'Burden of Proof'

[JodoForce]

I see this being deployed when neither side of the argument has a solid proof of their position...

How exactly do you go about determining where burden of proof lies? Is it by determining which alternative is more likely given the current evidence? (since neither side has a solid argument, a different interpretation can turn the tables either way, so this is far from optimal...) Or do you just go by a majority rule--the burden of proof is on the side with fewer believers?

[AdmiralKanos]

I see this being deployed when neither side of the argument has a solid proof of their position...

How exactly do you go about determining where burden of proof lies? Is it by determining which alternative is more likely given the current evidence? (since neither side has a solid argument, a different interpretation can turn the tables either way, so this is far from optimal...) Or do you just go by a majority rule--the burden of proof is on the side with fewer believers?

If you are arguing that something EXISTS, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that this is the case. The logical principle of parsimony means that we cannot accept the existence of any object or phenomenon without evidence.

For example, the theist believes that God exists; he is claiming that something exists, therefore the burden of proof is upon him to provide the evidence.

Similarly, the conspiracy theorist believes that a grand conspiracy exists; again, he is claiming that something exists, therefore the burden of proof is upon him to provide the evidence.

Also, one might try to claim that an ability exists without evidence: for example, if someone claims that an F-14 can do Mach 8, the burden of proof is upon him to provide the evidence. Irrefutable proof of an ability is, of course, to show that it's been done in the past. One might also extrapolate from known technological capabilities, although that requires scientific justification.

[Howedar]

If one is debating an idea (pro-con sort of stuff) then the burden of proof is upon the proposition to show that the new idea is superior to the status quo.

[Superman]

Kanos did a great job explaining that one. Jodo, as you take classes in science and logic you will find that this concept makes perfect sense.

[JodoForce]

So what about when the two alternatives are about different objects / events existing? E.g. one argues that this character destroys something by brute force, one argues that he destroys it using a chain reaction. Neither side has a solid argument and the status quo depends on what group you're talking with--2 forums have the opposite views as the status quo. Would the burden of proof lie on opposite sides for people debating in the two forums too?

[Superman]

I really don't understand what you are saying here, but I think a situation like this would be a matter of weighing the evidence. Who can provide a more solid case?

[Cromag]

So what about when the two alternatives are about different objects / events existing? E.g. one argues that this character destroys something by brute force, one argues that he destroys it using a chain reaction. Neither side has a solid argument and the status quo depends on what group you're talking with--2 forums have the opposite views as the status quo. Would the burden of proof lie on opposite sides for people debating in the two forums too?

Been reading up on Mike's debate with Darkstar, eh?

I'm curious as to where did you find Mike's side lacking for evidence? This would be a whole other thread, of course, so to stay on topic, Darkstar's evidence for his chain reaction theory consisted of planetary rings spreading out from the point of beam impact.

No reasonable person could look at the images of the Alderaan explosion and say they saw definite rings spreading over the planet. That was only a small part of what was wrong with DS's argument. The burden of proof was still on him to prove his mysterious chain reaction with something other than a mere restatement of his theory. Something he studiously, and long-windedly, avoided.

[Darth Wong]

So what about when the two alternatives are about different objects / events existing?

Then we have to see which one has more evidence.

E.g. one argues that this character destroys something by brute force, one argues that he destroys it using a chain reaction. Neither side has a solid argument and the status quo depends on what group you're talking with--

Opinions have nothing to do with validity. The effects of brute force (more specifically, the transfer of energy as specified by the laws of thermodynamics) are already known to exist via other means (namely, all of the observations in all science and natural observation throughout mankind's history), unlike the mysterious chain reaction. Therefore, one of those parties has already met the burden of proof before they even begin to argue.

2 forums have the opposite views as the status quo. Would the burden of proof lie on opposite sides for people debating in the two forums too?

No; the stupidity of a person who thinks that there is not already sufficient evidence to conclude that brute force will work does not constitute a legitimate counter-claim to the person who says that a mysterious, unknown, and scientifically impossible mechanism cannot be assumed to exist unless direct evidence is presented.

PS. Next time you try to make a veiled reference to some existing debate, don't beat around the bush. It only makes you look shifty.

[Darth Wong]

Jodoforce, upon which forum are there people who seriously think that the burden of proof for the laws of thermodynamics has not been met?

[JodoForce]

Nope, don't even know what you guys are talking about, I'm not referring to a DW-vs-Darkstar argument here.

If you have to find a reference, it would be the DBZ Goku vs Death Star debate where Connor McLeod brought the chain-reaction argument against the planet-destroying blasts that DBZ characters throw out. That's the place where I started wondering about burden of proof