On presumptions, burdens of proof, and explanations

Abstract

On the standard view, all presumptions share the same deontic function: they asymmetrically allocate the burden of proof. But what, exact-ly, does this function amount to? Once presumptions are rejected, do they place the burden of arguing, the burden of explanation, or the most general burden of reasoning on their opponents? In this paper, I take into account the differences between cognitive and practical presumptions and argue that the standard accounts of deontic function are at least ambig-uous (because two types of presump-tions entail distinct conceptions of the "burden of proof"), and likely implau-sible. As a result, they require qualifi-cations.