There is no justification for the burden of proof.
Prove me wrong.
>>1143918
What?
>>1143918
I like this, it's creative.
>>1143918
I simply hate this "~le burden of proof" meme.
To negate something is also an affirmation about it. All knowledge needs sufficient reason.
If you deny the teapot on space, you also must give reasons to support this assertion. If you can't do this, you simply can't deny something, so you shut the fuck up.
>>1144049
>to negate something is also an affirmation about it
You're looking at it improperly. You aren't negating something, but simply refusing to accept the original premise. If you don't take a gift from someone, you don't have to go to the effort of disposing of it, as it never enters into your possession.
>>1144059
>You aren't negating something, but simply refusing to accept the original premise
Refuse and negate are two sides of the same thing, from a rational perspective.
Your analogy is false, because to refuse an argument you must know the argument. If you don't know the argument, you can't even refuse it.
>>1144082
Nah, my analogy is spot on. If someone offers you something and you reject it, you don't have to go any further than that, it's never actually been granted the purchase to warrant more than that.
>>1144082
To put it another way, when you make a positive assertion, you're trying to get someone to accept something, and thus it falls upon you to give them a reason to do so. Because their default state, the state they were in before you attempted this is not accepting this assertion. So if they don't accept the assertion, they're simply continuing as they were before.
>>1143918
your mother is a whore, prove me wrong
>>1143918
There is a justification for the burden of proof.
Prove me wrong.
>>1144049
You not providing a reason is sufficient reason.
>>1143918
>>1144103
is a great counter argument to what you proposed, OP. No joke. There needs to be a burden of proof or you can just make ridiculous claims like "god exists" or "your mother is a whore" without the need to actually prove them. Without the burden of proof everything falls into a grey area of being unable to be proven false, yet not being able to be proven true.
>>1144106
Then why have you not provided proof for your claim?
>>1144112
No it's not. There is no reason, if there is no reason to be measured to begin with it can never be deemed sufficient.
>>1144125
They're both right.
Prove me wrong.
>>1144116
OP could prove his mother isn't a whore though?
The burden of proof doesn't make things unfalsifiable
>>1144128
>unironically being this wrong
>>1144138
lack of the burden of proof*
>>1143918
Define "burden of proof" thoroughly first.
Yes, there are multiple definitions and OP is going to move the goalposts the second someone posts a good answer.
>>1144144
>Yes, there are multiple definitions and OP is going to move the goalposts the second someone posts a good answer.
Prove it :^)
>>1144151
Prove him wrong.
>>1144125
This is why there needs to be a burden of proof...so we actually can prove you wrong.
>>1144094
This doesn't work for reason.
If you reject a rational argument in the same way you reject a gift, then you can't say the burden of proof relies on the other person.
>>1144097
In a situation like that, it doesn't rely on anyone, because you simply rejected the conversation.
>>1144112
When you say the burden of proof relies on someone else, you are only asking other people to convince you by other means rather than the argument they are presenting you. Why don't just say: "convince me by other means", rather than "le burden of proof relies on you"
Thats insincere argument, because you don't really want the opponent to prove something to you, but to convince you.
>>1144159
"no"
Why are defenders of the burden of proof so intellectually dishonest? If they believe it why don't they oractice it?
>>1144166
I'm right though.
>inb4 prove it
See the OP
>>1144167
>If you reject a rational argument in the same way you reject a gift, then you can't say the burden of proof relies on the other person.
Nah, not really. If you say "here, accept this" it's on you to get them to accept it, they don't have to justify a rejection.
>Thats insincere argument, because you don't really want the opponent to prove something to you, but to convince you.
These are one and the same. You're just being a picky autist.
>>1144170
You're the one who set the terms of this particular game.
>>1144167
>it doesn't rely on anyone
Except it does. Since you're the one who wants them to accept your positive assertion.
>>1144182
>the burden of proof isn't required for negative assertions
When will this meme die
>>1144178
And only one person so far has attempted to prove the OP statement wrong
>>1144186
When you accept that rejecting a positive assertion is not making an assertion. "The sky is red" followed by "prove it or shut the fuck up" is not an assertion about the colour of the sky.
