• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Burden of Proof

Status
Not open for further replies.

Angel

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
18,001
Reaction score
2,909
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
THE BURDEN OF PROOF

OClJ7JH.jpg



Burden of proof (law)

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

The burden of proof always lies with him who alleges.

https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/semper-necessitas-probandi-incumbit-ei-qui-agit


Burden of proof (philosophy)

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes,
the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof
to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)



The burden of proof is on the one making the allegation

This is true in philosophy, in law, and in discourse generally

If you allege delusion, hoax, fraud, falsehood, etc.,

then the burden in the first instance falls on you to make the case

in support of your allegation



...
 
So, do you dispute my claim that the 'Tooth Fairy' exists? How about the Flibbertybob?
 
What profound wisdom presented.

Most of us would never have guessed.
 
What profound wisdom presented.

Most of us would never have guessed.
Your sarcasm fails. Judging by the posts, most of you have indeed never guessed.
 
Your sarcasm fails. Judging by the posts, most of you have indeed never guessed.
Not sure about the "most" but if we were to change the quantifier to "many", I'd be inclined to agree.

I assume your use of "you" in this context is born from a need to exclude yourself from the criticism. Somewhat telling that you should feel the necessity to do that.
 
Your sarcasm fails. Judging by the posts, most of you have indeed never guessed.

Without the mental faculties to facilitate speculation, its impossible to do so. Much less is it possible for them to love or understand philosophy in its purest aspects.
 
Is this thread meant to point out that Logicman doesnt understand burdern of proof?
 
Is this thread meant to point out that Logicman doesnt understand burdern of proof?

We don't need a thread for that. It is common knowledge here.
 
The burden of proof does not apply to dismissing the make believe. It's those who make things up who face the burden of proof.
 
The burden of proof does not apply to dismissing the make believe. It's those who make things up who face the burden of proof.
Wrong again, David. If you allege make-believe, the burden is yours to show make-believe.
 
Wrong again, David. If you allege make-believe, the burden is yours to show make-believe.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
 
Wrong again, David. If you allege make-believe, the burden is yours to show make-believe.

No, the make believe always comes first. If I point out the obvious, it is not my burden. I don't have to prove that every thing someone imagines is not real or true. That is turning the burden of proof upside down. If you can't define or demonstrate god then god is not real but imaginary. I can point out the sun but it would be ridiculous for anyone to disprove its existence. Whatever name you choose to give the sun there is a sun there for all to observe. Not the same with gods. Like they say in Missouri, show me.

For example, I claim that Zardoz is our one, true, angry, vengeful god who all must obey. Does this put a burden of proof on anyone who disagrees? I sure as hell hope not. That would be highly irrational.
 



Burden of proof (philosophy)

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes,
the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof
to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)



The burden of proof is on the one making the allegation

This is true in philosophy, in law, and in discourse generally

If you allege delusion, hoax, fraud, falsehood, etc.,

then the burden in the first instance falls on you to make the case

in support of your allegation



...



Is this about the "God Exists" thread? I posted there in my typical debate style but then I discovered that it wasn't really in the forum where we debate -- so I bowed out. I think that format is more about discussing religious concepts within the religious community (as I understand it) so I don't think he really needed to prove his hypothesis like we might in this forum. Just a thought.
 
Is this about the "God Exists" thread? I posted there in my typical debate style but then I discovered that it wasn't really in the forum where we debate -- so I bowed out. I think that format is more about discussing religious concepts within the religious community (as I understand it) so I don't think he really needed to prove his hypothesis like we might in this forum. Just a thought.
No, Howard, this is about the burden of proof in discourse. Much of IT discussion is marked by demands for proof. In many cases, if not in most, the demand for proof issues from parties who owe the proof themselves unawares. This occurs in discussions of every topic -- philosophy, politics, law, religion, etc. This confusion can have evil consequences , as in the media circus sparked by allegations of sexual misconduct. Sadly for all of us, the court of public opinion has overshadowed the court of law, and standards of discourse have lowered perilously to the point of vanishing. We see it here at DP in all forums where hot-button issues are the topics of discussion. It reflects a culture-wide general falling-off in standards of discourse and, relatedly, in critical thinking.
 
So, do you dispute my claim that the 'Tooth Fairy' exists? How about the Flibbertybob?
 
The burden of proof does not apply to dismissing the make believe. It's those who make things up who face the burden of proof.

Wrong again, David. If you allege make-believe, the burden is yours to show make-believe.

Angel, you've got it bass ackwards.


According to your copy/pastes about burdens of proof, if you say "God exists", you have to prove God exists.

You don't get to say "God exists" and then demand that someone else prove it doesn't. Yet that is precisely how you appear to be attempting to use the concept of burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
Angel, you've got it bass ackwards.


According to your copy/pastes about burdens of proof, if you say "God exists", you have to prove God exists.

You don't get to say "God exists" and then demand that someone else prove it doesn't. Yet that is precisely how you appear to be attempting to use the concept of burden of proof.
No, no one has to prove that God exists. No one can prove that God exists. Belief in God is a private and personal matter of faith. You get all up in my face and allege delusion or fraud or hoax or make-believe, etc, then the burden of proof is on you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom