too little comes to my mind.  To me that is fairly easy to accept.  We need some salt to survive, so it stands to reason too little would be harmful, and the best evidence as I see it is that only some people really need worry about getting too much (although this is still undecided), so a minimum seems logical.

I hasten to insert here that we know too much salt is harmful. 

What I suspect has happened is that the scientists at the Heart Association have locked them into the belief in the evil of salt (subconsciously of course), and to them the burden of proving otherwise is extraordinary.  To me it is not.

Sometimes some scientific result is announced, calling for a reversal of some otherwise well established part of the scientific edifice.  People who make such announcements (and the journalists who eagerly broadcast the claim) properly come under heavy criticism for making such things a press event when they have not met the burden of proof and in fact can't (such a thing requires independent confirmations out the wazoo).

There are some claims that no amount of evidence would suffice short of hard physical specimens that are such that all sorts of experts can pour over.   Perhaps ghosts, rebirths (reincarnation), miracles, angels, witches, demons, alien visitors (the interstellar kind), Sasquatch and similar animals and beasts all fall into that category.  They are all hard to believe and easily contested, and would require evidence that goes beyond anything available.

The main point is that the default has to be disbelief -- not so much rejection or ridicule but just not believing or even thinking it might be true -- without evidence that meets the high burden of proof.

Why can't we just "choose to believe?"  After all it is not possible to disprove such claims (most of the time -- sometimes the evidence against the claim is massive).  The thing is, there is no reason to accept such things, so such "choice" isn't really a choice but just wishful thinking and being irrational and even irresponsible.

Such intellectual dishonesty may even be immoral -- I don't know that lying to oneself is a moral offense or not -- I can see a case for either position.  Certainly pushing it or preaching it to others is immoral.