burden of proof

excuse for debate club fags and defendents in court, amirite?

If you make an absurd claim, the burden of proof is on you.

It's that simple.

... because if that's NOT true, then I just pulled Gilgamesh out of my anus, and he's standing right here, ready to smite anyone I please, 'cuz he's all up in your bidness like dat.  And there's nothing you can say about it since it's up to YOU to prove that I didn't just pull Gilgamesh out of my ass.

>>2
it's a cop out in an argument so one side can avoid having to give evidence, and pretend they're correct just by dismissing each piece of evidence that is thrown at them, rather than giving a valid proof.

the burden of proof is on whoever wants to see a decisive and clear end to the argument, not just to whoever made the claim.

no it isn't

The scientific process dictates that the opinion that is backed up by the most (and best) evidence, experimental and observational, is the correct one to hold. If some other claim is produced that is contrary to this opinion, then it must have better proof than the one before for rejection and acceptance to occur. This is the burden of proof from a philosophical context.

You're not listening, #3.  You made the claim, hence you MUST have the closest access to proof.  Why should others search for something you already have in hand?  I mean, you MUST have the evidence of your claim, because otherwise you're just talkin' out of your ass?

At any rate, it's billions of times easier to make an absurd claim -- like "I just pulled Gilgamesh out of my ass" -- than it is to produce evidence of such an absurdity.  Claims are not evidence.

Making a baseless claim is the VERY DEFINITION of a "cop out".  Sorry if that truth is like a sharp fucking stick in your asseye.

P.S.  Furthermore, fucko, a REAL argument is not made by claims, as you claimed.  An argument is determined by evidence.  If you make claims and produce no evidence in support, you're not arguing anything rational.

sage for repeated failure to understand differences between science and a logical argument.

>>6
You don't *have* to do shit.  It's pretty fucking simple.  You don't have to believe it, you don't have to think it's right, you don't have to support it, but you can't say it is incorrect without proof that it is untrue.

Furthermore, dipshit, I never said an argument was made by claims, you ILLITERATE PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT.  Youre such a douchebag.  No one fucking thinks making a claim is an argument.  You're just too stupid to realize that a claim isn't untrue just because someone pulled it out of their ass, and you can't say it's wrong just because it's unproven.  That's not how it fucking works.  QED END OF STORY.  Read a fucking book on logic, if you can read anyway

#8, you're continuing the abide by the doctrines of FAIL.

Harken well to my use of words:  When you make claim, surely you have evidence to support it since SOMETHING rational must have convinced you.  If it didn't, then you're just making things up.

And the followup:  ABSURD CLAIMS require immediate proof or they are rightfully dismissed out of hand.  (I.e. there is no Gilgamesh.)

HENCE (and follow along, here) ... when someone comes along and claims to have made an engine that runs on water alone, we are entirely rightful to dismiss those claims if PROOF OF SUCH A FUCKING ABSURDITY DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW.  I don't need to "prove" engines don't run on water as a fuel since any fucking educated person knows they don't (or they should).

So, I must state it again:  It's entire correct to state (without evidence) that an absurd claim is untrue SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD AND UNSUPPORTED!

If people don't abide by that rule, then they are prone to believing things like a big Jew in the sky, or that 4chan builds knowledge, or that voting a party line is good for the country.

Finally, learn the differences in what we're discussing, jackhole.  I can't rationally dismiss a claim if that claim is rational.

>>9
I thought that 4chan was the big Jew in the sky?

Well, all that fapping must be a form of worship.  Shall I anoint the spread word, then?  {spurt splt spoot}

>>11
MOAR

squirting load

you're so fucking out of it.

>>9
"When you make claim, surely you have evidence to support it since SOMETHING rational must have convinced you."

You don't need to be convinced of something to make a claim.
Claim:  There's life on mars.
See?  Could I pull anything out of my ass?  Yep!  Doesn't make it wrong though, just made up.  There's a huge difference, and you're failing hard at seeing it.

"ABSURD CLAIMS require immediate proof or they are rightfully dismissed out of hand."

Former Claim: The Earth revolves around the Sun.
This claim had been made prior to the technological ability to provide accurate data that agrees with it.  There were times when this was not scientifically "provable".  Since no evidence or proof could be given, you say to dismiss it.  It was right all along though, which is an example of why, logically, it would have been fallacious to dismiss it as wrong.

