Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / ShiftingTheBurdenOfProof

Go To



* In Creator/CarlBarks' story "The Golden Helmet", a viking named Olaf the Blue left the titular helmet somewhere in the continent before the arrival of UsefulNotes/ChristopherColumbus. Azure Blue, a (self-proclaimed) descendant of Olaf's, planned to use his (alleged) relation and the Code of Discovery to claim North America as inheritance from Olaf. Whenever somebody asked how Azure could prove he was a descendant of Olaf the Blue, Azure's AmoralAttorney countered by asking how they could prove he ''wasn't''. Azure wasn't the only character trying to use this fallacy either.

to:

* In Creator/CarlBarks' story "The Golden Helmet", a viking Viking named Olaf the Blue left the titular helmet somewhere in the continent before the arrival of UsefulNotes/ChristopherColumbus. Azure Blue, a (self-proclaimed) descendant of Olaf's, planned to use his (alleged) relation and the Code of Discovery to claim North America as inheritance from Olaf. Whenever somebody asked how Azure could prove he was a descendant of Olaf the Blue, Azure's AmoralAttorney countered by asking how they could prove he ''wasn't''. Azure wasn't the only character trying to use this fallacy either.



* One of the major arguments against the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic by conspiracy theorists is to argue that [[AppealToIgnorance they have not actively seen the virus, nor know anybody directly with the virus]]. It leads to numerous blogs and arguments against the virus based entirely on the justification that the whole pandemic is a fabricated lie. Arguments in favor often try to explain that it is perpetrated by brainwashed citizens who believe their governments and refuse to do their own research and learn the truth. This argument is so pervasive that entire websites such as Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have enacted policies amending what people can and cannot discuss about the virus because of these constant misinformation campaigns trying to denounce the existence of the Coronavirus. As a result, the conspiracy campaigns against the virus have demanded that the CDC and other health organizations prove that the virus exists, [[MovingTheGoalPosts but actively denounce all existing evidence as lies while demanding new proofs]]. Ultimately the argument never is "Prove the evidence of the Coronavirus's existence is all fabricated", rather the argument to the inverse is used as its own evidence: "prove to me that the Coronavirus deaths are not fabricated and that people are actually dying to the disease". A number of arguments against its existence focus on conspiracies regarding governments lying about the fatalities, clumping fatalities together, or overblowing illnesses and attributing the death to "Covid", to the point that the only argument against these theories (as they often can't be proven to the 100% burden of proof required by believers) that they're wrong is to apply OccamsRazor.

to:

* One of the major arguments against the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic by conspiracy theorists is to argue that [[AppealToIgnorance they have not actively seen the virus, nor know anybody directly with the virus]]. It leads to numerous blogs and arguments against the virus based entirely on the justification that the whole pandemic is a fabricated lie. Arguments in favor often try to explain that it is perpetrated by brainwashed citizens who believe their governments and refuse to do their own research and learn the truth. This argument is so pervasive that entire websites such as Youtube, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have enacted policies amending what people can and cannot discuss about the virus because of these constant misinformation campaigns trying to denounce the existence of the Coronavirus. As a result, the conspiracy campaigns against the virus have demanded that the CDC and other health organizations prove that the virus exists, [[MovingTheGoalPosts but actively denounce all existing evidence as lies while demanding new proofs]]. Ultimately the argument never is "Prove the evidence of the Coronavirus's existence is all fabricated", rather the argument to the inverse is used as its own evidence: "prove to me that the Coronavirus deaths are not fabricated and that people are actually dying to the disease". A number of arguments against its existence focus on conspiracies regarding governments lying about the fatalities, clumping fatalities together, or overblowing illnesses and attributing the death to "Covid", to the point that the only argument against these theories (as they often can't be proven to the 100% burden of proof required by believers) that they're wrong is to apply OccamsRazor.


* In a legal system where the burden of proof is held by the prosecution, then the defendant is regarded as innocent until proven guilty (applies to both common and civil law systems). The requirement is that the prosecution prove that the accused ''did do it''; the defense doesn't have to prove he ''didn't''. This can bite the prosecution badly, especially if the evidence is weak, or has been mishandled. It also doesn't necessarily follow the logical burden of proof, since the defense can demand the prosecution prove a negative. An infamous example of this is the O. J. Simpson trial, where O. J.'s defense lawyers demanded the prosecution prove an endless series of alternate scenarios were ''impossible''.

to:

* In a legal system where the burden of proof is held by the prosecution, then the defendant is regarded as innocent until proven guilty (applies to both common and civil law systems). The requirement is that the prosecution prove that the accused ''did do it''; the defense doesn't have to prove he ''didn't''. This can bite the prosecution badly, especially if the evidence is weak, or has been mishandled. It also doesn't necessarily follow the logical burden of proof, since the defense can demand the prosecution prove a negative. An infamous example of this is the O. J. Simpson Creator/OJSimpson trial, where O. O.J.'s defense lawyers demanded the prosecution prove an endless series of alternate scenarios were ''impossible''.



