RE: Burden of Proof
January 7, 2013 at 3:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2013 at 3:11 pm by Mark 13:13.)
(January 6, 2013 at 8:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: AS I said it is not the definition that is the problem.
Were you to say "there is a leprechaun drinking whiskey out of my shoe" I think I would be rightly in position to say "show me?"
I do not have to provide evidence against your claim - your burden is to support it.
"I think" as a position about proof or a simple statement "I do not have to" as many of you fellow forum users cannot be deemed as a proof of anything, so its not dealing with the purpose of the thread which is designed to tease out the proof of whether the "burden of proof" can be proved to be clearly on one side or another based on who is making the claim or not, or even how fantastical the claim is.
(January 6, 2013 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I guess you didn't read the either the quote or the wiki at all. If you demand that someone prove you wrong when you make a claim (this is whats meant by shifting the burden) then you are likely committing a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance. This is crucial, because whoever you're speaking to might not actually know how to prove you wrong- but that won't actually make you right.
that would be true if I tied both statement as you suggest but I haven't. I have asked 2 questions and suggested what my answer will be if the question is answered in the positive that everyone is ok with that definition of an axiom. I further asked if the axiom isn't correct then suggest another definition for an axiom as before we can debate what is "the burden of proof " it seems sensible do define what we take as a definition of an axiom as if the burden of proof is not an axiom then it actually needs to be proved.
You have posted a wiki quote which is not false as it explains the function of an axiom but you have left out the next sentence that is required which point out what the classical philosophers point out is the primary attribute an axiom must have " a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy" so if you care to explain what you believe the primary attribute is if its not what the classical philosophers is.