"when someone comes along and claims to have made an engine that runs on water alone, we are entirely rightful to dismiss those claims if PROOF OF SUCH A FUCKING ABSURDITY DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW."

Wrong.  You're right to ignore those claims, or act as though they're not correct, or anything like that.  But youre NEVER NEVER NEVER right to say that claim is incorrect without having proof that it is incorrect.

"I don't need to "prove" engines don't run on water as a fuel since any fucking educated person knows they don't (or they should)."

Laughable.  How exactly does an educated person know this without proof?  I'm not disagreeing that people don't know this, but rather that they couldn't know it without proof.  You dont KNOW anything until its proven.  You might accidentally be correct, but you don't KNOW it.  Try to tell me how you know engines (I assume you mean combustion) dont run on water without providing a proof, go ahead.

If you want to say an engine can't run on water, go ahead.  If you wan't to say you know that an engine can't run on water, you better give a damn proof.

"So, I must state it again:  It's entire correct to state (without evidence) that an absurd claim is untrue SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD AND UNSUPPORTED!"

Outstandingly stupid.  This is a logical fallacy that has been explained several times in several threads on this board.  You have seen why this is wrong many times.  This is terrible terrible "reasoning" and any logician would laugh directly in your face for saying it so pompously.

"If people don't abide by that rule, then they are prone to believing things like a big Jew in the sky, or that 4chan builds knowledge, or that voting a party line is good for the country."

Wrong, if people DO abide by that rule, then theyre prone to believing thsoe things.  You have everything backwards.  You're wrong.

"Finally, learn the differences in what we're discussing, jackhole.  I can't rationally dismiss a claim if that claim is rational. "

How about you learn some god damn logic and stop making things up.

quit feeding the troll

>>15
but its so cute

not /sci/, gtfo etc.

not a troll, genuinely disagreeing with the rampant inability of people to understand logic.

#14, thank you for admitting that nothing rational provoked you to make a claim.  Having a concrete example to work with, and having that example be non-absurd to begin with, then the claim can then be evaluated by other means ... such as streams of evidence from Mars probes.

Yeah, how fucking failsome is THAT, assface?

As for your (I assume you meant) example of the "sun revolved around the Earth" prior claim, again you fail it.  Common evidence did indicate that that was true ... but relatively soon, cracks appeared in that evidence, and there were centuries of resistance to THAT follow-on evidence.  Again, it was a cultural gayfaggotry that kept the claim alive ... just like the claims of a giant alien space monster persist in our society due to the same mental gayfaggotry.

There is a huge pack of steaming fail here, and it's in YOUR majority view of your society as being fucking infallible and eternal in most of its assumptions and standards.  THAT is what set off this thread in the first place.  The OP fag was trying to enforce the unfortunately widely-held view that the burden of proof belongs on those who have to dispute claims, no matter how absurd those claims are.  But that's not how the BoP operates on a purely logical level.  Claims require evidence.  PERIOD.  Either put up the evidence to support your claim, or retract your claim as the stupid gayfaggotry that it really is, or suffer the shame of being marked as a baseless-claim gayfaggot.  There is no fourth option, you gayfailer!

*bold*

_bold_
<b>bold</b>
bold

>>19
you still dont fucking understand logic.

you can not say a claim is false without proof that it is false.

if you dispute this, you are wrong.  there is no argument here.  look at any logic book, talk to any logician, even just think about it.

>>22
I do what I want to do, or my name ain't Junkyard Willie

#22, once again you rely on a very narrow definition of logic.  It's perfectly logical to expect, say, evidence of Unicorns, Faeries and Elves, when such an outrageous claim of their existence is made, and if such evidence is not forthcoming, then the very outrageousness of the claim demands that the claim be rejected.

A common claim backed up by common evidence is perfectly fine, and anyone who denies such things is engaging in the illogical behavior as you identified.  But absurd claims?  These require evidence since their very absurdity denies their validity!

Say it over and over until you understand it:

The absurdity of claims denies their validity!

Hence, we come back to the real point of the matter:  Those who insist that divinities exist are wrong, since those divinities have produced no proof while they should have done so all over the fucking place.  It's irrational to claim that giant alien space monsters exist, and even if they did, those who detect them are RESPONSIBLE for presenting that proof.

