In this chapter, the section that I connected the most with
was the section about Assess Presumptions and the Burden of Proof. The book
states that in an argument, the Burden of Proof lies on the side that is
challenging the overcoming presumption. In other words, when something is
assumed to be common knowledge or a generally accepted fact, it is the
responsibility of the person challenging those assumptions to provide evidence
and convincing arguments, not the person defending those assumptions. The book
already gave an example of how invalid arguments can be made when the side with
the burden of proof tries to pass the burden of proof onto the other without
establishing a solid argument. However, another problem that I have seen arise
out of this concept stems not from someone failing to meet the burden of proof,
but from the uncertainty as to which side has the burden of proof in an
argument. The burden of proof is determined based on which side is arguing in
favor of the status quo, and that in an argument where each side has equally
valid arguments, the decision would go in favor of the side with the existing
presumption. This can be an issue when both sides are operating under the
belief that their argument is in line with the status quo, and therefore
believes that it is the other side’s duty to convince them that they are wrong,
not the other way around. This problem often seems to arise during debates
regarding religious values, as people tend to view their own religious views as
the status quo, regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I think you did a really good job in explaining the concept of Assess presumption and burden of proof. I agree with everything you said, especially talking about the burden off proof when it comes to debate regarding religious values and views. This also relates to the concept of worldviews. The topic of religion is definitely key factor in defining one's beliefs and views. I think we often don't realize that debates especially one's related to religious beliefs are harder not only because it is the status quo but the burden of proof argument is mostly against religious beliefs. The author gives a great example of the history of marriage, one that has been between men and women for years. And the argument of same sex marriage is definitely one that had the burden of proof because it not only challenged the status quo but went against people's religious values. It took years of struggles to legalize same-sex marriage but it still is a great example of both conflicting worldviews and the burden of proof.
ReplyDelete