(December 28, 2021 at 9:42 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(December 28, 2021 at 8:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: He owns the burden of proof.
"Burden of proof" is way overrated.
Sorry, but that is laughable.
We need a starting point to even begin to find out the truth. If the burden of proof is not used, what else should be that starting point?
I guess if one does not care if their beliefs are true, or possibly true, then sure, shirking their burden of proof is a perfectly good method to become a credulous fool.
Quote:It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.
It is one of the most basic foundations for valid and sound logic, and the basis of the scientific method.
I'm sure one would be laughed out of any college level philosophy department, or science department, with that position. Unless one could come up with another method that demonstrated it is as consistently reliable for separating fact from fiction. Got one?
No, the goal with requiring a burden of proof, is to separate fact from fiction. The fact that it can be used successfully in a debate, only goes to demonstrate its efficacy.
Quote:If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.
So, without using the burden of proof, how are we able to logically find someone's position unpersuasive? What is a more reliable metric?
Without using the burden of proof, how do we go about determining if any of these alleged alternative explanations are actually rational?
How do we go about even determining if they are candidate explanations?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