You're just wrong.  Good day.

ITT:
Different standards of what claims are acceptable.

>>24

this thread wasn't about religion, so that's not the "point of the matter".  it's about people failing to understand logic.

also, no, i'm not relying on a narrow definition of logic.  you're wrong.  get over it.  read a logic book; it's incredibly clear that you haven't ever done so.  on the offchance that you've ever had even the slightest fleeting brush with any kind of symbolic logic, i'll provide an example.



I make a claim, A.  i'm not assuming A, i'm not assuming ~A, just do the following

Prove ~A.  Prove A is false.  Do it.

Protip: you can't do it.  Because you want us to either assume ~A because its absurd, or to say, hey, theres lots of evidence that suggests B, which I understand to be in conflict with A, so we must have ~A.  I'll draw that out for you:

you either want
Assume ~A
~A
Q.E.D.

or

assume B implies certain evidence
assume we have this certain evidence
assume this certain evidence implies B
assume B implies ~A
~A

i'll let you tell me whats wrong with that, though.

((P -> Q) /\ ~Q) -> ~P

am i doin it rite?

>>27

you're doing it right, redcream is doing it wrong, like always.

This thread is about the BURDEN OF PROOF, you fucking chanfags!  In the real world outside a textual treatment of logic, absurd claims do NOT justify themselves by challenging you to find their suspiciously missing proof!

It's better in most cases to be approximately right than exactly wrong.  Chanfag #26 is using extreme precision to achieve the exactly wrong result in the broader argument.  In the broader argument, "debate club fags and defendents in court" cannot make absurd claims without providing evidence for their assertions.  PERIOD.  If you fuckasses really think differently, then good luck on your day in court.  I herd u liek jail.

Strange, all I hear is "bawwwww".

The whole point of logic is that there are no absurd propositions.  Only true ones, false ones, and undecidable ones.

It happens to be one of your axioms that any statement for which there is no evidence is false.  This is not a widely held proposition among logicians.

The court system, for the pragmatic reason that it has to make a decision, places "the burden of proof" on an arbitrary party, in effect assuming that all undecidable propositions are false (innocent until proven guilty) or true (vice versa).  It has nothing to do with your ill-defined concept of "absurdity."

The whole point of logic is that is has a system of rules that only guide our social actions.  In practical terms, we have many shortcuts, and the judgment of "absurdity" is merely one of those.  (BTW, absurdity is not "ill-defined".  Find me a fucking Unicorn or Jewgod and then we'll talk about how easy it is to get around absurdity.)

Logicians are NOT the people who run much in society.  They are academics and perform their function in that fashion.  The wise man makes use of what academics discover, but doesn't let the same academics run things.

You used a great word there, #31, that you're obviously discounting:  PRAGMATIC.  It's not pragmatic to let people make any ol' claim they want and make the rest of us disprove it, since people lie a LOT and that would completely bog down social systems.  Claims require evidence, and often it's the case that common claims have common evidence that is not onerous to collect positive or negatively.  But the absurd claims are an affront to social operation, and anyone who thinks absurdists deserve credit is being absurdly impractical himself!

We're not talking about social policy, dipshit- we're talking about the truth. Practicality and common sense are fucking worthless when it comes to actually verifying claims.

goddamnit

#33, the dipshit here is YOU.  Unsupported claims that REQUIRE evidence by their very absurdity is the very essence of truth.  If we DON'T abide by that principle, then I'll just pull Gilgamesh out of my ass (hey, PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST, cocko!) and inevitably he'll make the pronouncement that you HAVE TO DIE.  Here comes the guy with a gun.  What do you think about your "i herd u liek lojik" bullshit NOW?

You can hole up with your fucking semen-stained Hurley textbook and tell yourself that precision gets you everywhere, but you ONLY miss the target precisely.  The world of the ivory tower only has TACTICS for us, but not STRATEGY.  I'm talking the latter, and you're insisting on the former.  Confusing the two is a great way to LOSE battles and wars, fucko!

Goddamn.  What, are you in your fucking twenties or something?  Get wise.

