ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[kmoney]

Some negatives can be proven. For example, I can prove that there does not exist in planar euclidean space a triangle whose angles total to 59 degrees. And so on...

But in this case, they are both making positive claims about the state of affairs in the world.

Knight is stating that it is the case that he has the device.
Allsmiles is stating that it is NOT the case that Kinght has the device.

Both Allsmiles and Knight have taken on a burden of proof. It isn't really a burden of proof because, as Hal says, proof only exists in mathematics and alcohol. Just the burden of a compelling argument.

But allsmiles should have an easy job in this case convincing most of us that Knight has gone :dizzy:

Think of it this way. What if Knight and allsmiles made the following claims:

KNIGHT: It is the case that Spenser 2 is wearing a blue shirt right now.
ALLSMILES: It is NOT the case that Spenser 2 is wearing a blue shirt right now.

They have both taken on a position that entails the burden of proof. Now, most of us are "weak atheists" in this regard. We have no belief in either statement!

SUTG, I kinda agree with Johnny that allsmiles would be "proving" a negative which I don't think he can. I'm not sure why you are calling it a positive. How could allsmiles "prove" that Knight didn't have this machine??

 

[Spenser 2]

Spence.... so basically what you are saying is....

Let's say Knight tells allsmiles that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing.

And allsmiles rightly responds... "no... I don't think that is possible".

The burden of proof should be on Knight to prove that matter and energy can create themselves from nothing.

Is that the kind of thing you are getting at?

I haven't drifted off to the analogies yet but in this case I agree with you. But the same would go for some one claiming it came from something and they would have to provide reasonable evidence of that something.

 

[fool]

Burden of Proof

Knight comes along and tells every one that he has an anti-gravity device. All Smiles says no you don't, I don't believe it! Knight says prove I do not have one. All Smiles says prove that you do.

Who is correct here in demanding the Burden of Proof, IOW who does the burden fall on?

It would seem from the way this is worded that AS did take on a burden by saying Knight didn't have a device. When Knight said he had a device AS should have simply said "prove it", then he would have no burden.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

But the same would go for some one claiming it came from something and they would have to provide reasonable evidence of that something.

And what would you consider "reasonable evidence"?

Wouldn't "reasonable evidence" be different depending on the item you were attempting to prove?

For instance....
If I told you I had a anti gravity device "reasonable evidence" might constitute me showing it to you. Or me showing you a video of it. Or me letting you talk to a few trusted witnesses who had seen it etc.

Yet if I said "gravity exists" and you said "no it doesn't" reasonable evidence might only constitute me simply dropping an apple to the floor.

And who knows...
A different person may expect more or less "reasonable evidence".

 

[allsmiles]

once again, this whole dispute would be over if Knight simply produced the device. if he's right he has nothing to lose.

what would keep Knight from proving it if it were within his ability to do so?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

once again, this whole dispute would be over if Knight simply produced the device. if he's right he has nothing to lose.

what would keep Knight from proving it if it were within his ability to do so?

Maybe he didn't have it on him? :think:

 

[allsmiles]

Maybe he didn't have it on him? :think:

good point, but my idea's still pretty sound, ya know? if Knight could prove it then he could end the whole thing by doing so. why wouldn't Knight prove it if he claimed he could?

 

[Frank Ernest]

do i have to believe that the device exists before i can see it?

Once you see it, belief is no longer at issue.

is believing first a prerequisite for proof?

Belief in basic principles, yes. Entrenched unbelief would exclude any argument to the contrary, no matter how compelling.

 

[Johnny]

For example, I can prove that there does not exist in planar euclidean space a triangle whose angles total to 59 degrees.

Wouldn't you go about doing that by proving that the sum of the angles in a triangle in planar euclidean space must total 90?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

why wouldn't Knight prove it if he claimed he could?

In Spence's premise Knight did not claim he could prove it.

Maybe if Spenser would try to make a point we could skip all this silliness.

 

[allsmiles]

fair enough :thumb:

 

[Apologist]

I think the point isn't that Knight must prove that anti gravity devices work, but rather that an anti gravity device might be used as a weapon of mass destruction, and therefore should allow weapons inspectors into his home and make sure that the device he says he has in fact does not exist, and presuming they do exist, then he should be engaged in lateral talks with China, Korea, the US, and Britain. :thumb:

 

[SUTG]

SUTG, I kinda agree with Johnny that allsmiles would be "proving" a negative which I don't think he can. I'm not sure why you are calling it a positive. How could allsmiles "prove" that Knight didn't have this machine??

That is why I said "to provide compelling reasons or arguments for" instead of proof. Look at the other example I gave where Allsmiles claimed that it was not the case that Spenser was wearing a black shirt right now. Would you believe Allsmiles' claim?

 

[SUTG]

Wouldn't you go about doing that by proving that the sum of the angles in a triangle in planar euclidean space must total 90?

That would probably be the easiest way. So, if Knight said he just came up with a set of three planar coordinates in euclidean space that constitute the vertices of a triangle whose angles sum to 59 degrees, I can say "no you haven't! No such coordinates exist!" And then I can prove the negative.

 

[Spenser 2]

I'm not as much trying to make a point for who actually carries the burden of proof here but more so to show the differences of approach. Maybe so it can be easier to see how an atheist goes about the God debate. My personal belief on the God question is as follows, I will quote myself from an unnamed other forum...

When some one can explain how one could disprove the possibility of a god then maybe an atheist will carry the burden. However give me a definition of your God and it can be possible to disprove it.

Generally the one making a positive claim, existence, carries the burden of proof if they wish to engage in argument. It would be contingent upon me to produce evidence of an anti-gravity device if I claimed one existed, otherwise you are more than justified in non-belief.

 

[SUTG]

Oh yeah, and Theists have the burden of proof.

carry on,
SUTG

 

[Apologist]

Oh yeah, and Theists have the burden of proof.

The Theists have satisfied the burden of proofs over 4 thousand years over (Starting with Aristotle.) It is the Atheists who have the burden of proof when attacking that which has been used to support the original premise, theism.

 

[Johnny]

So, if Knight said he just came up with a set of three planar coordinates in euclidean space that constitute the vertices of a triangle whose angles sum to 59 degrees, I can say "no you haven't! No such coordinates exist!" And then I can prove the negative.

Hmm, I would argue in that case you have enforced a proven positive and thus by definition the negative cannot exist.

 

[fool]

That is why I said "to provide compelling reasons or arguments for" instead of proof. Look at the other example I gave where Allsmiles claimed that it was not the case that Spenser was wearing a black shirt right now. Would you believe Allsmiles' claim?

I thought it was a blue shirt?
Perhaps we need to define "wearing" "blue" and "shirt"

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh yeah, and Theists have the burden of proof.

carry on,
SUTG

Why would the burden be more on the theist than the atheist?

After all the atheist asserts that matter and energy created themselves from nothing, which is something that clearly flies in the face of science.