Of course there is! People can't just *assume* a burden of proof. If they assert that such an unempirical entity exists, they deserved to be challenged on it, and prove that one exists!
There is no burden if a person doesn't want to engage with someone else. The burden to prove is a burden to demonstrate or to teach. Maybe I have already done the proving to others or to myself and that's all I want to do. I'm under no obligation to keep doing it.
Who "should" prove what is ultimately subjective, like all "should" or "ought" statements.
However, if we agree on some set of rules by convention, then we can objectively determine if one is or is not following those rules. That is an objective standard. An objective standard is subjective at base.
In any case, science does not do "proof" in the ultimate sense. A scientific proof is a qualified proof. Consider the term: "scientific proof"
In that term all the limitations and qualifications of science apply the word "proof". Science is intrinsically provisional, therefore a "scientific proof" can only mean "provisional proof".
I would say it depends. If I lose my car keys and my friend tries to convince me that I don't have car so I can't find non existent things to begin with. Then I point to my car and keep looking, the burden of proof is on them to convince anyone of what they're saying. If I arrive at a restaurant and declare that I have a brand new car than if challenged than the burden of proof is on me. So it depends. It seems case sensitive to me. The question seems like a meta-proof question outside the daily humdrum of life. In the same way that saying one point of view always has the burden of proof, that could be right but there is the burden of proof that's the case. It gets even more complex when one group tries to limit what counts as proof, evidence, or other epistemological problems artificially. They have the burden of proof in that case. So I said it depends, a case by case basis.
6 comments:
Don't know about that, but I think all my gray hairs are a proof of burdens.
Of course there is!
People can't just *assume* a burden of proof. If they assert that such an unempirical entity exists, they deserved to be challenged on it, and prove that one exists!
There is no burden if a person doesn't want to engage with someone else. The burden to prove is a burden to demonstrate or to teach. Maybe I have already done the proving to others or to myself and that's all I want to do. I'm under no obligation to keep doing it.
Doug,
You have asserted that a burden of proof exists. How will you prove it exists? ;-)
Who "should" prove what is ultimately subjective, like all "should" or "ought" statements.
However, if we agree on some set of rules by convention, then we can objectively determine if one is or is not following those rules. That is an objective standard. An objective standard is subjective at base.
In any case, science does not do "proof" in the ultimate sense. A scientific proof is a qualified proof. Consider the term:
"scientific proof"
In that term all the limitations and qualifications of science apply the word "proof". Science is intrinsically provisional, therefore a "scientific proof" can only mean "provisional proof".
I would say it depends. If I lose my car keys and my friend tries to convince me that I don't have car so I can't find non existent things to begin with. Then I point to my car and keep looking, the burden of proof is on them to convince anyone of what they're saying.
If I arrive at a restaurant and declare that I have a brand new car than if challenged than the burden of proof is on me.
So it depends. It seems case sensitive to me. The question seems like a meta-proof question outside the daily humdrum of life. In the same way that saying one point of view always has the burden of proof, that could be right but there is the burden of proof that's the case.
It gets even more complex when one group tries to limit what counts as proof, evidence, or other epistemological problems artificially. They have the burden of proof in that case. So I said it depends, a case by case basis.
Post a Comment