>>35

Calm the fuck down. If I claim that it rained in Baltimore today, that claim is subject to the exact same burden of proof as your overused Gilgamesh example. "Absurdity" is an arbitrary quality and has nothing to do with burden of proof, and now you're blathering some vague shit about "tactics" and "strategy?" Please. Just stop before you hurt yourself.

Dead wrong, #36.  Rain is a common entity in Human existence; so are Human cities; and as well, Baltimore exists.  In extreme and high contrast, no one has produced evidence of Gilgamesh.  The difference between the two is that ABSURDITY thing that you falsely claim is so fucking difficult to determine.  Gilgamesh's existence is therefore held to a HUGE standard of proof over "it rained in Baltimore today".

Once more, we clearly see that your chanfaggotry has hobbled your ability to form cogent arguments.  If you got a college degree out of your I-Are-Passing-Logic-Klass deal, got get your fucking money back since you're filled with a doltish, EGGHEAD-LIKE FAIL.

Like I said before, you're probably just some twentysomething who's so enamored by academic pursuits that you're literally unable to apply intellectual details to the real world.  Outside the textbook and the ivory tower, the details of REALITY are far too messy to be so precisely categorized and used.  That's why WISDOM is so useful.  WISDOM in fact is a tool for detecting the limits of INTELLECT.

♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ... I'm fucking waiting for your stupid answers, dickeaters.

>>37

Do you even know what burden of proof means, fuckwit? I still have to PROVE that it rained in Baltimore in order for my statement to be justified, just as you have to PROVE your Gilgamesh BS. The fact that the evidence for my assertion is much easier to come by DOES NOT MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE- if I don't have this evidence available to me, and if I have no past knowledge of the climate in that region in order to at least make an educated guess, then my assertion is meaningless. It doesn't matter how familiar a statement is to collective human experience, or whatever other bullshit excuse you want to make; all statements are subject to the same burden of proof, period.

Now why don't you get your head out of your ass and try reading a book? Oh, sorry, I forgot- books are those nasty little things used by twenty-something ivory-tower eggheads who don't know anything. You're WAY too good for reading, aren't you? You've got WISDOM and everything. WISDOM! (All caps make it EXTRA IMPORTANT!)

Egads, fucknutball!  If you insist on playing this fucking stupid, then I'm going to have to keep treating you like an assball.

Let's make the comparison between proving rain in Baltimore and proving Gilgamesh.  Hmm!  A quick check at www.weather.com for Baltimore and ... WE HAVE FUCKING PROOF IN SECONDS!  A quick check at www.proofofgilgamesh.com ... OH WAITAMINNUT!  There just isn't any fucking proof for fucking Gilgamesh, which any fucking retard would have fucking known SINCE IT'S FUCKING ABSURD!

You keep dancing around the requirement, but sensible men challenge other men to produce evidence of their crazy fucking assertions.  The ones who can't put up the evidence have to literally shut the fuck up while being drowned in the howls of laughter at their stupidity.  Absurdity (which I proved above is eminently classifiable) shifts the burden of proof.

The absence of proof for what should be a very provable assertion is more than enough rational evidence itself for the reasonable man to reject the assertion OUTRIGHT.  Yes, that's right, bitch!  I just said the absence of proof IS PROOF!  For something that should be shitting out megatons of proof, absence of such proof is assuredly good enough to say "ah it doesn't fucking exist".  Elephants don't fucking TIPTOE or LEVITATE, you stupid fuck!  No elephant tracks = no fucking elephant!

You academic twentysomething CHILDREN obviously don't like that, but thank Gilgamesh that you don't run the fucking world.  (What a fucking travesty THAT would be if it happened!)

P.S.  Look, bastard, books are filled with lies.  I can go to any bookstore and get thousands of books filled with lies, usually culled from sections labeled "fiction", "religion" and "investing".  That's yet another reason why I howl with laughter when the goddies produce A BOOK as their evidence for their particular giant alien space monster.  More than ever, Gilgamesh just SCREAMS the requirement for GREAT GOBS OF PROOF.

No wonder America is seeing a rise of religious stupidity.  You fuckfaces actually think you can rely on baseless claims since some stupid "Logik Kourse" told you it was OK.  Well, it's not OK, fuckfaces!  Keep saying absurdity has credit in the proof game, and I'm going to keep laughing your foolish asses out the door!