Burden of Proof

Burden of proof concerns who is responsible for supporting a disputed claim and how strong that support needs to be in a particular setting. Asking others to disprove a claim does not automatically supply evidence for it. Evidential obligations can apply to positive and negative claims, proposals for change, and claims defending the status quo. The appropriate standard depends on the purpose, rules, and consequences of the decision.

Burden of proof concerns both who must support a claim and how much support is needed in the setting. These are separate questions. A low-cost reversible trial may need a plausible rationale and clear checks, while a consequential commitment may require substantially stronger evidence. Requiring certainty in every case can prevent learning; requiring no evidence can make confident assertion sufficient for action.

Avoid giving the status quo an invisible exemption. A proposer may need to support a new approach, but a defender who claims the existing approach works is also making a claim. Clarify the alternatives, the consequences of error, and the evidence each position needs. Failure to establish a proposition can justify withholding acceptance without proving its opposite. Negative claims can carry evidential obligations too; their difficulty depends on their scope.

When to use it

When evaluating proposals that lack evidence; when debates hinge on 'you can't disprove it'; when designing decision processes that require appropriate evidence for action; when someone is shifting the burden of proof to avoid providing evidence for their claim.

How it can help

Clarify the claim, the evidence needed, who can provide it, and what would justify the next decision. Distinguish a full commitment from a bounded experiment. Apply relevant standards to competing claims without automatically favoring the status quo or demanding certainty that the situation cannot provide.