Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness

Aijaz, Imran; McKeown-Green, Jonathan; Webster, Aness

Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness Thumbnail


Authors

Imran Aijaz

Jonathan McKeown-Green

Aness Webster



Abstract

How is the burden of proof to be distributed among individuals who are involved in resolving a particular issue? Under what conditions should the burden of proof be distributed unevenly? We distinguish attitudinal from dialectical burdens and argue that these questions should be answered differently, depending on which is in play. One has an attitudinal burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to possess sufficient evidence for it. One has a dialectical burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to provide supporting arguments for it as part of a deliberative process. We show that the attitudinal burden with respect to certain propositions is unevenly distributed in some deliberative contexts, but in all of these contexts, establishing the degree of support for the proposition is merely a means to some other deliberative end, such as action guidance, or persuasion. By contrast, uneven distributions of the dialectical burden regularly further the aims of deliberation, even in contexts where the quest for truth is the sole deliberative aim, rather than merely a means to some different deliberative end. We argue that our distinction between these two burdens resolves puzzles about unevenness that have been raised in the literature.

Citation

Aijaz, I., McKeown-Green, J., & Webster, A. (2013). Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness. Argumentation, 27(3), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9285-4

Journal Article Type Article
Publication Date Aug 1, 2013
Deposit Date Feb 26, 2016
Publicly Available Date Mar 29, 2024
Journal Argumentation
Print ISSN 0920-427X
Electronic ISSN 1572-8374
Publisher Springer Verlag
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 27
Issue 3
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9285-4
Keywords Burden of Proof, Presumption, Argumentation, Expected Utility
Public URL https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/715976
Publisher URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10503-012-9285-4
Additional Information The final publication is available at Springer via http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10503-012-9285-4

Files





Downloadable Citations