>>1144188
Why should they? You already demonstrated that being unable to prove something wrong is acceptable evidence, so they play the game by the same rules as yourself.
>>1144176
>Nah, not really. If you say "here, accept this" it's on you to get them to accept it, they don't have to justify a rejection.
I'm not denying it, I'm only saying the "burden of proof" argument can't be used to justify it. Actually, the burden of proof is already a justification, that's why I called it an insincere argument.
You are saying "nah, be more rational, you can't prove shit" and than reject the conversation. That's also the most insincere way to call someone dumb and run away from it.
>>1144193
Because they believe that things should be done differently.
Are you trolling?
>>1144194
So, what, to be consistent in your eyes, everyone has to argue with and attempt to disprove every inane, insane, and retarded cock and bull story offered their way? Yeah whatever, fuck yourself. I suspect you're just mad that someone rejected a stupid statement of yours out of hand.
>>1144197
Yes, and they're demonstrating why your standard of conduct is in error. This is proving your statement wrong.
>>1144172
well this is going nowhere...
>>1144199
Say the truth, being sincere, and don't trying to involve the opponent in your verbal tricks.
Every single person who uses the burden of proof argument is always calling the others dumb but still wants to look rational in front of them.
>>1144206
Ok, you're an idiot, and I still expect some fucking proof before I accept whatever woowoo you want propose.
>oh but you're just asking to be convinced
Yes, indeed. That's why I want proof. Are you fucking autistic?
>>1144201
If anything they're proving me right by demonstrating discourse undertaken without applying the burden of proof
>>1144209
You are not logically allowed to reject an opinion you didn't even understood.
Dumb arguments can be logically disproven, if you don't even want to do it, admit that's personal and don't try to justificate it as if the other person is logically wrong.
>>1144218
You invoke burden of proof when the other person didn't give any arguments at all. That's what it means.
>>1144218
But the other person is logically wrong if they want to bring up an assertion without proof.
>You are not logically allowed to reject an opinion you didn't even understood.
You are logically allowed to reject something that lacks proof. Also who made you king logic?
So, what's the bullshit of yours that people keep rejecting? I'm dying to know.
>>1143918
People realise this is a joke right? The burden of proof is on the one making the statement not because it's a logical necessity but because it's good argumentative practice, that's it.
The joke is one of self reference and absurdity to undermine a common misunderstanding about what the concept of burden of proof is and how it works.
>>1144126
if you can't provide evidence that something exists, there's no reason to discuss it except as a notion of curiosity
>>1144239
>And you are wrong by rejecting the assertion only because the person can't convince you.
No, this is basic skepticism. You should have learned it when your parents told you not to believe that nice man who said he was your uncle and you needed to get in his van.
>>1144242
Skepticism is an assertion about things. You are not being rational being skeptical about everything, because you know you cant and you aren't.
>>1144251
Reasonable skepticism is how most people operate and the only way they can function in society. The alternative is to accept every assertion anybody gives you, which is absolutely disastrous.
>>1144251
Personal inconsistency is the weak argument, the strong argument is that 'radical' skepticism of the kind we can't know nuffin holds presuppositions and is already a metaphysical position.
Pyrronic skepticism is the only real skepticism.
But then the Pyrronist is not engaging in dialogue.
>>1144229
>the only post that gets it is ignored
Bravo /his/
>>1144229
>good argumentative practice
What is good? What is wrong?
Meh
>>1144265
So, you never did answer my question. What are you so upset about people rejecting?
>>1144267
Every chan thread ever.
>>1144239
Nobody is going to willingly play devils advocate in every fucking argument just because one side doesn't subscribe to burden of proof.
Besides that when will you be able to stop playing DA for the opposing side?
At what point do you say "Fuck it. Fork over an actual argument that I can disprove or stop insisting that you're right."?
>>1144265
>"The person can't convince me, therefore it's wrong" is cartesian skepticism
I'm pretty sure there's more to his scepticism than that.
