I often hear discussions that attempt to shift the burden of proof. "You can't prove your side either!"
Here's a conversation I would like to have with someone who argues that all parties have an equal burden of proof.
ME: There is a contract that says you owe me $10,000. It's legally binding so pay up.
THEM: Nonsense. Show it to me.
ME: You can't prove the contract doesn't exist somewhere. In order to verify it doesn't exist, you would have to read every document in the universe.
THEM: I don't care. You have no evidence that it does exist.
ME: Ok, since neither one of us can prove the other wrong, our positions are equal. As an equal compromise you can pay me $5,000. Or are you saying one of our opposing truth claims doesn't carry the same weight? Why is that?
Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?
Here's a conversation I would like to have with someone who argues that all parties have an equal burden of proof.
ME: There is a contract that says you owe me $10,000. It's legally binding so pay up.
THEM: Nonsense. Show it to me.
ME: You can't prove the contract doesn't exist somewhere. In order to verify it doesn't exist, you would have to read every document in the universe.
THEM: I don't care. You have no evidence that it does exist.
ME: Ok, since neither one of us can prove the other wrong, our positions are equal. As an equal compromise you can pay me $5,000. Or are you saying one of our opposing truth claims doesn't carry the same weight? Why is that?
Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?
