Burden of Proof

[Violet]

Your constant moaning about the burden of proof seems to imply to me that you worry about it very much.

I swear this is what I read at first. Anyway, LoL? I'm finally done responding to crazies

Well, with the exception of you

[Darkstar]

I can allow them both to present their cases without worrying about burden of proof and decide the outcome based on that without giving one side of the argument any handicap by default.

Let's look at it this way: Someone makes a claim, and proceeds to provide an argument in support of that claim. A second person comes by and provides an arguement that completely dismantles the first arguement. The second person cannot, however, prove that the first person's conclusion is incorrect because they are claiming something unfalsifiable (i.e. there is an invisible and intangible flying unicorn in the room). Which side has the better case if neither side can prove anything, but one side can always dismantle all arguments made by the other?

[Mark 13:13]

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.[/hide]

DO NOT continue copying and pasting the same post for multiple replies. This is considered SPAMMING and you can be BANNED forthright for this action. You may feel free to contradict any and all members you wish, but you will abide by the rules.

Let this be your unofficial warning and move on.

Apologies but I was unaware this was spamming as I always thought of spam in context of people posting unwanted advertising to email accounts. So I will avoid spamming.

[Welsh cake]

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

Mark.

You've been told a million times how the philosophical burden of proof works in an epistemic dispute.

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, or the mods kick you out.

So here are your only options at this point:

Either prove your god exists, or fuck off.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your constant moaning about the burden of proof seems to imply to me that you worry about it very much.

I swear this is what I read at first. Anyway, LoL? I'm finally done responding to crazies

Well, with the exception of you

Wow, so you're going to ignore me now?

[Mark 13:13]

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

Mark.

You've been told a million times how the philosophical burden of proof works in an epistemic dispute.

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, or the mods kick you out.

So here are your only options at this point:

Either prove your god exists, or fuck off.

So what you are saying is if someone tells me something often enough I should believe it.. or if two people are telling me 2 opposite things I should believe unquestioning the person that tells me most often.

---

Interesting and at least seemingly non-biased of you to say that, although I, perhaps, don't fully understand your point.

I'm not sure who or what you are referring to please explain.

[Cyberman]

No, what we are saying is that we have a metric for discerning one from the other. It's called - wait for it - the burden of proof. Without it, all claims might as well be as valid as all others since the only way to prefer some over the others is to decide whether they tally with what you already believe.

[Mark 13:13]

I can allow them both to present their cases without worrying about burden of proof and decide the outcome based on that without giving one side of the argument any handicap by default.

Let's look at it this way: Someone makes a claim, and proceeds to provide an argument in support of that claim. A second person comes by and provides an arguement that completely dismantles the first arguement. The second person cannot, however, prove that the first person's conclusion is incorrect because they are claiming something unfalsifiable (i.e. there is an invisible and intangible flying unicorn in the room). Which side has the better case if neither side can prove anything, but one side can always dismantle all arguments made by the other?

I believe the answer i gave to a previous post when replying to the claim that my logic would force me to believe any claim made and the the usual flying spagetti monster was raised again ( even after me informing someone before that it doesn't exist anymore because I ate it )

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

You need to read (any) of my explanations again. The issue, is that if a claimant does not support their own claims they do not have a valid argument (they have not accepted/met the burden of proof), if they insist that another must disprove their claim - they do not have a valid argument(they have shifted the burden of proof). It's an issue of using logical fallacies...and this is all that the shorthand phrase "burden of proof/shifting the burden of proof" means.........

If you're having trouble with this, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we attempt to leverage logic or reason.

I just can't take it as valid ; and to avoid the charge of spamming; i will no longer reply to anyone wishes me to accept I have the burden of proof without providing proof and ask them to understand that my non answering of their post is to be seen as a statement that I must referr you back to the post I made earlier, in fact the very one you have copied.

[Cyberman]

Replying consistently to similar questions is not spamming; copying and pasting the same post for multiple replies, however, is.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just can't take it as valid ; and to avoid the charge of spamming; i will no longer reply to anyone wishes me to accept I have the burden of proof without providing proof and ask them to understand that my non answering of their post is to be seen as a statement that I must referr you back to the post I made earlier, in fact the very one you have copied.

What about avoiding logical fallacies can't you take as valid?
(and if this were actually the case, what am I supposed to take that statement to mean anyway, we're clearly working in different systems)