What are the origins of the rules of the concept"Burden of Proof"; and why did they get to claim such?

Question

I make this argument in some of my other posts.

Those that are compliant to the 'burden of proof', would you live in a world, where the rule was reversed and all denials had to be logically proven?

I know we go in circles with this one, but maybe i'll categorize this one in 'Law', and see if I can get some new arguments of logic for both sides.

In closing, in criminal-cases in the U.S. isn't the burden of the proof on the prosecution? Why are Scientist, different in their logical-disciplines, go against the grain of the scientific-reasoning the Prosecution must use?

Any professional-opinion matters, as do others, I do have a sense of humor, but I am serious about discovering....Scientific-communities bow down before the creator of the burden of proof, then when falsely accused of something, beg for mercy from the prosecution who's going to prove his denial of guilt is suspect.

Game on!

http://www.findlaw.com

Googie: Fair enough, editing as we speak. Thanks for that by the way!

Sorry Googie, I don't have the capacity to Edit, but thanks for the suggestion...

Robotaun: Thank You! Who was it that said all new ideas go thru 3 phases: 1) heresy 2)rejection 3)acceptance?

My counter-argument: The burden of proof isn't actually on the assertion-claimed, but the relationship between the dynamic of 'kosher-acceptability' and the assertion-so-claimed. Is that what you refer to when speaking of 'vehemence'

also good point on media-bias, we need to bring objectivity back to the table in this discipline...

________________________

I'd also like to learn the difference between a 'vested interest' and a "conflict of interest"...thanks to those that care to take this on...

Answer 1

In the US in criminal courts the burden of proof is always with the prosecution "in theory" because of the presumption of innocence. Basically, I don't have to prove my innocence... You have to prove my guilt. However, in this day and age where the mass media has a "scope" up everyones butt, many accused end up having to prove their innocence simply because of media conjecture giving any jury an already formed opinion about the case before they are ever called.

In the scientific world, however, the burden of proof has to be on the innovator if that person is going against the grain of accepted theory. The reason is that the old theory works, and if I think its wrong I have to prove to others why it is wrong.

In many ways it is dangerous for a scientist to challenge old theories, even if he is right, because the "old school" may be very vehement in their defense of the old theory to such a degree that they can destroy or damage the reputation of the innovator. That is one of the reasons why advancement can be slow in the established sciences.

Answer 2

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is beyond any reasonable doubt, in order to find a defendant guilty. In civil law one must find beyond a doubt. ( more than half) in order to prove a case.You have me thoroughly confused with the scientist, the rule of reversal etc.and the rest of the verbiage which only clouds the issue and doesn't illicit a logical response.