Burden of Proof

[Psykhronic]

Yeah all this axiom definition bullshit is a distraction. Burden of Proof = make a claim, back it up. Which is sensible.

[genkaus]

I thought of posting this in the Philosophy section but since it seems to be quite an important part of many discussions in this section I put it here, I hope no one objects.

As a request from the end of this paragraph on which should not be an issue for most of this thread the word God or gods or anything else that even aludes to these concepts is BANNED from this thread. Please don't join the thread if you can't manage this.

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

From this defination " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is not an axiom and therefore needs to be proved as it is not accepted as true without controversy.

If anyone is unhappy with this definition of an Axiom then we can discuss which definition of Axiom we will use to continue the discussion otherwise if we are ok with the axiom definition I have given then can you show that the statement " The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim" is an axion remember try to keep the explain simple for us less well versed in the field. ( me )

But it is not an axiom. It is a thumb rule - something we have learned works through frequent application.

[Minimalist]

So no one so far has A problem with that definition, or even clearly stated that by that definition "burden of proof" is by that definition is an axiom, or even seriously challenged my contention that it is not by that definition so far. The feeling I get is that most atheist want it taken as an axiom it practice whether it is an axiom or not. I'm going to leave it another while to give others a chance to contribute before I attempt to move the conversation further to the logical implications of this in the debates we tend to be involved in.

You know, I don't know where you think you are going with this but Bertrand Russell has already done a much better job than you could ever hope to do.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

[Mark 13:13]

AS I said it is not the definition that is the problem.

Were you to say "there is a leprechaun drinking whiskey out of my shoe" I think I would be rightly in position to say "show me?"

I do not have to provide evidence against your claim - your burden is to support it.

"I think" as a position about proof or a simple statement "I do not have to" as many of you fellow forum users cannot be deemed as a proof of anything, so its not dealing with the purpose of the thread which is designed to tease out the proof of whether the "burden of proof" can be proved to be clearly on one side or another based on who is making the claim or not, or even how fantastical the claim is.

---

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.

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.

[Annik]

Whether or not the claim is fantastic has nothing to do with burden of proof. Burden of proving you have an apple and that Gos exists are on the same level.

[Mark 13:13]

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.

It's like when atheists whip out all my least favourite arguments about you not being able to prove them wrong that an invisible dragon isn't inhabiting their garage... therefore it exists.

Well TBH its to try and get away from that form of argument and I may make mistakes in presentation but over the debate we me resolve it. I am trying to keep it as simple as I can and to keep it on track as best I can without discussion of the implications one way or another on how the debate goes. Trying to move the discussion away to those places is just another way of skirting the debate. The previous sentence was not directed at you. sentence.

---

I think the "burden of proof lies with the one making the claim" ought to be an axiom. Otherwise we can conjure up a plethora of non-existent things into existence simply through our will to claim they exist -- evidence or no evidence.

Does it sound to you like the universe is governed in that manner?

---

Also, think about the implications of that for your belief. You ought to disprove every other god man has thought up of before you can claim yours exists AND is the true god. Are you up to that monumental challenge?

I understand your point and appreciate you sharing your thoughts which is what I hope this forum is truly about but I think ( :-) this burden of proof doesn't fully help in facilitating this and the issue of burden of proof should not be on such a high pedastal without a provable justification and not just fancyful and colourful thinking no matter how well known or respected the author of such thinking is as I said before "I think" followed by a serious number of assumptions or theories doesn't count as a proof . All proofs must start with axioms. So hence the importance of axioms.

[Mister Agenda]

You, know, it's okay to say "i acknowledge I have the burden of proof, now Ima gonna say what I think."

[Mark 13:13]

I like things simple is that yes or no?

let me rewrite it, using your definition of axiom:

If it can be proved, it is not an axiom, is it?

The definition contains 2 components 1) can't be proved and 2)be accepted without controversy. So you are not dealing with both parts of the defination I gave.

[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?

[Mark 13:13]

So no one so far has A problem with that definition, or even clearly stated that by that definition "burden of proof" is by that definition is an axiom, or even seriously challenged my contention that it is not by that definition so far. The feeling I get is that most atheist want it taken as an axiom it practice whether it is an axiom or not. I'm going to leave it another while to give others a chance to contribute before I attempt to move the conversation further to the logical implications of this in the debates we tend to be involved in.

It's more an issue of use, than one of words. Axiom or not, you've got to consider the alternative: if the burden of proof doesn't fall on the claimant, then by necessity it either falls on nobody at all, or onto everyone else. If it falls on nobody, then what's the use? And why would it ever fall to everyone else to prove every crazy claim made wrong? Argument simply cannot operate that way: if it did, then I could create another god, just as unfalsifiable as the christian one, simply to negate the existence of other gods, without needing to prove it.

Logic requires that evidence back up a claim, rather than refute every other claim. Ideally, it has both, but it requires the former.

Whether you or anyone else sees fit to deem it an axiom or not, the real question is the truth or utility of the claim.

If it falls on nobody, then what's the use? well can't both parties present their ideas and evidences as they can and let the audience decide what they choose to believe after they have heard all?

You assume Arguement simply cannot operate this way suggesting I think in any other way other than The burden of proof lies with the claiment but French civil law opporates in the exact opposite way, although this is not a proof but is evidence that it can. The reason other legal systems opporate from the opposite premise is because they were set up that way.

---

If you receive an email from a Nigerian prince claiming to have 25 million dollars but he needs to transfer it into your bank account once you give him your account details, do you just accept what he says or demand he proves it?

irrelevent at this point as my opinion on what I should do is not a proof that anyone would accept on this forum.