Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

I thought of posting this in the Philosophy section but since it seems to be quite an important part of many discussions in this section I put it here, I hope no one objects.

As a request from the end of this paragraph on which should not be an issue for most of this thread the word God or gods or anything else that even aludes to these concepts is BANNED from this thread. Please don't join the thread if you can't manage this.

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

From this defination " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is not an axiom and therefore needs to be proved as it is not accepted as true without controversy.

If anyone is unhappy with this definition of an Axiom then we can discuss which definition of Axiom we will use to continue the discussion otherwise if we are ok with the axiom definition I have given then can you show that the statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is an axion remember try to keep the explain simple for us less well versed in the field. ( me )

[Minimalist]

The problem is not the definition - it is the practice.

[Mark 13:13]

The problem is not the definition - it is the practice.

while your point is relevant; i'm hoping to get to the question of practice when we all have accepted if it is an axiom or not, so would you confirm are you happy with this definition and by that definition do you believe the said statement re Burden of proof is an axiom or not with a qualification of your answer if it disagrees from mine that it is not an axiom based on the above definition.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

The problem is not the definition - it is the practice.

while your point is relevant; i'm hoping to get to the question of practice when we all have accepted if it is an axiom or not, so would you confirm are you happy with this definition and by that definition do you believe the said statement re Burden of proof is an axiom or not with a qualification of your answer if it disagrees from mine that it is not an axiom based on the above definition.

I don't accept your definition, ' cause that's ATHEIST POWER!

[Mark 13:13]

while your point is relevant; i'm hoping to get to the question of practice when we all have accepted if it is an axiom or not, so would you confirm are you happy with this definition and by that definition do you believe the said statement re Burden of proof is an axiom or not with a qualification of your answer if it disagrees from mine that it is not an axiom based on the above definition.

I don't accept your definition, ' cause that's ATHEIST POWER!

well spotted but not liking the possable implication is not either accepting the definition of the axiom or getting a better definition of what an axiom is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Google is your friend.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

"An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

[pocaracas]

"The statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is NOT an axion.

An axion is ... hmmm ... I'll show you:

OK, I know it was a typo.
Axiom is what you wanted...
Why would "the statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim"" be an axiom?
It looks way too complex to be an axiom.
Maybe this one can be proved... perhaps by reductio ad absurdum.... or whatever it's written like in latin. reduction to absurd.
First, negate the statement: "The burden of proof does not belong to the person making a claim".
Then to whom does it belong?
To the person who fails to understand the claim?
To the person who fails to acknowledge the claim?
To the person who is unaware of the claim?
This is getting absurd... Who can prove a claim if not the person making it?

Stupid example: Fermat's last theorem. Fermat made the claim.... he proved it (allegedly), but the proof got lost. Someone else had to delve deep and it took a lot of effort, but they managed. Because, they were aware that Fermat had provided the proof, it just didn't survive long enough for any scholar to comprehend it. Had it not been proved by Fermat himself, not many people would even try to prove his theorem.

[Mark 13:13]

Google is your friend.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof

"An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

the statement there is an implicit burden of proof does not show where the implicit comes from this is an assumption not an axiom. An assumption cannot be accepted as definate truth without a proof.

---

"The statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is NOT an axion.

An axion is ... hmmm ... I'll show you:

OK, I know it was a typo.
Axiom is what you wanted...
Why would "the statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim"" be an axiom?
It looks way too complex to be an axiom.
Maybe this one can be proved... perhaps by reductio ad absurdum.... or whatever it's written like in latin. reduction to absurd.
First, negate the statement: "The burden of proof does not belong to the person making a claim".
Then to whom does it belong?
To the person who fails to understand the claim?
To the person who fails to acknowledge the claim?
To the person who is unaware of the claim?
This is getting absurd... Who can prove a claim if not the person making it?

Stupid example: Fermat's last theorem. Fermat made the claim.... he proved it (allegedly), but the proof got lost. Someone else had to delve deep and it took a lot of effort, but they managed. Because, they were aware that Fermat had provided the proof, it just didn't survive long enough for any scholar to comprehend it. Had it not been proved by Fermat himself, not many people would even try to prove his theorem.

So are you saying you believe the statement at the heart of the thread is or is not an axiom yes or no as most of what you wrote will be raised later once we can decide yes or know to the axiom or not.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I don't accept your definition, ' cause that's ATHEIST POWER!

well spotted but not liking the possable implication is not either accepting the definition of the axiom or getting a better definition of what an axiom is.

Sorry, It was deductive.

[Mark 13:13]

well spotted but not liking the possable implication is not either accepting the definition of the axiom or getting a better definition of what an axiom is.

Sorry, It was deductive.

so can i take it you are non-commital on the premise of axiom or not