Again, what do you expect people to do? Just accept your every argument? Waste time trying to disprove everything you claim? Do you argue with the guy selling magnet bracelets? Do you just accept every phone offer for a no-risk investment? Did you get in your uncle's van?
>>1144283
Sane skepticism is "the person can't logically convince me, therefore I can't logically know if it's right or wrong". But even when the others can't convince you, you can use reason to trust them or reject their arguments, and this is personal and not a rational argument. Everyone who uses the "burden of proof" argument is rejecting other people's opinion and still wanting to maintain that rational status instead of confessing their real intentions.
I discovered today this derives from cartesian doubt, so that's why I reject it as irrational everytime.
>>1144314
But they're not calling them dumb. They're saying they have no proof of their claims. Are you really that pathetic that expecting you to back your bullshit up is an attack?
>>1144308
That wasn't an answer.
Also it doesn't derive from Cartesian doubt. It's what the guy earlier said: it's good argumentative practice. If you don't bring proof, you wont convince anyone, and a rational person should expect proof proportional to how extraordinary a claim is.
>>1144308
>But even when the others can't convince you, you can use reason to trust them or reject their arguments, and this is personal and not a rational argument.
No anon, this is called "ad hominem" or "appeal to authority"
You can't exactly judge whether to trust a person on an anonymous imageboard anyway, so you have to take their argument at face value.
Can I remind you once again that invoking the burden of proof means that the claimant has actually failed to offer an argument?
>>1144316
Dumb in the sense they don't know something they should know and you have to show them how to do it. The fact is that the argument hides a personal opinion inside a rationally null argument.
>>1144321
Ok, I accept this is nothing but argumentative practice, I wouldn't say that's good or evil, I'd say most people use it for evil.
>>1144345
>Dumb in the sense they don't know something they should know and you have to show them how to do it. The fact is that the argument hides a personal opinion inside a rationally null argument.
The only personal opinion "hidden" is the opinion that the person hasn't brought any proof of their claim to bear, you insecure twit.
>>1144331
Fallacies are logical errors, only.
You can be logically wrong/null and still be rational by other means. That's not the point in discussion here, desu.
>>1144351
You simply don't trust in their personal testimony and think you're smarter than them. You can't confess that, so you say "the burden of proof relies on you".
>>1144361
Burden of proof is simply a way to end a one-sided discussion where the other side can do nothing more impactful than repeatedly stating their claim.
Supposing the claim is a positive claim with no evidence or falsifiable hypothesis then the situation is as follows:
The opposition to this can do nothing in this situation but demonstrate an argument that could prove the claim to be correct to be false.
The opposition would have to develop this argument with no aid from the initial claimee.
The side making the initial claim is under no pressure to accept this at all and can simply repeat their claim and possibly state why the hypothesis is invalid ("You can't see the unicorn because it is invisible").
This could continue until all hypotheses that could yield results that differentiate between true and false values are exhausted at which point the discussion basically devolves into "Yes it is" "No it is not" and becomes unfalsifiable tripe.
Kind of like this discussion since you seem convinced that not wanting to engage in "Yes it is" "No it is not" back and forth is some kind of statement of superiority.
>>1144373
>Burden of proof is simply a way to end a one-sided discussion
Ok, I assume that since my first comment, the problem I notice is that people usually don't admit it when they use this argument in a discussion.
>>1144361
>You simply don't trust in their personal testimony
Don't use anecdotal evidence, especially online. Please.
>>1143918
I can't think of any logical justification for the burden of proof, but merely point out that not having it would be ridiculous.
Russell's teapot.
The amount of replies to this thread is a testament to /his/'s being unfit for half-decent discussion
>>1144385
>don't admit it when they use this argument
It's because "Burden of proof" is an easy and specific summation of why the person is wrong and further argument would be fruitless that can't be easily dismissed without adressing the underlying issue.
It's not intellectually dishonest to state that the opposition is wrong because of burden of proof since that can easily be countered by just providing some either in the form of direct evidence which can then be used by the opposition to form a falsifiable hypothesis or by providing a falsifiable hypothesis that can be tested by the opposition.
