Hey what’s up guys! Kathy Gibbens here…
I thought I’d start today by sharing a review that one of you awesome listeners just shared with me: (see screenshot from Mary Monson)
Thank you!! Seriously, it makes me so happy to hear from you guys and to hear how this simple podcast is helping you to be able to think better!
Alright, our new fallacy today is the Burden of Proof Fallacy. The Burden of Proof Fallacy claims that something is true or something exists unless the other person can prove that it isn’t true or doesn’t exist.
For example, I could say, “I believe unicorns are real and since you can’t prove they’re not, then that just shows I’m right!” Do you see how I made a claim and then tasked YOU with the burden of proving it wrong.
Another example would be if I said, “We should go bungee jumping!” and you asked, “why?” and I replied, “Why not?” It’s a really simple exchange of words, but I immediately put you in the position of having to make a case for why we shouldn’t do something when in reality, since I suggested it, I’m the one who should be making the case for why we should go bungee jumping.
The problem with the Burden of Proof Fallacy is that you’re putting the responsibility to prove or disprove your claim onto someone else! In reality, the person who is making the claim also needs to be the one who provides the proof and the evidence that it’s real.This fallacy may sound a little familiar, and that’s b/c it is. Back in episode 28, we talked about the Appeal to Ignorance. The Burden of Proof Fallacy is indeed very similar to the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy in that they’re both appealing to the *lack* of knowledge of a certain thing. However, the difference is that the Burden of Proof Fallacy is demanding that the other person come up with proof to the contrary, while with the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, the demand is assumed.
Burden of Proof is a very real principle when it comes to courts of law & legal matters. In a court case, it is always the responsibility of the prosecution team to prove guilt. They’re the ones coming into court accusing the defendant of something. It is not the responsibility of the defense team to prove lack of guilt. And the reason is b/c it’s nearly impossible to prove the absence of something. You can’t prove you didn’t do something, and you can’t prove that something *doesn’t* exist. There is no way I can come up with proof that unicorns don’t exist!
A nuance of this fallacy comes when someone tries to deny a well-established fact or theory. For instance, I have recently heard of people who are denying the germ theory of disease. Well, the germ theory of disease or sickness has been “established” for a long time. So the burden of proof for denying this would be on the person who is attempting to deny it, they don’t get to shift that burden onto everyone else to prove why their new theory is or isn’t correct.
Question to ask yourself: “Does this person have any real evidence for what they’re saying or are they trying to trick me into an argument?” *repeat*
And quite frankly, the way I would probably respond to the person would be, “You’re the one who said it, you’re the one who has to prove it! I’m out!” lol Seriously, don’t let yourself get caught up in silly arguments trying to argue something that’s not your responsibility to argue in the first place. Put it back on them & save yourself the drama.
Alright guys that’s it for today…
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