** Note that in the US criminal law system, it isn't necessary for the prosecution to definitively prove guilt, merely "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." That is, far-fetched alternative scenarios that also fit the evidence are not reason to acquit if they do not affect a "reasonable person's" belief in the defendant's guilt. As to which doubts are reasonable and which aren't, no one's really sure about that one. In US civil law however, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff, but it's much lower. Jurors decide the case simply by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%), which is why Creator/OJSimpson was acquitted of murder but held liable for wrongful death. But if neither side is more likely than the other, then the defense wins.

to:

** Note that in the US criminal law system, it isn't necessary for the prosecution to definitively prove guilt, merely "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." That is, far-fetched alternative scenarios that also fit the evidence are not reason to acquit if they do not affect a "reasonable person's" belief in the defendant's guilt. As to which doubts are reasonable and which aren't, no one's really sure about that one. In US civil law however, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff, but it's much lower. Jurors decide the case simply by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%), which is why Creator/OJSimpson O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but held liable for wrongful death. But if neither side is more likely than the other, then the defense wins.


** Note that in the US criminal law system, it isn't necessary for the prosecution to definitively prove guilt, merely "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." That is, far-fetched alternative scenarios that also fit the evidence are not reason to acquit if they do not affect a "reasonable person's" belief in the defendant's guilt. As to which doubts are reasonable and which aren't, no one's really sure about that one. In US civil law however, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff, but it's much lower. Jurors decide the case simply by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%), which is why O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but held liable for wrongful death. But if neither side is more likely than the other, then the defense wins.

to:

** Note that in the US criminal law system, it isn't necessary for the prosecution to definitively prove guilt, merely "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." That is, far-fetched alternative scenarios that also fit the evidence are not reason to acquit if they do not affect a "reasonable person's" belief in the defendant's guilt. As to which doubts are reasonable and which aren't, no one's really sure about that one. In US civil law however, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff, but it's much lower. Jurors decide the case simply by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. 51%), which is why O.J. Simpson Creator/OJSimpson was acquitted of murder but held liable for wrongful death. But if neither side is more likely than the other, then the defense wins.


** One of the major arguments in favor of the system is to avoid the scenario of MiscarriageOfJustice where an innocent individual is ultimately accused of a crime based on flimsy justifications that cannot be easily disproven. How much the situation falls into one camp or the other depends entirely on the circumstances.



* Discussed in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9rkQJ91VOE this]] Ted-Ed video.

to:

* Discussed in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9rkQJ91VOE this]] Ted-Ed video.video.
* One of the major arguments against the UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic by conspiracy theorists is to argue that [[AppealToIgnorance they have not actively seen the virus, nor know anybody directly with the virus]]. It leads to numerous blogs and arguments against the virus based entirely on the justification that the whole pandemic is a fabricated lie. Arguments in favor often try to explain that it is perpetrated by brainwashed citizens who believe their governments and refuse to do their own research and learn the truth. This argument is so pervasive that entire websites such as Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have enacted policies amending what people can and cannot discuss about the virus because of these constant misinformation campaigns trying to denounce the existence of the Coronavirus. As a result, the conspiracy campaigns against the virus have demanded that the CDC and other health organizations prove that the virus exists, [[MovingTheGoalPosts but actively denounce all existing evidence as lies while demanding new proofs]]. Ultimately the argument never is "Prove the evidence of the Coronavirus's existence is all fabricated", rather the argument to the inverse is used as its own evidence: "prove to me that the Coronavirus deaths are not fabricated and that people are actually dying to the disease". A number of arguments against its existence focus on conspiracies regarding governments lying about the fatalities, clumping fatalities together, or overblowing illnesses and attributing the death to "Covid", to the point that the only argument against these theories (as they often can't be proven to the 100% burden of proof required by believers) that they're wrong is to apply OccamsRazor.


** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.

to:

** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.reader.
* Discussed in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9rkQJ91VOE this]] Ted-Ed video.


