The burden of proof lies on the claimant unless the claim has already met such a burden of proof. What Watson was challenging was whether the claim that China exists has met the burden of proof. Essentially, it was a cryptic argument for agnosticism.
There isn't any proof that China exists, nor for anything for that matter. This is why the question of "what is knowledge" is so well discussed in philosophy.
There isn't any proof that China exists, nor for anything for that matter. This is why the question of "what is knowledge" is so well discussed in philosophy.
