(Source)

As other concerns preoccupy me, I've not been spending much time blogging or reading the blogs as of late – which, I am sure, is of great relief to our resident social conservatives, fundamentalist Christians, or Bush Nationalists and apologists.

However, I have begun to notice this fallacy creeping quite a bit into the follow-up discussions on various posts. Not completely unsurprising, this fallacy is usually committed by defenders of George Bush (ie. Bush Nationalists afflicted by their own brand of Bush Derangement Syndrome) or other right leaning apologists for the soon out-going administration.

I hate to single them out as anyone can commit this fallacy in defense of the indefensible where creed, political, or religious values are concerned. Yet, they make themselves such easy targets - and I really have no love for this type of ethical knife twisting.

Again, this is not meant to be a complete analysis and for sake of brevity, I'll cite one example today.

Defined
The Tu Quoque is a rhetorical red herring which can take the order of an ad hominem. It is an accusation of likewise chicanery when one's actions or beliefs are exposed as either vile, or for the stark wrongheadedness of its inherent reasoning.

In short, when the petitioner commits this fallacy, it is an attempt to put the accuser on the defensive who correctly identifies the error in the petitioner's reasoning. It is a simple attempt to deflect criticism without actually confronting the basis for which the criticism was observed in the first place.

Functionally, this fallacy becomes a red herring - irrelevancies to the main issue.

Example
On the doctrine of torture by waterboarding by the Bush administration:

"Wrong again. Bush did not torture anyone. The waterboarding was approved by democrats like Pelosi. Anyway, what we do to the enemy is no different than a college hazing." Jim Heyatt. (Source)

Explained and Exposed
The example attempts to justify waterboarding as a legal practice because not only has Bush given his sign-off, but the current highest ranking Democrat, Speaker Pelosi, as an endorser as well.

The reasoning is simple here. If Democrats do it, then a Republican who does it has committed no harm, no shame. Hey, if both sides agree, then how can waterboarding be wrong?

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true, both Pelosi and Bush agree that waterboarding – a technique of  "forced suffocation and inhalation of water" where the "subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent" is entirely legal and therefore not torture.

This argument implores us to suspend our judgment because of perceived political alignment and to ignore what waterboarding actually entails.

John Sifton of Human Rights Watch describes it as the person (waterboarded)  "believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution" and further observes  "is illegal under international law." Adding to this, former CIA officer Bob Baer states that "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough."

Essentially, in defense of Bush's policy of torture, the Bush-Nationalist (or any supporter of this doctrine), would have you forget that by all accounts and supportable evidence that waterboarding is not torture because they believe they've cornered the accuser out of similar political necessity and commitment. 

Suffice to say, the pro-wateboarder is easily and uncritically convinced by this reasoning.

As for others who do have a consistent moral grounding, we are not as blinded by political necessity or commitment.  

I'll call a spade a spade here.

If you believe that waterboarding is merely "college-hazing" – You are morally bankrupt.

In Conclusion
Just because Jimmy does what Janey does, does not make such an action or belief ethical in itself.

Criticisms of someone's beliefs or actions must be defended on its merits, not on the actions or merits of others.

When the Tu Quoque is evoked, there is a good chance that the petitioner who does is more than likely defending the indefensible and a person of questionable moral persuasion.  

Introduction
Typically, in discussions of why should one whether or not believe in god, Pascals Wager is offered by the believer as a decisive reason against non-belief. Most of the time, your garden-variety believer is unaware that they are invoking Pascal's Wager when they do. Pascal's Wager does not prove the claim that god exists, rather it posits belief in god is of practical necessity – like the precaution of checking to see the if the road is clear before you cross.

Pascal's Wager has been formally discredited by more systematical approaches of philosophy, but nonetheless it doesn't prohibit the unscrupulous or unaware from using it. Ironically, the believer who is wiling to take the bet, places themselves in as equally as a perilous position – if not more so than the unconvinced unbeliever.

Of course, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.

Background
Pascal's Wager was coined after Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher of the Enlightenment. He contributed much to Western science, the philosophy of science, and the scientific method with innovations and discoveries in the natural sciences, mathematics, and the invention of projective geometry and probability theory.

It is from probability theory that Pascal's formulates his famous gambit in the Pensées.

"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

Defined
I'll draft a quick syllogism of the premises.

P1: If you believe in God when you die, you have everything to gain.

P2: If you do not believe in God when you die and you're wrong, you have everything to lose.

P3: If you believe in God and nothing happens when you die - no harm, no shame.

C: Whether or not God exists, belief in God is practical.

Examples
1) If you will believe that Bush and Osama bin Laden are making apple pie together in the White House, I will give you a briefcase full of money, or I will pull this trigger and blow your head off.

The following example lifted directly from the blogs at lcl.

2) "And If I'm wrong, so what. But what if we Christians are right? Sucks to be you. Especially when you die. Take heed my brother."


Problems, Objections, Perils –  A Theological Arms Race
Positive, theistic arguments come in two different orders.

First order arguments are axiomatically epistemological and usually consist of an ontological argument, like design, cosmological, or personal revelation. Quite often, first order arguments make appeals to materialism as reason for belief in non-materialistic supernaturalism.

Second order arguments either posit god axiomatically, or ignore the question altogether. Rather, they turn to belief as a matter of practical necessity. Pascal's Wager is a second order argument.

First and second order arguments are mutually exclusive. 

Example 1 takes the carrot and stick approach to belief. Given the circumstances I propose, could you convince yourself, that Bush and Osama are actually making this All American confection together? I know I couldn't. I don't think you could either. (Although, I am quite sure there are those on the far left that probably do.  :D )

It still remains to be discerned why neurologically people believe what and why they believe. One thing is certain, beliefs are not entirely subject to will alone. In other words, you can not just "will" yourself to believe.

Despite the science, shouldn't I just have the belief (even if I could will it) regardless out of self preservation?

Moralists and philosophers have long debated over the ethics of a system of rewards and punishments as a way to teach virtue. Do we want people to donate to charity because a law requires them to?  While that may be great for society, it says nothing about the inner nature of people doing good by their own volition.

Ideally, it is better for society to have people voluntary act for the betterment of that society, or for themselves.

Example 2 is stated by a Christian with obvious theological underpinnings. You'll notice that example 2 uses the same carrot and stick approach as example 1. Since example 1 is an analogy of example 2, the same criticisms apply. Aditional criticism are relevant because example 2 assumes theism. More assumptions = equal more criticisms = equals greater chance of being wrong.

It goes without saying that the Christian thinks Heaven is the reward, and Hell is the punishment. I doubt that bad breath, hours of Barney the dinosaur, and hangnails is the implication being made.

It's getting late in the day, so I'll offer up only two objections at this time. You can read more here, here, and here. 

A) The Theological Arms Race:  All I have do is imagine a god, imagine a punishment or reward, and assert that such a belief is in your best interest. Christians and Muslims remain unconvinced of each others rewards and punishment over the divinity of Jesus. If I recall correctly, Mormonism gives you a planet for your afterlife in which you become a God to lord over, or whatever.

The point is, reward or punishment fails to convince each other of the necessity to believe in each others religion. True, they believe in god (Yahweh) but the idiosyncrasies in dogmas are highlighted by lavish punishments or rewards remain unconvincing to each other. Muslims will spend eternity in a Christian lake of fire, and vice-a-versa.

Also, it should be noted that the theological arms race only pushes theism into the abyss of agnosticism. It makes all kinds of belief in all kinds of gods a practical necessity from the dead gods of pagan antiquity, to " new" gods that are "hidden" as science strips the places where god hides today.

B) The Atheist's Wager. What if atheists go to heaven? A quick syllogism: P1: God created non-belief. P2: God rewards non-belief, punishes all theistic belief. P3: Atheists go to heaven, theists go to hell C: It is more practical not to believe in god.

Recall, since Pascal's Wager does not argue for the existence of god and does not try prove that such an entity exists, the atheist if free to ignore the question of gods existence. (He would anyway, the burden of proof is on the believer.) Pascal's Wager is a second order argument that is mutually exclusive to first order arguments.

Look at this way. If god doesn't exist, the atheist will have saved 10% of his income and had many more Sunday's to sleep in. The Christian, loses all of that. Muslim societies so much more. In fact, the atheist according to Pascal's Wager has much more to gain. Once your dead, your dead. No going back and recovering all that money and time spent in church.

Anyway, it seems pretty clear to me that the theist is in even greater jeopardy than the atheist.

Incidentally, let me express a little rancor of at example 2. Perhaps due to my many, many, years of religious education, how dare you threaten me in such a sneering way? It's really petty that instead of attempting to give me your best first order argument, you go ahead and extort my non-existent afterlife.

