There is no justification for the burden of proof

There is no justification for the burden of proof.

Prove me wrong.

What?

I like this, it's creative.

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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.

your mother is a whore, prove me wrong

There is a justification for the burden of proof.

Prove me wrong.

/thread
alright wrap it up

You not providing a reason is sufficient reason.

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.

Then why have you not provided proof for your claim?

You're both wrong.

Prove me wrong.

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.

They're both right.

Prove me wrong.

OP could prove his mother isn't a whore though?

The burden of proof doesn't make things unfalsifiable

>unironically being this wrong

lack of the burden of proof*

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.

>Yes, there are multiple definitions and OP is going to move the goalposts the second someone posts a good answer.

Prove it :^)

Prove him wrong.

This is why there needs to be a burden of proof...so we actually can prove you wrong.

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.

In a situation like that, it doesn't rely on anyone, because you simply rejected the conversation.

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.

"no"

Why are defenders of the burden of proof so intellectually dishonest? If they believe it why don't they oractice it?

I'm right though.
>inb4 prove it
See the OP

>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.

You're the one who set the terms of this particular game.

>it doesn't rely on anyone

Except it does. Since you're the one who wants them to accept your positive assertion.

>the burden of proof isn't required for negative assertions

When will this meme die

And only one person so far has attempted to prove the OP statement wrong

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.

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.

>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.

Because they believe that things should be done differently.

Are you trolling?

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.

Yes, and they're demonstrating why your standard of conduct is in error. This is proving your statement wrong.

well this is going nowhere...

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.

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?

If anything they're proving me right by demonstrating discourse undertaken without applying the burden of proof

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.

You invoke burden of proof when the other person didn't give any arguments at all. That's what it means.

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.

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.

if you can't provide evidence that something exists, there's no reason to discuss it except as a notion of curiosity

>when the other person didn't give any arguments at all
>But the other person is logically wrong if they want to bring up an assertion without proof.

And you are wrong by rejecting the assertion only because the person can't convince you.

>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.

Skepticism is an assertion about things. You are not being rational being skeptical about everything, because you know you cant and you aren't.

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.

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.

"The person can't convince me, therefore it's wrong" is cartesian skepticism, it's about postulation everything outside your ego is false.
But cartesian skepticism is irrational, so to the trash it goes.

>the only post that gets it is ignored

Bravo Veeky Forums

>good argumentative practice
What is good? What is wrong?
Meh

So, you never did answer my question. What are you so upset about people rejecting?

Every chan thread ever.

It's much more fun to bicker about stupid bullshit.

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."?

>"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?

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.

I already gave my opinion about the burden of proof argument here: You guys are the ones trying to contest this simple truth.

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?

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.

>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 user, 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?

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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".

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.

>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.

>You simply don't trust in their personal testimony
Don't use anecdotal evidence, especially online. Please.

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 Veeky Forums's being unfit for half-decent discussion

>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.

nowhere doesn't exist otherwise it would be going somwhere

Not falsifiable, therefore false.

How atheist of you

Not an argument.

I never said it was, dumb tripfaggot.

Filtered btw.

Not even testable.

F-, apply yourself

Prove proof proves proofs.

no

Proof prove proofs prove

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.

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.

I died three times last week and rose from the dead every time.

Prove me wrong.

>this is the standard of debate on the humanities board

No wonder all the smart people go STEM

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.

I can't

> 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

see

>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

You have absolutely zero evidence she never engaged in prostitution.

And you have zero evidence that she did.

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?

Are you suggesting the burden of proof is somehow on me for making the claim! Well I never!