>>1144203
nowhere doesn't exist otherwise it would be going somwhere
Not falsifiable, therefore false.
>>1144509
How atheist of you
>>1144598
Not an argument.
>>1144600
I never said it was, dumb tripfaggot.
Filtered btw.
>>1144601
Not even testable.
F-, apply yourself
Prove proof proves proofs.
>>1144621
Proof prove proofs prove
>>1143918
You're right there isn't. Both sides carry the burden. Someone making a claim and someone claiming the opposite have to prove their point. No side is "automatically" right.
OP is right!
Just saying it makes it so!
How could we have been so blind?
Oh wait, we're idiots.
>>1144138
Don't be silly it is pretty much impossible to prove your mother is not a whore.
In fact it is an entirely true statement in your case.
Your mother's a whore. Prove me wrong.
>>1144625
I died three times last week and rose from the dead every time.
Prove me wrong.
>>1144655
>this is the standard of debate on the humanities board
No wonder all the smart people go STEM
>>1144666
It is a perfectly reasonable point.
All these people claiming the burden of proof does not exist should have a serious think about how they would go about proving a negative to even something as simple as that. They can't.
And let's be honest here the only reason any of them are coming out with this shit is because they are religious and they find the entire idea they are expected to prove daft claims when discussing religion. They wouldn't actually like it if such silly thinking was applied to any other topic.
Oh OK so I can make any unfalsifiable claim and you just have to either believe it or admit we cannot know. Cool, that doesn't sound like bullshit at all.
>>1144664
I can't
>>1144673
> proving a negative to even something as simple as that
>did she ever engage in prostitution
>yes, she's a whore
>no, she's not a whore
wow that was hard
>>1144673
>religion
This. Absolutely this. No normal sane person would jump through so many mental hoops unless they had an agenda . The simple matter is, if you make a claim that cannot be easily falsified you must provide evidence (on logical or physical grounds) for its existence. Otherwise you are demanding someone waste their time on every retarded claim trying to prove it wrong when often the nature of the claim is that it cannot be proven wrong. It's pure intellectual fraudulance. If some retard says to me "random claim, prove me wrong". I immediately and every time dismiss their claim. Intellectually dishonest pricks need to gtfo.
I see none of you guys are into maths
>>1144699
You have absolutely zero evidence she never engaged in prostitution.
>>1144726
And you have zero evidence that she did.
>>1144716
I wouldn't get too excited about your superiority mate. Have you ever looked at the debate philosophers of maths have about whether numbers are real?
>>1144735
Are you suggesting the burden of proof is somehow on me for making the claim! Well I never!
>>1144716
What's 'into maths' supposed to mean? I see none of you have studied mathematics at tertiary level or what?
>>1144726
You don't know that
>>1144741
In math any claim is valid until proven otherwise
>>1144748
So that's why P=NP
>>1144742
You could never provide any evidence to show someone had literally never engaged in prostitution, it is a completely impossible task.
>>1144746
Where is it then?
>>1144757
>expecting somebody to provide information on people they know to 4chan
Retarded
>>1144752
It does if N is one.
>>1144753
No but when it's about people I go by the principle of "in dubio pro reo".
It's not a proof but a reason for decision.
In matters that cannot be proven either way you need to pick the more reasonable side. Saying absolutely everything needs a proof otherwise it's invalid is retarded.
"I ate bread yesterday"
Do I need to prove that? Even if I didn't it's reasonable to assume that i did.
What i'm saying you guys should stop acting like retards.
>>1144762
Okay.
Give one example of a piece of information that could be theoretically supplied about a women to prove she had never engaged in prostitution.
>>1144753
So if I had a newborn baby in a maternity ward being filmed from the moment it came out of the womb, and it still had an intact hymen, you still wouldn't believe that it hadn't been whoring itself out?
Impossible my ass.
