Burden of Proof

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess you didn't read the either the quote or the wiki at all. If you demand that someone prove you wrong when you make a claim (this is whats meant by shifting the burden) then you are likely committing a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance. This is crucial, because whoever you're speaking to might not actually know how to prove you wrong- but that won't actually make you right.

that would be true if I tied both statement as you suggest but I haven't. I have asked 2 questions and suggested what my answer will be if the question is answered in the positive that everyone is ok with that definition of an axiom. I further asked if the axiom isn't correct then suggest another definition for an axiom as before we can debate what is "the burden of proof " it seems sensible do define what we take as a definition of an axiom as if the burden of proof is not an axiom then it actually needs to be proved.

Read the bolded bit again. Read the link about axioms again. It needn't be accepted without controversy, and if the truth of the statement were self evident it wouldn't need to be explained (which it has been) - further, it doesn't satisfy as a premise or starting point for reason (imo). It's a description of what often entails a logical fallacy (and this has also been explained to you). Now, if someone wanted to use it as an axiom, that's there own business, but I wouldn't.

You have posted a wiki quote which is not false as it explains the function of an axiom but you have left out the next sentence that is required which point out what the classical philosophers point out is the primary attribute an axiom must have " a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy" so if you care to explain what you believe the primary attribute is if its not what the classical philosophers is.

I left out a sentence.....you do realize that's why i posted the link correct...so I wouldn't have to copy paste the entire wiki. Why would you assume that I thought that it was such a self evident premise btw? I actually took the time to explain it........things that are self evident need no explanation...see above. Feel free to disregard this little observation of mine, but if you feel the need to argue against your having a responsibility to demonstrate the veracity of your claims (if you positively chaff under such a burden) then theres probably something fundamentally wrong with either the claim or your ability to make a compelling argument for it. If step number one is to absolve yourself of any responsibility for whats about to come out of your mouth at step number 2....well.....I'd be entirely uninterested (I bet you would too).

Sure, you and I (for example) could just assert contradictory things backs and forth, but let's explore how a conversation like this would go.
A: "The sky is purple!"
B: "No, it isn't!"

Full stop. It could go no further. Does this help to make the whole "burden of proof" bit a little more clear in your mind?