I think it is an important question: in my opinion, in some debates, the only way to counter a claim is to say that the burden of proof lies upon him who makes such a claim: for instance, the Matrix Hypothesis.
Thus, it is easy to know that the burden of proof lies upon those who hold that God exists, because they add something to what is known clearly, the world. But there are cases which are much less clear, is not it?
What are the principles which enable us to know, in a given debate, who must bring a proof of his (her) claim.
I have made the hypothesis that when a claim is contrary to a natural and spontaneous belief, then the burden of proof lies upon it, but it seems that the problem is just displaced: how, then, to determine in all possible cases when a given belief is natural and spontaneous?
Nice going Sherlock. Quite a pickle.
You say:
"I have made the hypothesis that when a claim is contrary to a natural and spontaneous belief, then the burden of proof lies upon it, but it seems that the problem is just displaced: how, then, to determine in all possible cases when a given belief is natural and spontaneous?
O- Not just that. With 3 out of 4 people claiming to believe in some Higher Being-- God, Jesus(the same in one of them) or Allah-- the burden of proof shifts to the atheist, because it’s premise, that God does not exists, is, by numbers alone, the anomally in natural belief, if not by adding then by deleting something that is clearly known about the world.
this is again just short of being idiotic. in debates, it is neccesary to know what the debate is about, only debate about what can be debate about. honestly read some books before you start your ramble.
The burden of proof always lies with the positive claim, because you can’t prove a negative.
It’s that simple.
If that isn’t glaringly obvious I highly recomend you study logic and/or law.
I just want to mention that pinnacle is getting on my nerves… Hes hopping around not adding anything to most arguments and merely saying, you guys are idiots, ive already solved all the problems, dont waste your time… PoR, youve solved no problems, you are confused… Let us argue in peace please.
you guys are getting on my nerves. maybe i am just having a bad day, but I just can’t stand seeing the same mistake being made again. if you call me confused, what am I confused about? that you are all talking nonsense. if you want to talk nonsense, i guess that is fine. afer all, you are psychologically different.
Pinnacle, you advocate reading some philosophy yet you made a horendously uninformed comment on the compatibalism thread:
“what is ‘free will’ and what is ‘compatiblism’, give an example of each. if you can’t give example that means you don’t know what you are talking about.”
Compatibalism is very well defined and generally agreed upon in the philosophical community and you would know what it means if you did some minor reading. The defenition of free will is what is being argued. The main question of that thread was bassicly: “what constitutes free will” and along comes PoR and claims we have to define free will before we define free will… Great, thanks.
I agree with much of your main point here. It may very well be that there is no algorithim for determining which side carries the burden of proof, and it may also be that it is undecidable in some cases. We cannot assume that there is always an answer to every (sensible) question. But yours is an excellent post.
are you suggesting that it is impossible to have any opinions or interestign thoughts without having been informaed by books.
what books of importance had Plato read? just out of interest.
(i am not suggesting he had never read a word, just that you would never ask for ‘proof of education’ from a famous philosopher, so why should you from anyone else?)
why should it matter what books he has read? if you have read one that you think would be of particular help to the discussion then please suggest it. otherwise stop being so rude and so presumptous as to think that without having read ‘books of importance’ someone’s opinion is unworthy, or that they are an idiot.
I conceive of a similar problem in more simple terms. When a claim is made and someone asks for proof one could of course immediately counter this by asking why that person needs proof, asking for justification of their doubt. This is something of a hangover from Descartes, who presumed that if he could doubt something it was right to do so.
So perhaps you are asking for a justification of doubt. As DS suggested, no such justification exists.
I don’t know what books (or scrolls) Plato read. I am sure he read Euclid, for many of his examples are from geometry. And since he mentions philosophers before him, like Pythagoras, and various skeptics, he probably read them too. But neither you nor I are Platos or “famous philosophers” so I suggest that both of us learn about what we are talking about before we talk about it. And, unless you have a private tutor, one of the best ways of learning about what you are talking about is to read about it. So, it isn’t that people who have not read books are idiots, it is that unless they know the subject they are discussing, their opinions are uninformed, And, it is best not to sound off when your opinions are uninformed. Don’t you think so?
i just meant that why should he have to prove himself by answering teh question about what books he had read? surely what he says shoudl speak for itself.
of course it is good to be informed but at the same time it is possible to have an opinion about something without having been informed.
don’t get me wrong, i have no pretensions about my status as a ‘famous philosopher’… far from it, i know very little. personally i love to read and i get alot from books.
i still don’t think however that in order to be taken seriously in any discussion it is a prerequisite that you should have read books on the subject, as PoR seemed to be suggesting. questions such as Samkhya’s original one can just as easily be discussed by someone who has never read a book in his life (assuming they have a reasonable amount of intelligence).