Difference between revisions of "Burden of Proof"
Tom Bishop (talk | contribs) |
PeteSvarrior (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 107.167.244.83 (talk) to last revision by Tom Bishop) Tag: Rollback |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
'''Q.''' Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it? | '''Q.''' Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it? | ||
'''A.''' No. You are the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We are not claiming those things. | '''A.''' No. You are the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We are not claiming those things. | ||
| − | A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. | + | A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable. |
| − | You | + | You are the one making all of these fantastic claims. You are the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things. |
| − | The burden is on you to prove these things. You are the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really | + | The burden is on you to prove these things. You are the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really cannot do all of that stuff. |
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim? | If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim? | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist? | In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist? | ||
| − | Another example | + | Another example — A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true? |
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you. | The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you. | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Miscellaneous]] |
Latest revision as of 17:22, 15 October 2022
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?
A. No. You are the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We are not claiming those things.
A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeteticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.
You are the one making all of these fantastic claims. You are the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
The burden is on you to prove these things. You are the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really cannot do all of that stuff.
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
Another example — A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on Moller that all of their claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on potential investors and the public to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.