** Theists frequently demand that atheists prove that there is no God (this is called presuppositionalist apologetics). It is impossible to disprove certain conceptions of God (a God who never does anything or interacts with the universe in any way is just as unobservable as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and an omnipotent deity like the Invisible Spaghetti Monster who deliberately hides evidence of his own existence, up to the point of altering our brains so that we cannot observe it, is likewise by definition impossible to observe), making this an impossible task - but the burden falls on those making the assertions about the existence of their God, who frequently claim their deity does exert some influence on reality. This is complicated by the fact that atheism is traditionally defined as "the belief there is no God" but many self-described atheists don't hold this, only that God is not proven (which many theists agree with, plus of course agnostics). So whether or not they hold a burden of proof depends on how the term has been defined. Inadvertent [[StrawmanFallacy strawman arguments]] can be made because of this. Atheist philosophers generally accept the traditional definition and ''do'' attempt to prove there is no God with various arguments. Agnosticism, meanwhile, is either the view God is not proven (compatible with one type of atheism and theism) or that it ''cannot'' be proven, the latter of which also bears a burden of proof.

to:

** Theists frequently demand that atheists prove that there is no God (this is called presuppositionalist apologetics). It is impossible to disprove certain conceptions of God (a God who never does anything or interacts with the universe in any way is just as unobservable as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and an omnipotent deity like the Invisible Spaghetti Monster UsefulNotes/FlyingSpaghettiMonster who deliberately hides evidence of his own existence, up to the point of altering our brains so that we cannot observe it, is likewise by definition impossible to observe), making this an impossible task - but the burden falls on those making the assertions about the existence of their God, who frequently claim their deity does exert some influence on reality. This is complicated by the fact that atheism is traditionally defined as "the belief there is no God" but many self-described atheists don't hold this, only that God is not proven (which many theists agree with, plus of course agnostics). So whether or not they hold a burden of proof depends on how the term has been defined. Inadvertent [[StrawmanFallacy strawman arguments]] can be made because of this. Atheist philosophers generally accept the traditional definition and ''do'' attempt to prove there is no God with various arguments. Agnosticism, meanwhile, is either the view God is not proven (compatible with one type of atheism and theism) or that it ''cannot'' be proven, the latter of which also bears a burden of proof.



** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.
* This is the basis of all religious faith; no religion has ever been able to conclusively prove that its deity exists, but they all define faith as belief ''without'' evidence, and similarly nobody has ever been able to prove (nor ever physically could) that any given deity ''doesn't'' exist either. No, not even the UsefulNotes/FlyingSpaghettiMonster.

to:

** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.
* This is the basis of all religious faith; no religion has ever been able to conclusively prove that its deity exists, but they all define faith as belief ''without'' evidence, and similarly nobody has ever been able to prove (nor ever physically could) that any given deity ''doesn't'' exist either. No, not even the UsefulNotes/FlyingSpaghettiMonster.
reader.


** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.

to:

** One example of this is called "Russell's Teapot", named after philosopher and scientist Creator/BertrandRussell. The idea there is that, somewhere in the solar system, there is a teapot, perfectly shaped and formed, in an elliptical orbit around the sun. Because it is functionally impossible to prove that there ''is'' no such teapot, the assumption that one exists is by its nature seemingly logical, despite the unlikelihood. Whether or not this is a functional argument against applied theology is, of course, up to the reader.reader.
* This is the basis of all religious faith; no religion has ever been able to conclusively prove that its deity exists, but they all define faith as belief ''without'' evidence, and similarly nobody has ever been able to prove (nor ever physically could) that any given deity ''doesn't'' exist either. No, not even the UsefulNotes/FlyingSpaghettiMonster.

Added DiffLines:

* This is one of the core criticisms of the concept of civil asset forfeiture in American law. For certain offenses (typically drug-related), police can seize any assets used in the commission of the offense, or bought with money gained from the offense. The problem is, it can easily result in a situation where someone has to prove that they did not use any illicitly-gained money to buy their car (or house, or other property), or they have to prove that the cash they had on their person was not gained from drug sales. Both things are essentially an impossibility so many people who weren't even charged with a crime have lost their property this way.


* At the beginning of ''Film/PlanNineFromOuterSpace'', the narrator claims it is a depiction of real events based on sworn testimony. At the end he asks, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" (however, note that the film was never actually billed as being BasedOnATrueStory).

to:

* At the beginning of ''Film/PlanNineFromOuterSpace'', ''Film/Plan9FromOuterSpace'', the narrator claims it is a depiction of real events based on sworn testimony. At the end he asks, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" (however, note that the film was never actually billed as being BasedOnATrueStory).



to:

* Whataboutism


*** Another problem, as Vincent Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson) and others pointed out, is that the prosecution failed to introduce evidence that indicated guilt -- O.J. making a stop in Chicago where he may have dumped the bloody clothes/murder weapon, the police interrogation notes, etc. Why? They were probably afraid of looking for evidence and then finding nothing in Chicago, or introducing the notes where, even though O.J. made many incriminating statements, he still denied guilt.

to:

*** Another problem, as Vincent Bugliosi (who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson) UsefulNotes/CharlesManson) and others pointed out, is that the prosecution failed to introduce evidence that indicated guilt -- O.J. making a stop in Chicago where he may have dumped the bloody clothes/murder weapon, the police interrogation notes, etc. Why? They were probably afraid of looking for evidence and then finding nothing in Chicago, or introducing the notes where, even though O.J. made many incriminating statements, he still denied guilt.


