Shifting the Burden of Proof

(redirected from Argument from ignorance)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The process of transferring the obligation to affirmatively prove a fact in controversy or an issue brought during a lawsuit from one party in a legal controversy to the other party.

When the individual upon whom the Burden of Proof initially rested has brought evidence that tends to prove a particular fact or issue, the other party then takes on the duty to rebut such fact or issue through the use of defensive or contradictory evidence.


Burden of Proof.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

shifting the burden of proof

n. in a lawsuit the plaintiff (the party filing suit) has the burden of proof to produce enough evidence to prove his/her/its basic (prima facie) case. If that burden is met, then the burden of proof shifts to the other party, putting the defendant in the position of having the burden to prove he/she has a defense. There may be shifts of burden of proof on specific factual issues during a trial, which may impact the opposing parties and their need to produce evidence. (See: burden of proof, prima facie case)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Appeal to ignorance is also known as argument from ignorance, in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence" and becomes "a fallacy in informal logic." It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven as false.
To mention some: ingoratio elenchi (ignoring the issue), argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), fallacy of false dilemma, artful equivocation, and argumentum ad odium (argument from hatred).
As to the argument from ignorance, it was used by St.
Meyer argues that this is not an argument from ignorance but from knowledge gained by Darwinian science.
Under sharp scrutiny, it just degenerates into another argument from ignorance, or so it seems to me."
He repeatedly characterizes it as an argument from ignorance: "If we can show that first life and biological complexity is unexplainable (highly improbable) in terms of known natural mechanisms," we will have proven that "it was brought about by an intelligent agent" (p.
The Argument from Ignorance against Truth-Conditional Semantics, PAUL SAKA
It is argued that the pragmatic model does more justice to realistic arguments about knowledge, especially the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), or lack of evidence argument, as it is called in computing and other fields.
The argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy that holds either that a statement not known to be true or proven true is false, or a statement not known to be false or proven false is true.
Gaskins points out that there has been no systematic study of the argument from ignorance in the literature, and his book is meant to fill that gap.
Gaskins devotes chapter 7 to Kant's transcendental argument and claims that it also is a version of the argument from ignorance. Gaskins's claim is that Kant's argument is wholly rhetorical.