system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
In the same way that we "presume innocence" in a court of law, should we "presume false" for any proposition?
gpt
I do think there is an analogue to presumption of innocence in court with what our attitudes towards claims to be, but it actually goes the other way around.  That is, when someone makes some claim (asserts some proposition), unless we have some reason to doubt that claim, we generally presume that it is true.  If we didn't, communication would be impossible.

Suppose your friend says to you "I saw Black Panther yesterday."  An appropriate response might be something like "Cool, how was it?"  This presumes that what they say is true. It would be quite odd for you to presume that what they are saying is false, or even to remain agnostic on whether or not what they say is true.  So, there's a general attitude of "innocence till proven guilty" at play here; you presume that what your friend is saying is true, unless there's some particular reason to doubt him.

Robert Brandom calls this sort of innocent till proven guilty principle that is at play in discourse the "default and challenge structure of entitlement."  So the default stance is to take people to be entitled to their assertions, and only if we have some grounds to challenge these assertions do we.