burden of proof

This is our lounge area. Feel free to come in and get acquainted!
User avatar
ed
Posts: 32782
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 730 times

burden of proof

Post by ed » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:29 pm

somebody posted a concise statement about the nature of claims and proof. Ring a bell?
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:38 pm

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens (some even call this "Hitchens' razor")
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32782
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by ed » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:46 pm

no, it was more basic than that. like the default response in law to an accusation is not not guilty but rather was there a crime in the first place.

thanks though that is a good one.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:38 pm

Do you mean the burden of proof in a legal context or just more generally?

The simplest cliche is "innocent until proven guilty."

There are even wikipedia articles on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... hilosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1359 times
Been thanked: 1148 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by Anaxagoras » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:46 pm

Maybe this is the concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If it cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

For example, in a trial under criminal law the prosecution has the burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the crime charged against the defendant. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant's act caused the death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought. If no party introduces new evidence, the case stands or falls just by the prima facie evidence or lack thereof.

Prima facie evidence does not need to be conclusive or irrefutable: at this stage, evidence rebutting the case is not considered, only whether any party's case has enough merit to take it to a full trial.
In short, prima facie evidence is the minimum standard of evidence for a case to even be considered in the first place. Usually a grand jury would consider this for a criminal case. Enough evidence to indict would be prima facie evidence, but it might not be enough evidence to convict. To convict, the evidence should be "beyond a reasonable doubt".
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
ed
Posts: 32782
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 730 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by ed » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:01 pm

Not what I'm thinking of. It was a jpeg I think. Doc may have posted it but I had seen it elsewhere.
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 15955
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1919 times
Been thanked: 2602 times

Re: burden of proof

Post by Witness » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:05 pm

ed wrote:Not what I'm thinking of. It was a jpeg I think. Doc may have posted it but I had seen it elsewhere.
Perhaps it's here somewhere: https://yandex.com/images/search?text=b ... of%20proof.