Burden of proof.

Person making*

>'grill' namefig gins up a controversy

>>8386242
>namefig
Why thank you for that rousing reply that really contributed to things. I just figure if I'm going to ask something like this, I'll be transparent with people.

I have my reasons, you have no real reply.

ask in >>>/x/

>>8386268
>10/02/16

Thanks!

>>8386231
If you make an assertion it should be because you have some reason to believe it. Similarly, if you deny something it should be because you have some reason to deny it. You can deny that somebody else *knows* something without denying the claim they are making.

>>8386231
Burden of proof is on who ever is making a claim counter to a priori reasoning.

Burden of proof is on who ever has worse EVIDENCE.

>>8386494
No wait burden of proof is a social convention to prevent people from making unjustified claims then forcing experts or organizations to waste time refuting them. One of those two options. Maybe both.

>>8386231
Burden of proof lies on both sides. When both sides have as much proof as the other, Occam's Razor applies.
Also the following principles are useful on the top of my head :
>Correlation does not imply causality
>Absence of proof is not the proof of absence

>>8386231
Burden of proff ALWAYS lays with the person making the claim.
Otherwise all things that cannot be disproven are then by default true.

Example : where burden of proof lays with person making claim : "There is an 18th century silver tea set in orbit around Jupiter."
> "Have you any observational evidence to support you claim of this tea set in orbit around Jupiter?"
"Well, no. But I'm sure it's there!"
> "You have no evidence. I dismiss your claim"

And so the world goes on...

Where the burden of proof lays with the person countering the claim :
"There is an 18th century silver tea set in orbit around Jupiter."
> "Have you any observational evidence to support you claim of this tea set in orbit around Jupiter?"
"Well, no. But you can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right. It's there!"
> "For fuck's sake."
"Also, Unicorns are real you just can't see them and they don't want to be found!"
> "Srsly? Please don't go there..."

And so everything that can't be disproven becomes true and real for every child that wants it to be.

Burden of proof lays with the person making the claim because we live in a grown up world where proof is required for belief. Unless you're a religious fag and then you're just an idiot.

>>8386231
Burden of proof is on the person who is making the positive claim.
You can't prove a negative claim unless you already know the premises of the argument or the person you are arguing against is willing to accept your formulated premises (or you are omniscient and can work through every possible set of premises).
And if the positive claim has been proven falsifiably then the negative claim should be the one to provide proof that the premises do not support the conclusion or that the premises are wrong/incomplete.

It's just good argumentative practice to do so if nothing else.

>>8386231
>implying scientific controversies are settled through debate
topkek
take that debate class president title and shove it up your ass

>>8386231
>Is burden of proof on the person making the unfounded claim or on the person who decides to question it?

Burden of proof is on whoever makes a declarative statement.

>>8386231
Are you sure you know what a claim is and isn't?

File: meaning of or.png (99KB, 549x515px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 549x515px

>>8387576
>>8386865
These.

Think about it dialectically. You can always create a positive claim that is the negation of some other, i.e. "God exists" and "God does not exist." If the burden of proof were not on those making these statements, then you could consider them both shown to be true simultaneously, which is absurd.

It's vitally important, thus, to distinguish "I don't believe claim A is true" from "I do believe claim A is false." The English language is partly to blame for people conflating the two, see Munkres in pic related, and this confusion is common in religious apologism and various sorts of woo.