>>1144767
Intact hymen
>>1144748
I'm stem but I see a tendency in stemfags to just not understand how to handle universals and particulars. Your statement right now is a good example, do you reckon that if this property were true about mathematics universally that it ought to be true about everything else? Or do you seriously think this says anything about logic as opposed to the methodology that has developed in the field out of convenience?
They treat it like this in maths, maths is so great and i'm a pompous and insecure idiot who can't think anything through independently so always try to latch onto whatever authority i can feign to be congruent with. Very often this stupid is just an embarrassment for the field who's authority you desperately want to co-opt.
>>1144766
>"I ate bread yesterday"
>Do I need to prove that? Even if I didn't it's reasonable to assume that i did.
If it was something that was even worth arguing about you could prove you did eat bread yesterday.
Proving that you didn't would be near impossible.
All you are saying is this is such a minor completely commonplace thing that no one even cares about the burden of proof or proving you wrong or would have any particular reason to not believe you, you're not providing a serious argument why the burden of proof does not exist,
>>1144791
>Proving that you didn't would be near impossible.
Stool samples
>>1144784
Negative.
She could have given cheeky handjobs and blowjobs for cash.
>>1144799
>wristys and gobbys
>prostitution
>>1144798
What? Covering her entire life?
>>1144803
Of course it is.
>>1144804
Only if her entire life was yesterday.
>If it was something that was even worth arguing about you could prove you did eat bread yesterday.
>Proving that you didn't would be near impossible.
Shit tyrone get it together.
>>1144809
This post doesn't even make sense, friend.
>>1144812
You said it would be impossible to prove somebody hadn't eaten bread yesterday.
I said a stool sample would prove it. Evidence of absence is evidence.
But you somehow took this to mean stool samples over her entire life, I assume because you were confusing it with the prostitute.
>>1144791
So you're saying there's good reason to believe so you don't need any proof about a thing that's impossible to prove or disprove?
Exactly my point.
It doesn't even need to be something miniscule or mundane. I could claim that I'm a physics professor. Do I need to prove that or woulf be me providing the knowledge that makes my claim seem realistic be reason enough to believe me?
>>1144822
Sorry, yes I was having two conversations.
No a stool sample would not necessarily prove you didn't eat something. It might have been such a small amount of it that it didn't show up in the sample.
You could certainly prove you DID eat bread with a stool sample.
>>1144826
I think you are getting a bit confused about what I am saying.
I am saying proving a negative is incredibly difficult, often impossible.
I quite agree if you claimed to be a Physics professor there are myriad of ways you could prove it to be true, including the example you just gave.
I couldn't disprove you were a physics professor.
That's why dun dun dun the burden of proof is one the person making the claim.
>>1144849
Vast knowledge in physics is not proof that you're a physics professor though.
It's a reasonable assumption to believe someone who does have it and makes that claim but it's not proof.
>>1144834
And if you're trying to prove somebody DID eat bread how do you know that any traces of it were not from anywhere else?
>>1144860
Yes I will agree with that. Showing your qualifications, proof of where you work etc would better.
>>1144867
I would suggest if you were going to make a claim like that i.e. essentially the sample had been tampered with then the burden of proof would be on you to prove that positive claim and not the person that had gone to the effort of getting a stool sample tested to show they were telling the truth.
>>1144822
Prove you didn't have your stomach pumped after eating the bread.
>>1144918
In what way?
It's interesting, because if this problem ever enters the realm of religion, then it is never really justified since God represents himself to people in personalized signs, custom for every individual
And also you know who I am. So God.
You are absolutely correct, OP.
>>1144992
fuck off faggayn stein
>>1143918
The burden of assertion is nonexistent, so a barrier against frivolous assertions is necessary.
Well.
I say you are wrong, and according to you I don't have to provide any proof, so I wont.
Fuck the Holy Spirit.
I'm not going to hell
Prove me wrong nigger.
/his/ discussion quality is as intellectual as trying to talk to a six year old.
No matter what, to be correct a poster will warp their logic until they won't even tolerate an opposing thought.
The discussion is a joke.
>>1146156
Also, people use too many shit analogies and euphemisms.
