Skip to main content

Presumptions and Burden of Proof

In Chapter 6, the authors propose a complementary relationship between presumptions and burden of proof in the process of argumentation.
The text provides Richard Whately’s definition of presumption, stating, “Richard Whately defined a presumption in favor of any proposition as the ‘preoccupation of the ground, which implies that it must stand good till some sufficient reason is adduced against it’”(Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 86). Presumptions are often challenged, but sometimes tricky to overturn because when we challenge presumptions, we also challenge the status quo. 
Basketball analysts often include presumptions in their arguments for who they feel will reach or win the NBA Finals every year. The common presumption among them is that despite any difficulties a team has during the regular season, the most talented team in the playoffs will reach the Finals. This presumption is a clear reflection of what has been the status quo in the NBA for over two decades. The Chicago Bulls were the most talented team of the 1990’s and won six championships. Despite numerous chemistry issues with his teams over the past decade, the NBA’s most talented player, LeBron James, has led his team to the NBA Finals for eight straight years primarily because of his talent contribution to his teams.
On the opposite side of presumptions is the burden of proof. According to the text, “Burden of proof identifies the responsibility to initiate an argument and set out a case sufficient in argumentative strength and breadth to bring the decision makers to doubt their presumptions and then see themselves, at least potentially, able to adhere to your proposition” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 87). Presumptions can have a powerful influence on decision makers, and the individual or individuals challenging that influence thus have the burden to prove their assertions (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 87).
The American public is currently divided over Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the US Supreme Court despite allegations that he sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford thirty years ago. In his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the Senate held the presumption that Kavanaugh was not guilty of sexual assault; therefore, Dr. Ford had the burden of proof in the argument trying to disprove this assumption. Unfortunately, Dr. Ford could not overturn the Senate’s presumption that Kavanaugh was not guilty because she did not build a strong enough of a case due to the absence of physical evidence in her case and the testimony of direct witnesses who disclaimed any knowledge of the crime Kavanaugh was accused of.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM

    I am a big basketball fan myself. And this is very true of every sports commentator, they make presumptions based on past performance, regardless of what may have taken place this season. Like in the case of Kawhi Leonard, many NBA experts are pressuming that he will be back to his peak form as a top 5 NBA player, after missing a major portion of time, and being away from the Spurs. But this is why we play the games, the best teams have that so-called "burden of proof", like you said Lebron James has been to the finals for the last 8 seasons. So anyone making the argument that Lebron will reach his 9th straight finals, would be putting the burden of proof on the opposition in the argument, since the proof is in the previous 8 playoff trips. In this situation though, presumptions that Lebron will just make the finals again could get a fan into trouble, because for the first time in his career he will be playing in the Western Conference, where the competition is much higher. Every MVP for the last 15 years is currently playing in the Western Conference and 7/10 previous champions have been from the Western Conference (Lebron won the other 3 for the East). All of that basketball talk aside, presumptions in arguments, especially sports in my opinion can get people in trouble, especially without the burden of proof on their side.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more