Q&A | Must a Confined Woman First ‘Prove’ That She Was Trafficked? 35 Lessons in Critical Thinking: Think Like a Debater

35 Lessons in Critical Thinking: Think Like a Debater

Pang Ying

Transcript

Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the Q&A for Episode 21 of Think Like a Debater.

Q1: Give another example of ‘prove existence, not nonexistence.’ Why is a positive fact easier to prove?

A：Begin with Carl Sagan’s dragon in my garage.

I claim a fire-breathing dragon lives there. You visit and ask to see it, but find nothing.

I say: sorry, I forgot to mention it is invisible.

You propose scattering flour to reveal footprints.

I say it floats and leaves none.

You propose infrared detection.

I say it has no heat, so infrared fails.

You propose spraying it with paint.

I say it is incorporeal, so paint cannot stick.

Whatever physical test you suggest to show absence, I explain why it is inapplicable or insufficient. You cannot prove nonexistence; empirically, my claim is unfalsifiable.

Understanding this principle also requiresburden of proofandpresumption.These concepts belong together.

Now a second example.

Philosophy offersRussell’s teapot.

Russell says: suppose I claim a tiny teapot orbits between Earth and Mars, too small for telescopes. I offer no evidence, but you cannot disprove it. Does inability to prove nonexistence establish existence? Would that be fair?

By analogy, suppose I found the Chive-Dumpling Religion and proclaim a Chive-Dumpling God without evidence, while answering every empirical or physical attempt at disproof like Sagan’s dragon.

I am trying to transfer the burden to you while enjoying presumption: unless you disprove the god, it exists.

Is that a fair allocation? You would reasonably require me to prove existence; otherwise assume none. If I insist on belief, positive evidence is both easier and more appropriate than an unfalsifiable demand for disproof.

Russell’s point: when someone makes an empirically unfalsifiable claim, that claimant bears proof and suffers if evidence is insufficient. This is why assigning a negative fact’s burden in court is unfair.