In Conclusion
Pascal's Wager falls under the weight of it's logical incoherence. Not only is it impossible for one to just will themselves into belief, nor does a system of rewards and punishment make the wager ethical, it also requires the believer to hold belief in countless numbers of god despite religions mutual exclusivity, or to reject belief all together.

The safest bet, according to Pascal's Wager, is to reject theism and embrace atheism. 

Humans are quite naturally uncomfortable with ignorance. We are curious animals, evolved with an ability to reason and to discover insight into the phenomena that we find ourselves perplexed and enveloped in. Nature does not willingly yield her secrets to us. And while science can penetrate into some of nature's deepest mysterious, the theories it provides – like evolution for instance, can rival our otherwise conventional (or religious) wisdom.

Not all explanations are equal. Explanations that can not be falsified do not have a reliable attachment to reality. Scientific theories are testable. At any time, a theory can be overturned in light of new evidence or understanding. Explanations that can not be tested, are not science, but wishful thinking that relies on the authority of its dogma. (For a quick review of the scientific method, click here.)

As always, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.

Defined
This fallacy is not about a one's ignorance per se, but is committed when the petitioner asserts that a substitute explanation is more reliable if there are no apparent alternative explanations. Just because an explanation fails, does not necessarily make a competing explanation more plausible.

The Skeptics Dictionary supplies us with an accurate definition:

"The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory claim."

Examples

1. Those unidentified lights are proof of extraterrestrial life, since no other explanation is apparent.
2. If evolution is false, then creationism is true. A truncated example from the blogs, states: "Evolution according to Charles Darwin simply cannot be the truth. The only remaining popular theory is Creationism, or Intelligent Design. There is no scientific proof that it didn't happen essentially as the Book of Genesis describes. Creationism thus remains standing as the only plausible explanation for the existence of life on earth. Consequently, it is completely scientific, simply because it is the only "truth" left standing."

Example 1: To presume that a light in the sky is substantial proof of alien life is not sufficient evidence.The lights in the sky could have been anything. An unnecessary assumption is being attributed without demonstrating that the lights are, in fact, extraterrestrial life.

Example 2: Evolution may one day demonstrated to be false, it does not necessarily make the Genesis account necessarily true. Also notice, that in this example the creationist  invokes a special plead. There are countless other creation stories from a multiple of other religious traditions, yet the writer automatically disqualifies these creation stories because of his prior commitment to Biblical creationism. Simply, the creationist is stating because he believes creationism to be true, it automagically is. This is nothing but wishful thinking.

Sound scientific theories propose how a theory can be falsified. In fact, a favorite tactic of creationists is to "quote mine" Darwin himself. Darwin proposes: "The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views (the Theory of Natural Selection) here entertained."  (Read full the context of the quote, here.) At the time, Darwin had to inductively reason from the evidence presently known which the Theory of Natural Selection is predicated on. Creationist like to falsely state that Darwin knew that evolution was false. Not so.

Scientific theories make predictions that can be tested. Darwin was supplying his critics with the conditions that could overturn the Theory of Natural Selection. That is sound science. Sound scientific theories rests not only a preponderance of evidence, but by independent verification.

Also, I should mention that Darwin was proposing a theory for the origin of species, not an origin of life. Creationist like to muddle the two. (Strawmen are easier to defeat after all.)

What the creationist fails to tell you that after a 150 years of collecting fossils that demonstrate benchmark evolutionary developments that species have undertaken (transitory fossils) and research into genetics, the evidence against evolution has ceased to be inexplicable. Darwin's theories have proven their accuracy. From geology to biology, to other independent fields, the Theory of Evolution is as much as a fact as anything you will find. (Read more about evolution, here.) In fact, Darwinian evolution is the meta-theory that governs modern, biological sciences.

The most damning of all, of course, is that the creationist argues that no evidence can falsify creationism. If no evidence can overturn creationism, what evidence can? The other curious aspect of the creationist's argument, is while he argues that there is not "scientific proof" (proof meaning evidence) in favor of Biblical Creationism, he simultaneously claims that creationism is " completely scientific"  by fiat. Which is it? Does science prove creationism or not? 

And that is weakness of creationism. Creationism can not provide criteria in how the "design theory" may be discredited. All design arguments invoke a much larger question which must be surmounted: "Since the designer is necessarily more complex than his creation – like the watchmaker to his watch, how was the designer designed?"

An argument from ignorance is not an answer to the design argument, nor does it provide satisfactory evidence of the claim.

In Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with the answer, "We do not know." Only by a sound methodology that remains open to new evidence and understanding, we can hope to resolve some of our natural ignorance.

