generate a new title here, between 50 to 60 characters long
Written on
Understanding the Burden of Proof
The issue of who bears the responsibility to provide evidence when making a claim is often misunderstood.
Recently, while using the Notes feature on Substack, I encountered a variety of discussions, particularly regarding “experiments” with psychedelic substances. I must admit my skepticism toward the consumption of mind-altering drugs, except in minimal amounts. This skepticism stems from the Stoic belief in maintaining the integrity of one’s judgment, which is inevitably compromised when under the influence of such substances. Diogenes Laertius once remarked:
“[The Stoics] will drink in moderation, but will never get drunk.” (VII.118)
Nonetheless, if individuals choose to pursue drug-induced hallucinations, that is their personal choice, and I have no intention to judge. However, some enthusiasts refer to themselves as “psychonauts,” claiming to explore an alternate yet objectively existing reality accessed through sufficient doses of N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), often called “The Spirit Molecule.”
The narrative surrounding psychonauts is bolstered by controversial figures like Jordan Peterson, who subscribes to Carl Jung’s theory of a collective unconscious. It is important to note that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of such a collective unconscious, and Peterson often speaks extensively while providing little substance, filled with vague terminology and numerous qualifiers.
The most straightforward interpretation of the entities described by psychonauts is that they are hallucinations influenced by the users' psychological states and cultural backgrounds. This explains the partial consistency of these experiences and their evident cultural variations. Furthermore, these substances are scientifically recognized as hallucinogens.
In a constructive manner, I challenged these claims on Notes, employing Carl Sagan’s famous phrase regarding extraordinary claims. The common retort I received was, “What proof do you have that these entities do not exist?” While they undeniably exist as mental constructs for some individuals, the burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claims.
Section 1.1 The Logic of Evidence
A more nuanced objection I have encountered regarding the burden of proof is the assertion that affirming a claim (p) is equivalent to denying its negation (~p), suggesting an equal division of the burden between the two competing claims.
This reasoning does not apply solely to claims about psychedelic entities but is also frequently presented by believers in UFOs, who have resurfaced in public discourse due to recent, arguably misguided, Congressional hearings.
When skeptics question UFO enthusiasts about evidence beyond dubious images and unverified testimonies, the usual response is, “What proof do you have that they do not exist?” This is a misguided question. Let’s examine why.
I do not reject classical logic; however, it has recognized limitations, which is why it is seldom employed in scientific discourse, as it is more applicable in mathematics. Scientific inquiry typically relies on forms of inductive reasoning, particularly inference to the best explanation (IBE), also known as abduction.
A classic example of IBE is found in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes narratives. Despite Holmes often stating he employs deduction, he actually uses abduction. He gathers extensive preliminary data, formulates plausible hypotheses, and then collects more information to see which hypothesis best fits the evidence. This method mirrors the scientific approach.
Applying IBE to the UFO phenomenon, one hypothesis posits that highly advanced extraterrestrial beings have been visiting Earth for decades, with the first modern sighting occurring in 1947. A competing hypothesis is that these sightings stem from ordinary causes, such as misidentifications of aircraft, satellites, or meteorites, along with a portion of deliberate hoaxes.
While there are other possibilities, such as experimental military technology, focusing on these two hypotheses for argument's sake allows us to assess the evidence and our background knowledge regarding space travel, human error, and the implausibility of extraterrestrial visits without substantive evidence. In this case, IBE strongly suggests that non-extraterrestrial explanations account for the sightings, thereby placing the burden of proof on those asserting the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. This burden could be met through tangible evidence, such as a recovered spacecraft or verified alien remains, rather than blurry or fabricated images.
An important consideration is that if our background knowledge were different, the burden of proof might shift. If we were certain that multiple technologically advanced civilizations existed nearby or that interstellar travel was feasible, we would have to scrutinize even vague evidence more closely due to the higher likelihood of visits.
Similarly, the same rationale applies to psychonautics. I argue that skepticism is justified, and the burden of proof rests on the psychonauts, given our current understanding of brain function and how psychoactive substances like DMT affect it. If we existed in a reality where these substances behaved differently, or if we had substantial evidence of “other dimensions,” we would need to take claims of encountered entities much more seriously. However, we do not live in such a reality, which is why skepticism prevails.
This does not imply that I am entirely convinced that UFOs are not extraterrestrial crafts or that psychedelic entities do not exist in another dimension. Unlike deductive reasoning, induction does not yield absolute certainty. As I have previously discussed, certainty is not a concept that applies to human knowledge. This distinction highlights a critical difference between skeptics and True Believers: skeptics are comfortable with uncertain, probabilistic conclusions, while True Believers pursue absolute Truth, often to no avail.
Section 1.2 The Spread of Erroneous Beliefs
One final point to consider is that erroneous beliefs can proliferate beyond their original context. If someone subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they are more likely to accept others. Belief in UFOs often correlates with belief in various paranormal phenomena.
A recent study published in the prestigious journal Nature examined whether the use of psychedelic drugs influences long-term metaphysical beliefs. The results indicated significant shifts away from physicalism and materialism towards panpsychism and fatalism post-use.
Some might celebrate this shift as a victory against materialism, but physicalism aligns closely with modern scientific findings and is the most rational stance to adopt. In contrast, metaphysical views like panpsychism often face internal contradictions and lack empirical support. If drug use alters one's perception of reality to such an extent that it changes fundamental beliefs about existence, I suggest reconsidering the use of such substances. Reality offers ample intrigue without the need for psychedelics.
Chapter 2: Engaging with the Burden of Proof
This video titled "What is the Burden of Proof? (Answer + SECRET example!)" provides insights into the fundamental concepts surrounding the burden of proof in claims, highlighting the necessity of evidence in discussions.
The second video, "The Burden of Proof in Philosophy," explores philosophical perspectives on evidence and argumentation, offering a deeper understanding of the principles involved in evaluating claims.