(January 7, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: If it falls on nobody, then what's the use? well can't both parties present their ideas and evidences as they can and let the audience decide what they choose to believe after they have heard all?

Generally, that is how it goes, somebody makes a claim, somebody doesn;t accept the claim, they both give their reasons - and one of those reasons can always be that the person making the claim failed to demonstrate it's veracity......the burden of proof.

(January 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)Psykhronic Wrote: Yeah all this axiom definition bullshit is a distraction. Burden of Proof = make a claim, back it up. Which is sensible.

But that's the point that i'm trying to get to; forget all this burden of proof as before it can be used we need to prove the party that has the burden of proof or have an authority define who is have the burden of proof. I say as you do except instead of using the word axiom I would substitute "burden of proof" and say go on make your point; have your opinion and back it up with whatever you want, and you are free to to use whatever evidence you want and I am free to believe it or not based on the complex processes that I as a human being, evaluate any claim made. But while people keep raising this burden of proof we cant move onto that basis.

---

(January 7, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 7, 2013 at 3:51 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: If it falls on nobody, then what's the use? well can't both parties present their ideas and evidences as they can and let the audience decide what they choose to believe after they have heard all?

Generally, that is how it goes, somebody makes a claim, somebody doesn;t accept the claim, they both give their reasons - and one of those reasons can always be that the person making the claim failed to demonstrate it's veracity......the burden of proof.

True but there is no proof that that,s the only way it can work as I have shown one example already.

(January 7, 2013 at 4:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: True but there is no proof that that,s the only way it can work as I have shown one example already.

Actually, the example you gave accepted the burden of proof.......

Quote:both parties present their ideas and evidences

If my idea is that you have not presented your evidence, and my evidence for this the fact that instead of presenting eidence, you have made a claim and then said "prove me wrong" - then I can simply say "you have shifted the burden of proof", you have appealed to (what you hope to be) my ignorance, my inability to prove you wrong......you get why this is a no-no, yes (I hope so, because it's already been explained)?

While were on the subject

A: There is no proof that there is a burden of proof, the burden of proof is an axiom
b: The burden of proof is not an axiom, it is a description of a type of statement that often involves a logical fallacy
A: There is no proof that there is a burden of proof, the burden of proof is an axiom
b: ad naus.

Terms like burden of proof, or ad naus, they're just shorthand. Generally, they help to avoid a novel length discussion about why ay given line of argument is (or might be) invalid.

(January 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(January 6, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: 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 )

But it is not an axiom. It is a thumb rule - something we have learned works through frequent application.

Many left handed people learned how to write with their right hand through frequent application in the past this does not mean they could not have learned to write with their left. And I would not have an issue with burden of proof if I did not believe it is not being too often used in situations it is not called for or needed in So I say that unless the burden of proof can be proven to lie on one side or another or we have an authority all sides can agree on to make the decision or we go totalitarian and have a dictator ( or facist party ) with the power to force their opinion then let us take the middle ground and say let no one have the burden of proof. And then enjoy the discussion.

I'm getting the impression that you have consistently failed to meet the burden of proof, but that you really like claiming things..lol.

"Guys, don't worry about whether or not my argument is fallacious, don't bring it up, don't mention it, lets just enjoy the convo"

I've gotta say, that in my experience, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you mention that someone has failed to meet the burden of proof, or attempted to shift it onto another- they just keep claiming their way forward.

(January 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 7, 2013 at 4:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: True but there is no proof that that,s the only way it can work as I have shown one example already.

Actually, the example you gave accepted the burden of proof.......

Quote:both parties present their ideas and evidences

If my idea is that you have not presented your evidence, and my evidence for this the fact that instead of presenting eidence, you have made a claim and then said "prove me wrong" - then I can simply say "you have shifted the burden of proof", you have appealed to (what you hope to be) my ignorance, my inability to prove you wrong......you get why this is a no-no, yes (I hope so, because it's already been explained)?

While were on the subject

A: There is no proof that there is a burden of proof, the burden of proof is an axiom
b: The burden of proof is not an axiom, it is a description of a type of statement that often involves a logical fallacy
A: There is no proof that there is a burden of proof, the burden of proof is an axiom
b: ad naus.

Terms like burden of proof, or ad naus, they're just shorthand. Generally, they help to avoid a novel length discussion about why ay given line of argument is (or might be) invalid.

again you avoid the part of the definition I quoted regarding a primary quality of an axiom "no contoversy" . Please provide a definition of axiom in terms of function and what is it that an axiom requires in order to perform said function before you continue to use the word axiom as I do not understand what YOU mean when you mean axiom until you do.

I already provided you with a definition of an axiom in terms of function (which was precisely the same definition in terms of function contained in the wiki I linked to you), and specifically how it didn't apply to "the burden of proof", so no Mark, I didn't.

At this point, I'm going to claim that you already realized this, that you're feigning ignorance - and since you don't seem to put much stock in the burden of proof....I don't even have to elaborate upon that claim. You're just going to have to prove me wrong.

(January 7, 2013 at 4:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I already provided you with a definition of an axiom in terms of function (which was precisely the same definition in terms of function contained in the wiki I linked to you), and specifically how it didn't apply to "the burden of proof", so no Mark, I didn't.

At this point, I'm going to claim that you already realized this, that you're feigning ignorance - and since you don't seem to put much stock in the burden of proof....I don't even have to elaborate upon that claim. You're just going to have to prove me wrong.

Why do you keep refusing to discuss the quality "without contention" and keep expecting that i will just drop it if you keep ignoring it.

Why do you keep insisting that I've refused to discuss something that's already been discussed? By all means though, continue. I'd feel cheated if you dropped it.

(January 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm getting the impression that you have consistently failed to meet the burden of proof, but that you really like claiming things..lol.

"Guys, don't worry about whether or not my argument is fallacious, don't bring it up, don't mention it, lets just enjoy the convo"

I've gotta say, that in my experience, it doesn't actually matter whether or not you mention that someone has failed to meet the burden of proof, or attempted to shift it onto another- they just keep claiming their way forward.

No I have continued to refuse to accept the burden of proof and now i,m making an attempt to explain with evidence more fully once and for all for the sake of efficiency.