With the introduction of industrialization to society, we have become nations of specialists. No longer are we generalists whose sole task is survival. We have become niche workers in specialized fields. The more demanding the position, the more training and experience required.
 
A person today can not spend all the necessary time to train and to be expert in every field and in every sub-discipline of that field. Science would have died after its first practitioners, and the extant of society would be forever configured into small tribal units – eking a subsistence in caves and at the whim of migrating animals. There would be no transcendent knowledge base from one generation to the next.

Therefore, we must rely on experts, to determine what the facts are and how those facts describe the world around us.

Defined
This fallacy is very similar to last weeks fallacy,  instead of appealing to majority opinion, the appeal is either made to what an expert or a perceived authority feels, or a group as justification for a belief. Citing a person's belief as evidence is evidence of that person's belief, not that the belief itself is valid.

There are other varieties of this fallacy, but I am including the ones that are most relevant to the discussions at lcl.

Examples

1. Einstein believed in God. Are you smarter than Einstein?
   
2. A majority of democrats voted to authorize Bush to go to war with Iraq. Therefore, the war is justified.

Example 1: This is a non-sequitar. Einstein did not believe in God. In a letter to a philosopher Eric Gutkind (recently auctioned) Einstein reveals  "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

If you want to use Einstein as an expert for belief in god - that is fine by me.

Regardless of Einstein's beliefs, belief in God is justified only by the evidence. You've only demonstrated what someone else may or may not believe, not that the belief itself has any merit.

Example 2: This argument is deployed as a post hoc rationalization for the war in Iraq. While it is true that there was significant bipartisan support in Congress, that does not substitute for positive and explicit evidence for invasion.  As we all know, the evidence was never found. It's complete absence, is conclusive evidence that such an absence of WMD did not exist according to the explicit allegations made.

In Conclusion
While it is true that we must rely on the testimony of experts, the truth of a claim does not end with that expert alone. Facts on the ground can change and that is why any theory must remain falsifiable to have any value at all.

Otherwise, we succumb to dogma and doctrine.

You are likely to find this fallacy in matters of governmental policy or as positive evidence for a belief. (Usually theistic.) It is always offered as reason why you should either subscribe to a particular belief or hold a specific position.

As always, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.

Defined
This fallacy is committed when the petitioner does not argue on the merits of a claim, but instead appeals to popular beliefs or values.  A particular piece of legislation is said to be valid if a recent poll shows favorable support for it. Polls are meant to sample sentiment over an issue, not that such a belief or legislation is valid.

Examples

1. A number of industrialized societies have nationalized health care. The United States should follow.
2. Since 92% of Americans believe in God, God exists.
   

Example 1: The merits of nationalized health care should be a policy based on the quality of health care it can provide over other methods of delivery. Also, different countries have their respective priorities, to assert that one country should follow the example also commits the naturalistic fallacy.

We can test this example by substituting a different policy.

• A number of third-world countries have slavery as part of their economic policy. So should the U.S.A.
  

Obviously, no one would be convinced by that argument now.

Example 2: Only shows the proclivities of theistic belief among Americans. It does not give positive evidence that such a God exists.

Let's test this example by substituting a different theistic belief.

• 92% of Americans have been touched by the noodlely-appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. FSM does, indeed, exist.
  

We changed the belief but kept the majority number, and it did not make the FSM any more real than God. If this example is too out there, just substitute flat earth for a spherical earth.

In Conclusion
Claims are not true, just because they are believed by a number of others. Opinions can shift over a claim, or the facts underlying a claim can change with new information. Claims are only as reliable, not in how many people believe them, but for what evidence substantiates them.

Remember when you were a kid staring at the clouds looking for shapes or faces of people you knew? Do you also recall that if someone did not point out a familiar shape, you were blind to it until they did so?

Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, and is not a fallacy of reasoning but a fallacy in perception.

Defined

Yale neurologist, Dr Steven Novella observes that "Pareidolia is a consequence of the fact that our brains largely work through pattern recognition - making connections among various ideas, memories, or images. We are also very visual creatures and so are particularly good at visual pattern recognition - still better than the best supercomputers (at least for now). The most familiar visual pattern for humans is the human face. Even as infants we prefer to look at human faces over other stimuli. We have a large portion of our visual cortex dedicated to seeing and remembering faces. This is likely due to evolutionary pressures to be able to instantly recognize friend from foe, but also to be able to read subtle facial expressions."

