Results for 'Burden of proof'

999 found
Order:
  1. Prove It! The Burden of Proof Game in Science Vs. Pseudoscience Disputes.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (2):487-502.
    The concept of burden of proof is used in a wide range of discourses, from philosophy to law, science, skepticism, and even in everyday reasoning. This paper provides an analysis of the proper deployment of burden of proof, focusing in particular on skeptical discussions of pseudoscience and the paranormal, where burden of proof assignments are most poignant and relatively clear-cut. We argue that burden of proof is often misapplied or used as a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2. Putting the Burden of Proof in Its Place: When Are Differential Allocations Legitimate?Tim Dare & Justine Kingsbury - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (4):503-518.
    To have the burden of proof is to be rationally required to argue for or provide evidence for your position. To have a heavier burden than an opponent is to be rationally required to provide better evidence or better arguments than they are required to provide. Many commentators suggest that differential or uneven distribution of the burden of proof is ubiquitous. In reasoned discourse, the idea goes, it is almost always the case that one party (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  3.  80
    The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation.Ulrike Hahn & Mike Oaksford - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (1):39-61.
    The notion of “the burden of proof” plays an important role in real-world argumentation contexts, in particular in law. It has also been given a central role in normative accounts of argumentation, and has been used to explain a range of classic argumentation fallacies. We argue that in law the goal is to make practical decisions whereas in critical discussion the goal is frequently simply to increase or decrease degree of belief in a proposition. In the latter case, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  4. Dialectical and Heuristic Arguments: Presumptions and Burden of Proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
    Presumption is a complex concept in law, affecting the dialogue setting. However, it is not clear how presumptions work in everyday argumentation, in which the concept of “plausible argumentation” seems to encompass all kinds of inferences. By analyzing the legal notion of presumption, it appears that this type of reasoning combines argument schemes with reasoning from ignorance. Presumptive reasoning can be considered a particular form of reasoning, which needs positive or negative evidence to carry a probative weight on the conclusion. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  29
    From Environmental Ethics to Nature Conservation Policy: Natura 2000 and the Burden of Proof[REVIEW]Humberto D. Rosa & Jorge Marques Da Silva - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (2):107-130.
    Natura 2000 is a network of natural sites whose aim is to preserve species and habitats of relevance in the European Union. The policy underlying Natura 2000 has faced widespread opposition from land users and received extensive support from environmentalists. This paper addresses the ethical framework for Natura 2000 and the probable moral assumptions of its main stakeholders. Arguments for and against Natura 2000 were analyzed and classified according to “strong” or “weak” versions of the three main theories of environmental (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  14
    Burden of Proof in Bioethics.Julian J. Koplin & Michael J. Selgelid - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (9):597-603.
    A common strategy in bioethics is to posit a prima facie case in favour of one policy, and to then claim that the burden of proof falls on those with opposing views. If the burden of proof is not met, it is claimed, then the policy in question should be accepted. This article illustrates, and critically evaluates, examples of this strategy in debates about the sale of organs by living donors, human enhancement, and the precautionary principle. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7.  32
    Burden of Proof Rules in Social Criticism.Juha Räikkä - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):463-477.
    The article discusses burden of proof rules in social criticism. By social criticism I mean an argumentative situation in which an opponent publicly argues against certain social practices; the examples I consider are discrimination on the basis of species and discrimination on the basis of one's nationality. I argue that burden of proof rules assumed by those who defend discrimination are somewhat dubious. In social criticism, there are no shared values which would uncontroversially determine what is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8.  20
    Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes.Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Argumentation 21 (3):291-316.
    In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  9.  25
    Global Justice and the Logic of the Burden of Proof.Juha Raikka - 2005 - Metaphilosophy 36 (1-2):228-239.
  10.  18
    Kidney Sales and the Burden of Proof.Julian Koplin & Michael Selgelid - 2019 - Journal of Practical Ethics 7 (3):32-53.
    Janet Radcliffe Richards’ The Ethics of Transplants outlines a novel framework for moral inquiry in practical contexts and applies it to the topic of paid living kidney donation. In doing so, Radcliffe Richards makes two key claims: that opponents of organ markets bear the burden of proof, and that this burden has not yet been satisfied. This paper raises four related objections to Radcliffe Richards’ methodological framework, focusing largely on how Radcliffe Richards uses this framework in her (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  43
    The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken & Douglas N. Walton - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (10-15):875-896.
    We present a formal, mathematical model of argument structure and evaluation, taking seriously the procedural and dialogical aspects of argumentation. The model applies proof standards to determine the acceptability of statements on an issue-by-issue basis. The model uses different types of premises (ordinary premises, assumptions and exceptions) and information about the dialectical status of statements (stated, questioned, accepted or rejected) to allow the burden of proof to be allocated to the proponent or the respondent, as appropriate, for (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  12. Shifting the Burden of Proof?Michael Rescorla - 2009 - Philosophical Quarterly 59 (234):86-109.