No one will learn anything, No one changes their beliefs, everyone leaves this thread thinking the same way they thought before.
I hate all of you christcucks and fedora tippers. Contrarian Edgelord the both of you types.
>>1146183
>No one will learn anything, No one changes their beliefs
They probably do, just over time. Like, years. And I'm sure online discussions can contribute to the process - they have in my case. But yeah, thread to thread, that's not going to happen. But it's not as though it really tends to happen mid-conversation IRL.
>>1146272
This. I've changed some of my beliefs in response to discussions on places such as 4chan, but it takes time.
>>1143918
>prove me wrong
your claim. the burden of proof lies with you.
>>1143918
>There is no justification for basic logic
>>1146156
I don't really know what people expected from a 4chan board
>>1147820
>does the burden of proof lie with him on Easter?
>>1147820
Why don't americans celebrate proof?
>>1146156
Do you have the whole picture of that bobcat?
>>1148670
Because then we'd be Russians.
>>1148220
What is the logical premise behind the burden of proof?
Go on, I'm waiting.
>>1143918
It isn't not the non-case that I'm not not not right. Prove me wrong.
>>1151371
->B
Prove me wrong
Therefor B
>>1143918
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The neutral ground is always skepticism. Without substatiating any claim, an idea is in limbo. You can tell me Comunnisum is superior to Capitalism, but what else do we gave to work with?
>>1151371
It's the physical "why" of an argument.
>>1152147
>the burden of proof is right because the burden of proof is right
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
>>1153962
>Burden of proof is wrong because muh feels
>>1153962
But that's not what I said, dick tickler.
When something has been established as the commonly accepted and status quo, to disagree would require a significant amount of hard evidence.
Surely if it's something everyone believes it can't be wrong.
That's where it comes from, and it's correct to think that way for this reason. If everyone thinks it is correct and it is incorrect, you should be able to prove it as incorrect. Many things that are commonly accepted as truths are not, but anyone actually educated on the subject can quickly and easily prove them as incorrect with facts and hard evidence.
But if a commonly accepted belief has no counter proof to it, it likely is in fact, the truth. If it is not, but no evidence exists to prove it wrong, then you have to rely on evidence that your assertion is right. But if you cannot prove the original theory as wrong that is very very difficult and implausible.
Although many commonly held beliefs are false the vast majority are true. For that reason, to challenge the status quo you must be able to prove it wrong. Someone who believes in the status quo does not have to prove why he is right, you have to prove he and everyone else is wrong.
>>1155299
>it is my responsibility to disprove your argumentum ad populum
>not your responsibility to avoid the fallacy
"no"
>>1155311
If we listen to every counterculture nut on the off chance one of them is actually right, that creates a lot more problems and leads to a lot of incorrect knowledge being circulated.
If the status quo is wrong and you can prove it. Do it. If the status quo is wrong and you can't prove it, why should I listen to you?
>>1154625
>bitches about strawman right after strawmanning
My argument wasn't circular and you fucking know it. Or you're just a half assed shitposter.
>>1155314
Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it's correct and some status quo arguments persist despite readily available evidence.
Such as for instance the almost frightening tenacity of homeopathy, despite the means to disprove it having been readily available since the 19th century in the form of the Avagadro Constant which has been used to repeatedly crush the idea.
And even if you argue that "Homeopathy isn't the status quo" I can say that it is in certain areas and it isn't that fringe in most areas either.
And you may say "But anon, you just demonstrated that you can disprove it so my idea must still be correct" to which I would reply that the Homeopathy industry is capable of very dynamic goalpost moving in its unfalsifiable claims.
This can be applied to many status quo opinions as well.
Some don't want to be disproven and some simply can't be disproven ever by any stretch of the imagination.
Argumentum ad populum is not enough to justify a position.
>finally get a history board
>get lumped in with other humanities
>half of the catalog are shitty "how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real"-tier threads like these
>>1156956
IT'S THE SUMMER OF /his/ JERRY
>>1156956
>oh no they bumped another """holy""" """roman""" """empire""" thread of the board
