Burden of Proof

[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.