Examples

Number Pareidolia

 

Facial Pareidolia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Pareidolia

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

Pareidolia is a natural consequence of our evolutionary biology which can affect our interpretations depending upon our culture. Religious pareidolia will interpret a recognizable pattern as some kind of miracle. In the Christian west, we see the virgin Mary. In Muslim countries numbers from the Quran, or the word Allah are perceived. The Face on Mars is an example of the influence by popular culture.

Our brains are very sophisticated pattern seekers, however, it is bad and rushed judgment to conclude a supernatural significance to the patterns we perceive.

In order to establish an actual miracle like the examples above, we would first need to rule out pareidolia, or other natural causes.

Political debate is fertile ground for this fallacy. Heck, just about any arena of debate is a perfect breeding ground.

Again, the following analysis is not meant to the definitive work on the subject.

Defined

The ad hominem is the classic fallacy of attack the messenger and not the message. When someone employs this fallacy, it is used without evidence about the person attacked, and most importantly, it does not offer evidence to refute the argument being made. This type of attack works like a straw man. It diverts attention from the real issue.

The ad homimen can take the form of using a label, like conservative or liberal, as a pejorative. A sure sign of this fallacy is abusive language, name calling, or unwarranted anger against one's opponent.

Also, the ad homimen may take the form of Poisoning the Well, in order to breed suspicion and fear around a person. Additionally, I've written about a special plead with patriotism used as an ad homimen.

In many cases, the petitioner will use an ad hominem with the full knowledge that they are doing so.

These examples were culled at LCL.com.

Examples

A. "Nothing is bizarre about the fact that liberals are as bad as terrorists. Both wish to destroy the United States." (Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer)

B. "That is another hypocritical, liberal lying statement from you." (Jim Hayett)

And a bit of sarcasm aping the first example:

C. "McCain evil, he eats small children and watches Gossip Girls....McCain bad man....ooh icky." (Victor Ponelis)

Example A: Uses abusive language by conflating two unlike groups of people in the form of a false comparison.

Example B: Not only is the language abusive, but it makes two accusations without evidence and turns a type person (like a liberal) into a pejorative. A person may be a liar or hypocrite, however, that does not automatically disqualify the argument by that person.

Example C: Effectively makes fun of A and is funny! (None of it true of course - well except for maybe the tv show - but I like Gossip Girl.) This tease accomplishes in a few words what I've written here.

In Conclusion 

Arguments should be honestly confronted and rejoined on the merits of the position, not from the anger of the petitioner toward the person offering the argument.

When a petitioner sinks to the level of an ad hominem, we can safely conclude that the petitioner either does not have a valid argument or has already lost the debate. In the words of one Lake Country poster, jmark, it is "middle school name calling."

Introduction

The Straw Man fallacy is often committed by creationists in their defense of a literal creation by a supernatural agency when attempting to refute evolution.

This fallacy can be quite effective - if you are not on guard for it, or do not understand or aware of the opponents position.

Defined

Instead of representing the opponents argument accurately, the petitioner rephrases or misrepresents the oppositions argument as to make it easier to defeat. The petitioner then declares victory over this invented argument.

Therefore the allusion of a straw man. They are easy to knock down.

Example

According to his (Charles Darwin) evolution scenario, inanimate substances came together by chance to give rise to the first living cell.

---

"Living things did not come into being through the imaginary processes of evolution."

This example is from the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya. A Muslim creationist. Yes, thats right a Muslim creationist.

Like many creationists, Harun Yahya, restates evolution as a theory on the origin of life. Evolution is a theory on the origin of species. Meaning, Darwinian evolution starts after life begins.

Therefore, evolution can not account for abiogenesis. Because Yahya uses a straw man, it allows for an easy victory, despite the fact that it came at the expense of intellectual honesty.

In Conclusion

Straw Man arguments are an intellectually dishonest way of arguing against a position that one wishes to refute. The victory allegedly won is therefore useless.

Arguments and positions should be honestly confronted and then rejoined on the merits of the position, not one imagined.

Political debate is rife with this one, and I've been the subject and a focus of this type of attack countless times at LCL.com. I thought it would be helpful to make it the focus of this weeks fallacy. Again, this article is not meant to be the exhaustive work on the subject.

Defined

Poisoning of the Well is very simple. The petitioner will offer some unfavorable information that they think will discredit their opposition. This information can be either true or false. The attack is made to spread suspicion without actually having to address the merits of the oppositions arguments or beliefs.

