(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 evidencesIf 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.