** In some cases, burden shifting is part of normal the procedure. For example in a civil case about workplace discrimination, the burden of proof starts on the Plaintiff to prove that discrimination. If the Plaintiff can prove discrimination, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff was fired for non-discriminatory reasons. However, these are very limited circumstances, and a court improperly shifting the burden of proof is an appealable issue.

to:

** In some cases, burden shifting is part of normal the procedure.legal procedures. For example in a civil case about workplace discrimination, the burden of proof starts on the Plaintiff to prove that discrimination. If the Plaintiff can prove discrimination, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to prove that the Plaintiff was fired for non-discriminatory reasons. However, these are very limited circumstances, and a court improperly shifting the burden of proof is an appealable issue.



** Theists frequently demand that atheists prove that there is no God (this is called presuppositionalist theism). It is impossible to disprove certain conceptions of God (a God who never does anything or interacts with the universe in any way is just as unobservable as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and an omnipotent deity like the Invisible Spaghetti Monster who deliberately hides evidence of his own existence, up to the point of altering our brains so that we cannot observe it, is likewise by definition impossible to observe), making this an impossible task - but the burden falls on those making the assertions about the existence of their God, who frequently claim their deity does exert some influence on reality. This is complicated by the fact that atheism is traditionally defined as "the belief there is no God" but many self-described atheists don't hold this, only that God is not proven (which many theists agree with, plus of course agnostics). So whether or not they hold a burden of proof depends on how the term has been defined. Inadvertent [[StrawmanFallacy strawman arguments]] can be made because of this. Atheist philosophers generally accept the traditional definition and ''do'' attempt to prove there is no God with various arguments. Agnosticism, meanwhile, is either the view God is not proven (compatible with one type of atheism and theism) or that it ''cannot'' be proven, the latter of which also bears a burden of proof.

to:

** Theists frequently demand that atheists prove that there is no God (this is called presuppositionalist theism).apologetics). It is impossible to disprove certain conceptions of God (a God who never does anything or interacts with the universe in any way is just as unobservable as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and an omnipotent deity like the Invisible Spaghetti Monster who deliberately hides evidence of his own existence, up to the point of altering our brains so that we cannot observe it, is likewise by definition impossible to observe), making this an impossible task - but the burden falls on those making the assertions about the existence of their God, who frequently claim their deity does exert some influence on reality. This is complicated by the fact that atheism is traditionally defined as "the belief there is no God" but many self-described atheists don't hold this, only that God is not proven (which many theists agree with, plus of course agnostics). So whether or not they hold a burden of proof depends on how the term has been defined. Inadvertent [[StrawmanFallacy strawman arguments]] can be made because of this. Atheist philosophers generally accept the traditional definition and ''do'' attempt to prove there is no God with various arguments. Agnosticism, meanwhile, is either the view God is not proven (compatible with one type of atheism and theism) or that it ''cannot'' be proven, the latter of which also bears a burden of proof.


** In some cases, burden shifting is part of normal the procedure. For example in a civil case, the burden of proof starts on the Plaintiff until they prove X, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to disprove X. However, these are very limited circumstances, and a court improperly shifting the burden of is an appealable issue.

to:

** In some cases, burden shifting is part of normal the procedure. For example in a civil case, case about workplace discrimination, the burden of proof starts on the Plaintiff until they to prove X, that discrimination. If the Plaintiff can prove discrimination, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to disprove X. prove that the Plaintiff was fired for non-discriminatory reasons. However, these are very limited circumstances, and a court improperly shifting the burden of proof is an appealable issue.

Added DiffLines:

** In some cases, burden shifting is part of normal the procedure. For example in a civil case, the burden of proof starts on the Plaintiff until they prove X, then the burden shifts to the Defendant to disprove X. However, these are very limited circumstances, and a court improperly shifting the burden of is an appealable issue.

Added DiffLines:

Compare ProofDare when a character demands someone else provide proof of their guilt.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 103

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report