Examples:

01. Hamas had nice things to say about Barack Obama. Therefore Obama is a weak on defense and will destroy the county.

02. George Bush said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier......just so long as I'm the dictator." Therefore, Bush will turn the US into a dictatorship and destroy the county.

In example one, whether or not some organization had nice things to say about Obama does not change what policies (Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006) and what statements (Obama's speech to AIPAC June 6, 2008) he has made in the past. Hamas later retracted, and McCain's campaign applied Hamas quote out of context in order to spread fear and suspicion.

For example two, despite the fact that Bush stated this does not mean he wants to transform the U.S. into his own private kingdom and that every policy decision he makes is a step toward this goal. Whether the policy is domestic like No Child Left Behind (Vote), or foreign, like the Iraq War (Joint Resolution on Iraq) these would not have become reality with or without tacit compliance from Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike. Bush still has to rely on the legislative process in many cases. Also, this quote is often used out of context.

As a side note, I really wish I had a nickel every time when either some Democrat or Republican used one of these.

In Conclusion

Both of these examples are non-sequiturs as the conclusions we are being led into are not supported by the evidence. In fact, the evidence (if we bother to check) rebukes this type of indirect ad hominem attack. Honest debate should be about the merits of a policy or a belief, and not made as an attack through fear and suspicion.

In recent discussions with my fellow, passionate, bloggers, it has come to my attention that there are some misunderstanding and confusion of what it means to support your claims. So, I'd like to help my fellow bloggers and readers to understand what it means when you have the burden of proof. I'll try to sum this up neatly and try not to get overly technical. I'll probably be skipping lots of other things I should mention though, so don't take this as a definitive work on the subject.

Arguments Defined

When making an argument you are making a claim about the nature of reality. All arguments have premises and conclusions, and all arguments are either strong or weak in various degrees. Arguments may cite evidence as support of its claim. Arguments are not the final say on a proposition, they are at best, an approximation as to what we think is probably true. Arguments are not truth in themselves. A stronger argument may have some predictive quality. In this way, an argument somewhat functions like a scientific theory. It is open to criticism and as new evidence is uncovered. Basically, if a claim can not be falsified, then it is not an argument but an assertion.

Also, arguments always take the positive position, that is, they are trying to substantiate what is being claimed. Negative statements are not arguments, nor are they assertions. For instance the statement: I do not believe in God. There is no position being taken and this statement is a negation. You can't prove a negative. Therefore, negative statements are free from the burden of proof.

The Burden of Proof Defined

If we apply this general principle to the positive  of "our local newspaper is liberally biased" we then have to ask to petitioner on what grounds. If the petitioner states that there is empirical evidence and research to prove this, we must then ask for the research and the evidence. We must also ask the petitioner what are his terms so that we may qualify the evidence that is collected, and this in turn helps us to understand how the premises of the argument substantiates the claim. We must then examine the quality of the evidence and establish that the evidence reasonably supports the claim and is of sufficient verisimilitude. As we continue our examination, we dig and try to uncover errors in reasoning and in observation. Has the petitioner made any category errors or commit any confirmation bias when selecting his evidence? Has the petitioner addressed and suggested how his conclusion may be falsified? Did the petitioner have his study or his evidence peer reviewed or vetted? Did the petitioner misunderstand the evidence? In the same way we would scrutinize a research paper, so too do we scrutinize an argument's premises in determining the likelihood of the truth of the claim.

If a number of these things are satisfied, and the petitioner has fulfilled the obligation of quality evidence and sound error free reasoning, we can say with reasonable certainty that the argument probably is a truthful proposition.

Shifting the The Burden of Proof

However, if the petitioner does not provide quality evidence nor defines his terms and refuses to do so when asked, we can safely dismiss the claim. If the premises are weak and the evidence cited is not of equal integrity to the claim ,we can again dismiss it. We can equally dismiss the claim if the petitioner asks you to do the research for him when pressed.

For example:

Since you don't believe that invisible green leprechauns are cause of alcoholism, it is up to you to show that they do not exist.

Clearly, this is a shift in the burden of proof.

In Conclusion

In order to satiate the burden of proof, plausible arguments are as only as good as the clarity of its premises, quality of evidence, and reasoning without fallacy of composition as possible. No argument is a substitute for an objective fact, but can function within reasonable doubt or certainty as to their plausibility. It is up to the petitioner to support his claim as free of fallacy as possible and respond to challenges to the claim without errors in reasoning, or by shifting the burden of proof.