    Dialectical foundationalists, including Adler, Brandom, Leite, and Williams, claim that some asserted propositions do not require defense just because an interlocutor challenges them. By asserting such a proposition, the speaker shifts the burden of proof to her interlocutor. Dialectical egalitarians claim that all asserted propositions require defense when challenged. I elucidate the dispute between dialectical foundationalists and egalitarians, and I defend a broadly egalitarian stance against several prominent objections.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  13. Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Cambridge University Press.
    The notion of burden of proof and its companion notion of presumption are central to argumentation studies. This book argues that we can learn a lot from how the courts have developed procedures over the years for allocating and reasoning with presumptions and burdens of proof, and from how artificial intelligence has built precise formal and computational systems to represent this kind of reasoning. The book provides a model of reasoning with burden of proof and (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14.  29
    Free Will and the Burden of Proof: William G. Lycan.William G. Lycan - 2003 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 53:107-122.
    Here are some things that are widely believed about free will and determinism. Free will is prima facie incompatible with determinism. The incompatibility is logical or at least conceptual or a priori. A compatibilist needs to explain how free will can co-exist with determinism, paradigmatically by offering an analysis of ‘free’ action that is demonstrably compatible with determinism. Free will is not impugned by quantum in determinism, at least not in the same decisive way that it is impugned by determinism. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  15.  99
    Why the Direct Argument Does Not Shift the Burden of Proof.Yael Loewenstein - 2016 - Journal of Philosophy 113 (4):210-223.
    Peter van Inwagen's influential Direct Argument (DA) for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and causal determinism makes use of an inference rule he calls "Rule B." Michael McKenna has argued that van Inwagen's defense of this rule is dialectically inappropriate because it is based entirely on alleged “confirming” cases that are not of the right kind to justify the use of Rule B in DA. Here I argue that McKenna’s objection is on the right track but more must be said (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  27
    Propositionalism About Intention: Shifting the Burden of Proof.Lucy Campbell - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):230-252.
    ABSTRACTA widespread view in the philosophy of mind and action holds that intentions are propositional attitudes. Call this view ‘Propositionalism about Intention’. The key alternative holds that intentions have acts, or do-ables, as their contents. Propositionalism is typically accepted by default, rather than argued for in any detail. By appealing to a key metaphysical constraint on any account of intention, I argue that on the contrary, it is the Do-ables View which deserves the status of the default position, and Propositionalism (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  10
    Evading the Burden of Proof in European Union Soft Law Instruments: The Case of Commission Recommendations.Corina Andone & Sara Greco - 2018 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 31 (1):79-99.
    The European Union is making increased efforts to find simpler and more effective ways to function adequately in the eyes of its citizens by using ‘soft law’ instruments such as recommendations. Although they have no legally binding force, recommendations have practical and legal effects occurring partly due to their normative content in which a course of action is prescribed and further supported by arguments intended to persuade the addressees of a political position. Although recommendations function as persuasive instruments due to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  32
    Sham Reasoning, Humpty Dumpty, and the Burden of Proof.Fiona J. Hibberd - 2009 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 29 (2):91-96.
    Slife and Reber ask of psychologists that they recognize their prejudice against theism and the incompatibility between theistic and naturalistic worldviews. Yet, the subtext of their article is that theism and naturalism are equally valid and that psychology’s secularism is a mistake. Given that theism is not beyond reason, the only sufficient ground for charging psychologists with prejudice is if theism has survived serious attempts at conceptual and empirical test, and psychology ignores or disguises this fact. So, the grounds for (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. From Environmental Ethics to Nature Conservation Policy: Natura 2000 and the Burden of Proof.Humberto D. Rosa & Jorge Marques Silvdaa - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (2).
    Natura 2000 is a network of natural sites whose aim is to preserve species and habitats of relevance in the European Union. The policy underlying Natura 2000 has faced widespread opposition from land users and received extensive support from environmentalists. This paper addresses the ethical framework for Natura 2000 and the probable moral assumptions of its main stakeholders. Arguments for and against Natura 2000 were analyzed and classified according to “strong” or “weak” versions of the three main theories of environmental (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  21
    Burden of Proof.DouglasN Walton - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (2):233-254.
    This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem, (ii) petitio principii, and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialoque, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules of dialogue, and the value of reasoned dialogue.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  21.  13
    The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue.Conny Rhode - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):535-554.
