The burden of proof is a logical fallacy, correct? So why...?

Question

do people often say "X must exist because you cannot prove it doesn't!"?

I meant it's a fallacious concept in philosophy--not legally. I know it holds up in court.

Answer 1

You are correct in saying that there is a logical fallacy involved in this way of thinking.

Here's the reason. Philosophy is the search for truth--that's what philosophy is about. Until we can give good reasons for something, we have no evidence to support a claim.

So the fact that someone cannot disprove something does not make the inverse true--is simply means that we do not yet know whether or not it exists.

A "negative proof"--proving that something does not exist--may help us narrow the choices as we continue to seek truth. Just because a person can prove that the moon is not made of green cheese doesn't tell us anything about what it is made of--it simply identifies one thing that the moon is not made of--eliminating one possibility as we seek to find the answer to the question.

So those who argue as you have suggested are on shaky ground. Rather than finding good reasons to support a claim, they are assuming that it must be true simply because it has not yet been proven false. That does not fulfill the goal of philosophy, which is to find good reasons which will lead us to the truth.

Answer 2

The burden of proof is not a logical fallacy, it's a legal concept.
For instance, if you claim that someone harmed you, YOU have to prove they did---they do not have to prove they did not. That means YOU have the burden of proof.

But you cannot "prove" a negative, and you cannot argue that something exists because there is no proof to the contrary.

Answer 3

What is good in a situation is determined by the situation itself, and not from the outside influences of the world.
Our concepts, beliefs etc are shaped by Pure Sentiment & Passion. There are no verifiable morals..and there is no absolute truth about anything....because ,sadly there is no universal sentiment.... Proof is a logical fallacy...believing that x exists because it is impossible to prove it doesn't is an easy wasy to get through your day....
I am always left wondering if Hume was right when he argued that the universe is indifferent to our preferences and troubles...

Namaste...

Answer 4

It seems to me that the example you're giving is the same as the statement you're making rather than an opposite. Regardless, You are incorrect. Logic dictates that nothing exists unless there is proof that it does exist. However, proof comes in many different ways and forms. In the case of God, for example, We can not see Him but there is more than ample proof that He exists if a person is open minded enough to see, hear and feel this proof. That a person claim God does not exist because it can not be proved, is in itself illogical. Just because they have closed off those avenues of understanding and reception necessary to gain this proof does not, by logic, mean it doesn't exist. It is, by logic, their openness of mind that doesn't exist.

Answer 5

You have a mix of logic and legal terms there that make the question all but unanswerable.

Logically, it's considered true that you can't prove a negative. (Although I've never completely agreed with this, because you can say to me, "My skin is green," and I can show you a color wheel and prove to you that it's not green.)

However, legally, the absence of proof is considered to be proof of the negative. No proof that Joe Schmoe committed a murder is "proof" that he didn't.

Answer 6

the people that say that anything philosophically speaking exists because you can't prove it doesnt exist are idiots. For something to exist, you have to have an argument why it does exist to prove that it does exist.