Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[John 6IX Breezy]

Note that the charge You will burn in hell for X takes the form of an accusation. Which I previously mentioned qualifies for the burden of proof. I think any theist that takes on such an approach is by their own actions isolating themselves from conversation.

[Anomalocaris]

Note that the charge You will burn in hell for X takes the form of an accusation. Which I previously mentioned qualifies for the burden of proof. I think any theist that takes on such an approach is by their own actions isolating themselves from conversation.

Participating without intellectual honesty in a conversation about the truth hardly confirms to the spirit of “conversation”.

[Mister Agenda]

Neo, what is the reason for god? Or do you accept god as a brute fact?

Not at this time. The question of God's existence howver seems to me inextricably connected to things I do consider brute facts such as the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Isn't it part of the Principle of Sufficent Reason that there are no brute facts?

---

The aphorism 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' has been brought up as an example of arguing from incredulity. It can (and has) been misused that way, 'extraordinary' is very ambiguous in common language. But it isn't meant to be a prop for personal incredulity, the term 'extraordinary claim' should be be understood as a claim contrary to what known prior evidence supports, and 'extraordinary evidence' is evidence sufficient to indicate the claim is correct in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If I claim to be able to levitate my body by force of will, I'm claiming something extraordinary, there is no known mechanism for such a feat and being able to rise against gravity without propulsion defies what we know of the laws of physics. I shouldn't expect to be believed without demonstrating my ability repeatedly under controlled conditions. If you believe me without that level of evidentiary support, probability is not on your side. It would be puerile of me to insist that your main reason to disbelive my claim is your subjective sense of personal incredulity. If I am successful in demonstrating my amazing power repeatedly under controlled conditions with a wide variety of observers, I can expect to be a source of worldwide scientific amazement and probably the basis for establishing a new branch of science to study what I can do.

If I claim to be able to walk around the block using my legs and feet, it's well known that most people can do that, so it's an 'ordinary claim' and it's reasonable to take my word for it unless you know a particular reason to disbelieve it (like you had me under surveillance or you know I'm a bedridden parapalegic...I'm not, btw).

---

How do you meet in the middle when deciding who has the burden of proof for the claim that both share the burden of proof?

It's not the middle, but I think it's helpful to consider who is making the positive claim. If one side would be put in the position of trying to prove a universal negative, they don't really have the burden of proof, even if they brought it up first. It's undertood that their negative claim is a reaction to some other positive claim. If someone asserts that there are no such things as magical leprechauns, it's understood that the statement is a response to the idea that there ARE such things as magical leprechauns, even if no one in that particular conversation asserted that there are. The person you're talking to may not have claimed there are, but if they're going to disagree with the proposition, it's on them to demonstrate sufficient reason to believe leprechauns are real. As a matter of courtesy, you probably shouldn't assert there are no leprechauns apropos of nothing without being prepared to explain your reasoning if someone disagrees, but in the absence of contrary evidence, that's the default position no matter who brings it up first.

If it's not a universal negative, the person who asserts it (there's no visible elephant in my garage) has the burden of proof.

[Angrboda]

How do you meet in the middle when deciding who has the burden of proof for the claim that both share the burden of proof?

It's not the middle, but I think it's helpful to consider who is making the positive claim. If one side would be put in the position of trying to prove a universal negative, they don't really have the burden of proof, even if they brought it up first. It's undertood that their negative claim is a reaction to some other positive claim. If someone asserts that there are no such things as magical leprechauns, it's understood that the statement is a response to the idea that there ARE such things as magical leprechauns, even if no one in that particular conversation asserted that there are. The person you're talking to may not have claimed there are, but if they're going to disagree with the proposition, it's on them to demonstrate sufficient reason to believe leprechauns are real. As a matter of courtesy, you probably shouldn't assert there are no leprechauns apropos of nothing without being prepared to explain your reasoning if someone disagrees, but in the absence of contrary evidence, that's the default position no matter who brings it up first.

If it's not a universal negative, the person who asserts it (there's no visible elephant in my garage) has the burden of proof.

My remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek. While it's true that universal negatives may simply be an inartful response to a positive claim, it needs to be borne in mind that there are universal negatives that do bear a burden of proof. For example, if one were to argue that the bacterial flagellum could not evolve naturally, that would be a universal negative which bears a burden of proof. Otherwise, universal negatives which should be challenged are inappropriately given a pass. (A couple other examples to keep things clear, the claims that, "the second law of thermodynamic cannot be violated" and "a cause must precede its effect" implicitly contain universal negatives which would require support if they are critical premises in an argument.)

[Mister Agenda]

Excellent point, Angrboda, wish I'd have thought of it!

[Belacqua]

Also it should be noted that burden of proof demands are inconsistently applied, especially on partisan sites like this one.

A few days ago someone here asserted that no religion had ever done a positive thing, ever in history. This ludicrous remark sailed by unchallenged, because it conforms with local prejudices.

Somehow that poster didn't feel his burden at all.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Also it should be noted that burden of proof demands are inconsistently applied, especially on partisan sites like this one.

A few days ago someone here asserted that no religion had ever done a positive thing, ever in history. This ludicrous remark sailed by unchallenged because it conforms with local prejudices.

Somehow that poster didn't feel his burden at all.

No, it was unchallenged because why bother challenging something everyone else knows is false? Some claims aren't even wrong thus can be dismissed unchallenged. As to whether the person felt the burden of not is irrelevant. No inconsistency or partisanship there I'm afraid 

[John 6IX Breezy]

The aphorism 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' has been brought up as an example of arguing from incredulity. It can (and has) been misused that way, 'extraordinary' is very ambiguous in common language. But it isn't meant to be a prop for personal incredulity, the term 'extraordinary claim' should be be understood as a claim contrary to what known prior evidence supports, and 'extraordinary evidence' is evidence sufficient to indicate the claim is correct in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I agree with your general comments on the matter; but I wish to add my own take:

We have a tendency to ascribe more truth than is warranted to bits of wisdom that come wrapped in poetic and pleasant speech. During a class, one of my professors passed out slips of paper which reported some research about romantic relationships. The students were then asked to raise their hands if they agreed with the finding, and everyone did. The catch was that for half the students the conclusion said Research has found that opposites attract, while the other half said Research has found that birds of a feather flock together.

The same holds true for the spiderman-esque quip that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Adjectives such as Extraordinary are both subjective and immeasurable. And no proposition, regardless of how extraordinary or mundane, has a predetermined amount of evidence it requires. In fact, the quicker we get rid of words such as evidence and proof from our vocabulary, the less mistakes we are likely to make. Words such as Consistent with are better alternatives.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Excuses excuses 

[The Grand Nudger]

Get rid of words like evidence? What is the proposition supposed to be consistent with, then?