    Dialogical egalitarianism is the thesis that any proposition asserted in dialogue, if questioned, must be supported or else retracted. Dialogical foundationalism is the thesis that some propositions are privileged over this burden of proof, standing in no need of support unless and until support for their negation is provided. I first discuss existing arguments for either thesis, dismissing each one of them. Absent a successful principled argument, I then examine which thesis it is pragmatically more advantageous to adopt (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22.  11
    Criminal Quarantine and the Burden of Proof.Michael Louis Corrado - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (4):1095-1110.
    In the recent literature a number of free will skeptics, skeptics who believe that punishment is justified only if deserved, have argued for these two points: first, that the free will realist who would justify punishment has the burden of establishing to a high level of certainty - perhaps beyond a reasonable doubt, but certainly at least by clear and convincing evidence - that any person to be punished acted freely in breaking the law; and, second, that that level (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  23. Philosophical Expertise and the Burden of Proof.Timothy Williamson - 2011 - Metaphilosophy 42 (3):215-229.
    Abstract: Some proponents of “experimental philosophy” criticize philosophers' use of thought experiments on the basis of evidence that the verdicts vary with truth-independent factors. However, their data concern the verdicts of philosophically untrained subjects. According to the expertise defence, what matters are the verdicts of trained philosophers, who are more likely to pay careful attention to the details of the scenario and track their relevance. In a recent article, Jonathan M. Weinberg and others reply to the expertise defence that there (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   98 citations  
  24.  73
    War Crimes, Punishment and the Burden of Proof.Anthony Ellis - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (2):181-196.
    This paper argues that there is a default presumption that punishment has some deterrent effect, and that the burden of proof is upon those who allege that the costs of any particular penal system are insufficient to offset its deterrent benefits. This burden of proof transmits to the discussion of international law, with the conclusion that it is those who oppose international jurisdiction, rather than their opponents, who must prove their position. This they have so far (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  19
    Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability.Corina Andone - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):59-78.
    In this paper, the author examines the burden of proof in the argu- mentative confrontations taking part in practices of political accountability. She does so by explaining how politicians maneuver strategically with the burden of proof in an attempt at winning the discussion in which they are involved. After making clear the role of the burden of proof in defining the difference of opinion in argumentative confrontations, the author outlines the constraints imposed by practices (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26.  64
    On the Burden of Proof.James Cargile - 1997 - Philosophy 72 (279):59 - 83.
    The phrase ‘burden of proof’ or ‘onus probandi’ originally referred to something determined by a judge in a legal proceeding. Some claims would be accepted as true by the court, and other relevant claims would require proving. The burden of doing this proving could be assigned to one or another party by the judge. Success or failure to meet this burden could be determined by the judge or the jury, as could consequences of success or failure.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27.  21
    Speech Act Rules for Burden of Proof in a Modified Hamblin Dialogue System.Douglas Walton - 2011 - Informal Logic 31 (4):279-304.
    In his book on fallacies, Hamblin built a very simple system for argumentation in dialogue he called the Why Because System with Questions. In his discussion of this system, he replaced the concept of burden of proof with a simpler concept of initiative, which could be described as something like getting the upper hand as the argumentation moves back and forth in the dialogue between the one party and the other. No doubt he realized that the concept of (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28.  8
    Claim Strength and Burden of Proof.Jeremy Bailenson & Lance J. Rips - unknown
    In this paper, we report results from experiments in which people read conversational arguments and then judge the convincingness of each claim and the individual speakers' burden of proof. The results showed an "anti-primacy" effect: People judge the speaker who makes the first claim as having greater burden of proof. This effect persists even when each speaker's claims are rated equally convincing. We also find that people rate claims less convincing when they appear in the first (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29.  30
    Between Precautionary Principle and “Sound Science”: Distributing the Burdens of Proof[REVIEW]Henk van den Belt & Bart Gremmen - 2002 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1):103-122.
    Opponents of biotechnology ofteninvoke the Precautionary Principle to advancetheir cause, whereas biotech enthusiasts preferto appeal to ``sound science.'' Publicauthorities are still groping for a usefuldefinition. A crucial issue in this debate isthe distribution of the burden of proof amongthe parties favoring and opposing certaintechnological developments. Indeed, the debateon the significance and scope of thePrecautionary Principle can be fruitfullyre-framed as a debate on the proper division ofburdens of proof. In this article, we attemptto arrive at a more refined (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  30. Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness.Imran Aijaz, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (3):259-282.
    How is the burden of proof to be distributed among individuals who are involved in resolving a particular issue? Under what conditions should the burden of proof be distributed unevenly? We distinguish attitudinal from dialectical burdens and argue that these questions should be answered differently, depending on which is in play. One has an attitudinal burden with respect to some proposition when one is required to possess sufficient evidence for it. One has a dialectical (...) with respect to some proposition when one is required to provide supporting arguments for it as part of a deliberative process. We show that the attitudinal burden with respect to certain propositions is unevenly distributed in some deliberative contexts, but in all of these contexts, establishing the degree of support for the proposition is merely a means to some other deliberative end, such as action guidance, or persuasion. By contrast, uneven distributions of the dialectical burden regularly further the aims of deliberation, even in contexts where the quest for truth is the sole deliberative aim, rather than merely a means to some different deliberative end. We argue that our distinction between these two burdens resolves puzzles about unevenness that have been raised in the literature. (shrink)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  31. Legal Burdens of Proof and Statistical Evidence.Georgi Gardiner - forthcoming - In James Chase & David Coady (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology. Routledge.
    In order to perform certain actions – such as incarcerating a person or revoking parental rights – the state must establish certain facts to a particular standard of proof. These standards – such as preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt – are often interpreted as likelihoods or epistemic confidences. Many theorists construe them numerically; beyond reasonable doubt, for example, is often construed as 90 to 95% confidence in the guilt of the defendant. -/- A family of influential cases (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  32. Free Will and the Burden of Proof.William G. Lycan - 2003 - In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. Cambridge University Press. pp. 107-122.
    (3) A compatibilist needs to explain how free will can co-exist with determinism, paradigmatically by offering an analysis of ‘free’ action that is demonstrably compatible with determinism. (Here is the late Roderick Chisholm, in defense of irreducible or libertarian agent-causation: ‘Now if you can analyze such statements as “Jones killed his uncle” into event-causation statements, then you may have earned the right to make jokes about the agent as cause. But if you haven’t done this, and if all the same (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  33. God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism.Keith M. Parsons - 1989 - Prometheus Books.
  34. Compatibilism and the Burden of Proof.Peter van Inwagen - 1980 - Analysis 40 (March):98-100.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35. The Direct Argument and the Burden of Proof.Ira M. Schnall & David Widerker - 2012 - Analysis 72 (1):25-36.
    Peter van Inwagen's Direct Argument (DA) for incompatibilism purports to establish incompatibilism with respect to moral responsibility and determinism without appealing to assumptions that compatibilists usually consider controversial. Recently, Michael McKenna has presented a novel critique of DA. McKenna's critique raises important issues about philosophical dialectics. In this article, we address those issues and contend that his argument does not succeed.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  36. The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof.Douglas Walton - manuscript
    with Thomas F. Gordon and Henry Prakken. Artificial Intelligence, forthcoming. [Preprint posted.].
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  37. A Pragmatic View of the Burden of Proof.Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer Verlag.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  38.  19
    Procreative Liberty and the State's Burden of Proof in Regulating Noncoital Reproduction.John A. Robertson - 1988 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 16 (1-2):18-26.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39.  32
    Procreative Liberty and the State's Burden of Proof in Regulating Noncoital Reproduction.John A. Robertson - 1988 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 16 (1-2):18-26.
  40.  14
    Skeptical Challenge and the Burden of Proof: On Rescher's Critique of Skepticism.Marcus Willaschek - 1998 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 64:203-221.
  41.  5
    Incentives, Nudges and the Burden of Proof in Ethical Argument.Richard E. Ashcroft - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (3):137-137.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42.  14
    Screening for HIV Infection: Risks, Benefits, and the Burden of Proof.Michael J. Barry, Paul D. Cleary & Harvey V. Fineberg - 1986 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 14 (5-6):259-267.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  15
    Working Memory and Sentence Comprehension: Whose Burden of Proof?Arthur Wingfield - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):113-114.
    Caplan & Waters argue that the processing resources used for sentence comprehension are not drawn from an undifferentiated verbal working memory resource. This commentary cites data from normal aging to support this position. Still lacking in theory development is a specification of the transient memory representations necessary for interpretive and post-interpretive operations.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  44.  6
    Screening for HIV Infection: Risks, Benefits, and the Burden of Proof.Michael J. Barry, Paul D. Cleary & Harvey V. Fineberg - 1986 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 14 (5-6):259-267.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. Nussbaum's Capabilities Approach: Political Criticism and the Burden of Proof.Brian E. Butler - 2001 - International Journal of Politics and Ethics 1 (1):71-86.
  46. Cultural Relativism, Universalism, and the Burden of Proof.John J. Tilley - 1998 - Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (2):275-97.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  19
    Free Will, Punishment, and the Burden of Proof.Michael Louis Corrado - 2018 - Criminal Justice Ethics 37 (1):55-71.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  48.  97
    Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof.Douglas Walton - 1996 - Argumentation 10 (1):47-58.
  49.  70
    Defining Atheism and the Burden of Proof.Shoaib Ahmed Malik - 2018 - Philosophy 93 (2):279-301.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  4
    Consequences, Dispositions, and the Burden of Proof.Michael Louis Corrado - 2014 - Criminal Justice Ethics 33 (3):236-245.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 999