The burden of proof

[perspective]

*Originally posted by Sparc *
OK, if you feel that way. As I said earlier I think that the debate at hand is not quite about this issue so I think that I would rather just leave it as it stands. If you feel that this is a debatable issue, then I suggest you debate it. Since I believe the null hypothesis to be that there is no proof of UFO visitations I shall however only join that debate should there be new evidence or good arguments to support a change of the null hypothesis.

The alien issue is definitely not essential in itself. However, it does give us an opportunity to discuss debating issues with firsthand examples that don’t drag up debater’s names that wouldn’t want to get involved.

I think you did pretty well. You at least began to back up your claim. Had you simply said ,“That’s the null hypothesis”, that would have been precisely the sort of technique I’m not happy with. It’s also a good example because the issues came up secondary to the OP. I didn’t start the OP to prove that contact with aliens is likely, I simply said (as a supporting example for another issue)I hadn’t seen anyone argue for why it is extraordinary. So when someone made the assertion that it was, it was only right that they should demonstrate that assertion.

I don’t understand why you are arguing against when you agree for. This is the exact point of proof… no proof from the asserting party equals no debate since there is no fact to refute.

Suppose I say that killing killers is hypocritical. Is it relevant, is it true? Supporting facts are not always necessary in a moral debate. The fact that the state kills killers is not in contention. Now if someone counters with,“We need to show killers that they can’t get away with it”. They have not directly referenced the efficacy of the death penalty they are simply making the assumption. So I respond “The death penalty does not decrease the murder rate.” To which someone says" You said it.Now prove it." So now even though the other debater has clearly shown bias, they now have license to attack my supporting arguments without providing any of their own. Yet it’s possible this person has done no research on the matter and has no justification to simply sit there and ask for proof.

Is it just my fault for daring to reference reality first? Why is the order so important in an obviously partisan debate? Surely I should back up my claim, but lack of evidence for the other side is also important.

It’s been pointed out that an ad hominem always is. In your example the non-sequitor wasn’t the problem though… the irrelevant attack on the person was.

Actually sometimes an ad hominem is simply an ad hominem. " All you commies are just a bunch of pot smoking hippies. If you weren’t so drug addled, you’d realize that capitalism is the only way, because blah, blah, blah"
This is primarily an ad hominem.Their not basing their argument against communism on it, it’s just thrown in to be inflammatory and make commies look bad. In my example, it was both an ad hominem and a non-sequitur. Which was more important is a value judgement depending upon how concerned you were about it’s logical fallacy or it’s inflammatory nature. Of course, the strongest rebuttal would have mentioned that it is both.

Again though, you need not clarify in any other way than to point out that it is an argument that does not hold up since the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

It’s not always clear why the conclusion does not follow from the premise though. That’s why people make non-sequiturs. I suppose I could say that every argument you’ve put forth is a non sequitur, but that doesn’t show anything.

Well no, there are never just pro and con, there are multiple shades in between.

Perhaps you’d like to make your argument for the “half death penalty” or the “1/3 abortion.”

Yes there often many different positions on many issues. I don’t see why any of those positions shouldn’t have to be supported. If you enter into an argument with a partisan bias, it should be made clear and supported.

[CheapBastid]

*Originally posted by aramis *
**Show me one dead bigfoot… **

Here ya go!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134589898_raywallaceobit05m.html

[Spiff]

To help me follow things here: What does DNFTT stand for?

[NE_Texan]

I would approach this question from a completely different angle.

The burden of proof is upon that person that wants to convince others that their argument is correct. Whether that argument is a positive or negative argument.

For example, in the following case:

Poster A: [unlikely statement], but I don’t care if anyone else believes me.
Poster B: I don’t believe you, but I don’t care if anyone else does.

… I don’t think either person has a burden of proof. On the other hand:

Poster A: [unlikely statement], and you should all believe that.
Poster B: I don’t believe you, and I’m confident enough that no one else will either that I don’t want to waste my time rebutting.

Poster A would have the burden of proof, because Poster A wants to convince someone of something.

Another case:

Poster A: [unlikely statement], but I don’t care if anyone else believes me.
Poster B: I don’t believe you, and I worry that someone else will ready your rubbish and believe it, so here’s my rebuttal…

Poster B has the burden of proof, since they want someone to believe a certain way.

I think this echoes Bad Astronomer’s stance - even though the original claims are specious, he’s taking on the task of proving his point, because he wants people to not be ignorant.

Of course, when I use “burden” here, I don’t mean that there is any externally imposed responsibility. Just that you have to treat your audience as skeptics - if you want to convince someone of your point of view, then you need to support your position.

[tagos]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**perspective, you didn’t find my claim extraordinary? You don’t find my claim worth questioning?

I would suggest that if someone is not sufficiently aware of “established knowledge,” they have no business within 500 yards of an ongoing debate.

**

With you on that one. Sick to death of threads on serious boards like this one where people jump in without any knowledge and demand cites for what any literate person should know already, particularly if you’re partaking in a debate thread.

[Dan_Gunter]

I agree with NE Texan’s comment: “The burden of proof is upon that person that wants to convince others that their argument is correct.” In law, we speak of the burden of persuasion. Although there are sometimes shifting burdens of proof (as in employment discrimination cases), the ultimate burden of proof always rests on the party asserting a proposition–i.e., either the plaintiff asserting that the defendant is liable or the defendant asserting that he, she, or it has some affirmative defense.