The thread on distance versus traditional education brought up a
question that often bothers me: in any debate about knowledge claims, on
which party should the burden of "proof" be placed? Schick & Vaughn
(1998; just started reading this--interesting, but not as good as I had
expected) stated that: "Whenever someone proposes something--a policy, a
fact, or a theory--the burden of proof is on that person to provide
reasons for accepting the proposition" (p. 19). This sounds eminently
reasonable in the abstract. However, when this eminently reasonable rule
is referred to in an actual debate, it often seems to be raised when one
person is trying to put another on the defensive. That is, the person
making the point often sounds incredulous about the claim and may
already DISbelieve it. That is, this second person now is making his/her
own knowledge claim (or, at least, seems to be)--the counterclaim is
that the original claim is WRONG. At this point, the first person (the
one who made the original claim) can reasonably ask: "What is the
evidence for your claim that my claim is wrong?"
In other words, this placing of the "burden of proof" on one party or
the other often (but not always) seems disingenuous to me: in practice,
it often seems to be more a debating tactic than a rule motivating us
towards a dispassionate search for the truth. And much of the time, it
all comes back (I think) to what an individual counts as evidence for a
knowledge claim, or for the counterclaim: personal experience and other
kinds of substandard evidence is often used. One side is making the
original claim based on substandard evidence (authority, personal
experience, something they heard somewhere, etc.) and the other side is
making the counterclaim on similar evidence. At this point, unless BOTH
sides can see what is happening, step back, and restate their claims
and/or look for better evidence, the debate degenerates into emotionally
charged bickering. The words of Bertrand Russel ring very true for me
here:
"When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to
set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do
not hold their opinions with passion, they hold them calmly, and set
forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion are
always those for which no good ground exists, indeed the passion is the
measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction" (quoted in Schick &
Vaughn, p. 103)
Jeff
Reference:
Schick, Jr., T., & Vaughn, L. (1998). _How to think about weird things:
Critical thinking for a new age_. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
and be in the least mystical."
Knight Dunlap
