Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 29:1 (2022) ► pp.82–110

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

On the strength of presumptions

 | Nova University of Lisbon
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21017.bod
Abstract
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.
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
References (53)
References
Aijaz, Imran, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster. 2013. Burdens of proof and the case for unevenness. Argumentation 27(3). 259–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archbold, John Frederick. 1831. A summary of the law relative to pleading in criminal cases. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Katie, Trevor Bench-Capon & Douglas Walton. 2013. Distinctive features of persuasion and deliberation dialogues. Argument and Computation 4(2). 105–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. 2016. Being a correct presumption vs. being presumably the case. Informal Logic 361. 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019b. Presumptions, and how they relate to arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 331. 579–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. On presumptions, burdens of proof, and explanations. Informal Logic 40(2). 255–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. On the differences between practical and cognitive presumptions. Argumentation 351. 287–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. Presumptions in argumentation: A systematic analysis. Groningen: University of Groningen. PhD dissertation. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corredor, Cristina. 2017. Presumptions in speech acts. Argumentation 311. 573–589. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 2005. Acceptable premises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Factors for evaluating presumptions and presumptive inferences. Argumentation 331. 215–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gama, Raymundo. 2017. The nature and the place of presumptions in law and legal argumentation. Argumentation 311. 555–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giddings, Franklin H. 1922. The grounds of presumption. The Journal of Philosophy 19(23). 617–624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Presumption as a modal qualifier: Presumption, inference, and managing epistemic risk. Argumentation 311. 485–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Godden, David & Douglas Walton. 2007. A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation. Pragmatics & Cognition 151. 313–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike & Mike Oaksford. 2007. The burden of proof and its role in argumentation. Argumentation 21(1). 39–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Koplin, Julian & Michael Selgelid. 2015. Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics 29(9). 597–603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Presumptive reasoning in interpretation. Implicatures and conflicts of presumptions. Argumentation 261. 233–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Giovanni Damele. 2013. The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic 33(3). 361–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2012. Presumptions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 25(3). 271–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petroski, Karen. 2008. The public face of presumptions. Episteme 5(3). 388–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, Robert C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic (with an introduction by Hans V. Hansen). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollock, John L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 111. 481–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prakken, Henry. 2004. Analysing reasoning about evidence with formal models of argumentation. Law, Probability & Risk 31. 33–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Räikkä, Juha. 1997. Burden of proof rules in social criticism. Argumentation 111. 463–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reynolds, William. 1897. The theory of the law of evidence as established in the United States. Chicago: Callaghan and Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna. 1983. On presumption. Journal of Philosophy 801. 143–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. On not wanting to know. In E. Ullmann-Margalit (ed.), Reasoning practically, 72–85. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullman-Margalit, Edna & Avishai Margalit. 1982. Analyticity by way of presumption. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12(3). 435–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna & Avishai Margalit. 1992. Holding true and holding as true. Synthese 921. 167–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1993. The speech act of presumption. Pragmatics & Cognition 1(1). 125–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whately, Richard. 1963. Elements of rhetoric (7th edn.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Witek, Maciej. 2021. Illocution and accommodation in the functioning of presumptions. Synthese, 6207–6244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Woods, John, Andrew Irvine & Douglas Walton. 2004. Argument: Critical thinking, logic and the fallacies (2nd edn.). Toronto: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Borg, Susanne Wiatr & Louise Young
2024. A Framework for Undertaking Conceptual and Empirical Research. In Collaborative Research Design [Contributions to Management Science, ], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue