Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 29:1 (2022) ► pp.82–110

On the strength of presumptions

| Nova University of Lisbon

Traditionally, a presumption is a dialogically privileged, yet defeasible proposition that allocates the burden of proof to a party who challenges it. This paper investigates the strength of presumptions. First, it explains how ‘strength’ contributes to defining the concept of presumption. Second, it provides an overview of (contextual, justificatory, and deontic) factors determining a presumption’s strength. Finally, it analyses the predominant view that defines strength in terms of the Challenger’s burden of proof: the stronger (weaker) the presumption p, the more (less) difficult it is to prove non-p. I argue that the latter proposal applies only to practical presumptions, and that strength is conceived differently for cognitive presumptions.

Keywords: burden of proof, cognitive presumption, context, plausibility, practical presumption, rebuttal
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Strength in presumption theory
    • 2.1Conceptual research
    • 2.2Strength research
  • 3.What determines the strength of a presumption?
    • 3.1Contextual factors
      • 3.1.1The dialogue’s collective goal
      • 3.1.2The dialogue’s cooperativeness
      • 3.1.3Risks, stakes, and background information
      • 3.1.4The intended audience
    • 3.2Justificatory factors
      • 3.2.1The basic fact
      • 3.2.2The presumptive rule
    • 3.3Deontic factors
  • 4.Cognitive presumptions and the weight of rebuttal
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21017.bod
References
Aijaz, Imran, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster
2013 Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness. Argumentation 27(3). 259–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archbold, John Frederick
1831 A summary of the law relative to pleading in criminal cases. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon & Douglas Walton
2013 Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argument and Computation 4(2). 105–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L.
1962 How to do things with words (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian
2016 Being a correct presumption vs. being presumably the case. Informal Logic 361. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodlović, Petar
2019a What determines the strength of practical and cognitive presumptions? In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell & J. H. M. Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the ninth conference of the International society for the study of argumentation (ISSA), 106–117. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
2019b Presumptions, and how they relate to arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 331. 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 On presumptions, burdens of proof, and explanations. Informal Logic 40(2). 255–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 On the differences between practical and cognitive presumptions. Argumentation 351. 287–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022 Presumptions in argumentation: A systematic analysis. Groningen: University of Groningen. PhD dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corredor, Cristina
2017 Presumptions in speech acts. Argumentation 311. 573–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dare, Tim & Justine Kingsbury
2008 Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate? The Southern Journal of Philosophy XVI1. 503–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, James B.
2005 Acceptable premises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2019 Factors for evaluating presumptions and presumptive inferences. Argumentation 331. 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gama, Raymundo
2017 The nature and the place of presumptions in law and legal argumentation. Argumentation 311. 555–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giddings, Franklin H.
1922 The grounds of presumption. The Journal of Philosophy 19(23). 617–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godden, David
2011 Presumptions in argument: Epistemic versus social approaches. In F. Zenker (ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 1–13. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).Google Scholar
2017 Presumption as a modal qualifier: Presumption, inference, and managing epistemic risk. Argumentation 311. 485–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Analyzing presumption as a modal qualifier. In H. V. Hansen, F. J. Kauffeld, J. B. Freeman & L. Bermejo-Luque (eds.), Presumptions and burdens of proof. An anthology of argumentation and the law, 206–220. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Godden, David & Douglas Walton
2007 A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 151. 313–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Jean
2000 The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing. In Eniko Nemeth (ed.), Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th International pragmatics conference (vol. 21), 263–277. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H.
1975 Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (vol. 31), 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike & Mike Oaksford
2007 The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation 21(1). 39–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Hans Vilhelm
2003 Theories of presumptions and burdens of proof. In J. A. Blair et al. (eds.), Informal logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor conference, 1–12. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).Google Scholar
Kauffeld, Fred J.
2003 The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, 133–146. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Presuming and presumption in everyday argumentation: A response to Godden and Walton. In J. Ritola (ed.), Argument cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, 1–13. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA).Google Scholar
Koplin, Julian & Michael Selgelid
2015 Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics 29(9). 597–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio
2010 Dialectical and heuristic arguments: Presumptions and burden of proof. In C. Reed & C. Tindale (eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning, 45–57. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
2012 Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions. Argumentation 261. 233–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Giovanni Damele
2013 The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic 33(3). 361–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
2012 Presumptions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 25(3). 271–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1969 The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Petroski, Karen
2008 The public face of presumptions. Episteme 5(3). 388–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto, Robert C.
2001 Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic (with an introduction by Hans V. Hansen). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollock, John L.
1987 Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 111. 481–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prakken, Henry
2004 Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability & Risk 31. 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Räikkä, Juha
1997 Burden of proof rules in social criticism. Argumentation 111. 463–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas
2006 Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, William
1897 The theory of the law of evidence as established in the United States. Chicago: Callaghan and Company.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken
1985 Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strandberg, Magne
2017 The presumption of innocence in civil cases. In A. Uzelac & C. van Rhee (eds.), Revisiting procedural human rights: Fundamentals of civil procedure and the changing face of civil justice, 115–134. Belgium: Intersentia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna
1983 On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 801. 143–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 On not wanting to know. In E. Ullmann-Margalit (ed.), Reasoning practically, 72–85. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman-Margalit, Edna & Avishai Margalit
1982 Analyticity by way of presumption. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12(3). 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna & Avishai Margalit
1992 Holding true and holding as true. Synthese 921. 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1993 The speech act of presumption. Pragmatics & Cognition 1(1). 125–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Erik C. W. Krabbe
1995 Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
Whately, Richard
1963 Elements of rhetoric (7th edn.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
2019 Presumptions and burden of proof. In H. V. Hansen, F. J. Kauffeld, J. B. Freeman & L. Bermejo-Luque (eds.), Presumptions and burdens of proof. An anthology of argumentation and the law, 45–61. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Witek, Maciej
2021 Illocution and accommodation in the functioning of presumptions. Synthese, 6207–6244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, John, Andrew Irvine & Douglas Walton
2004 Argument: Critical thinking, logic and the fallacies (2nd edn.). Toronto: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar