(October 25, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: It’s generally agreed that the burden of proof rests on the party who makes the positive statement. Yet, it’s not always clear who’s making the positive statement when both parties claim that the burden of proof lies on the other guy. It would be nice if one party says it is and the other party says it ain’t. But that’s not always the case.
Think of yourself as a totally disinterested party who is witnessing a co-belligerent engagement between two parties. One party says Europe and Asia are two separate continents. The other party says there is only one continent. By what criteria can we determine where the burden of proof lies? Remember, your task is not to decide who’s right and who’s wrong, nor is it to solve the dilemma. Your task is to determine which party bears the burden of proof.
The default position should be a lack of ideas, not a particular idea, or should at least be that idea which requires the most simple alterations to another's world view. If you are attempting to inject factual constraints into other people's world view, you have the burden of proving that your constraints represent actual facts.
So in this case, both parties carry the burden of proof equally. They both have a view of the world they want others to accept. The REAL danger, in my opinion, is that 3rd-party participants will be forced into a false dilemma. If one moron argues that stars are angels, and the other moron argues that stars are pinpricks in space, then until they have met the burden of proof, a sensible bystander will choose "neither of the above."
