Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
My arguing is related to your claim above being all too categorical, as if always and in absolutely all cases the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. This I'm saying is not always the case. There are exceptions. I agree in specific contexts the burden of proof is on the claimant, in general scientific argumentation, presentation of new theories etc, it is. But in certain circumstances and contexts it is not.
|
What you say here is reasonable and yet your application of it has not been. When I gave clear examples of positive claims that would require positive proof your rejoinder was always "wrong."
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For instance, in a criminal court the burden of proof is always on the prosecutor (in some countries at least). The defendant can say "I am innocent", and he doesn't have the burden of proof on that positive claim. It is on the prosecutor side to support an opposing positive claim: that the defendant is guilty. Even outside courts of criminal law, not in all cases the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.
|
Yes, in the case of criminal court in the US the
default assumption is innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a) that a crime took place b) that the defendant committed that crime. Court cases often hinge on evidence known through university studies to be un-reliable, like photo line ups.
Many of the errors in perception that can affect criminal trials can affect subjective audio claims, including the suggestibility of witnesses and the mutability of memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
For example, just because the claimant lacks interest in having his claim accepted by the challenger, then he ignores the argumentative obligation to support his claim.
|
Er? Here you've just admitted that the claimant has an
"argumentative obligation' which he may choose to ignore if he isn't interested in people believing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Let the challenger find out on his own if he cares to do so. Otherwise, the challenger might as well reject the claim, and the claimant wouldn't care, because he stopped advocating that claim for acceptance by that challenger.
|
This simply isn't possible in many cases. If I, as the claimant, say my "quantum super-conducting tri-axial nano cables" improve the openness of any sound system it isn't possible for challengers to get my $10,000 dollar cables and disprove my claim. This is just one reason why positive claims are the responsibility of the claimant to prove. Your "argument from apathy" is not a sound basis for the reversal of this standard of argumentation and proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The latter situation happens even in scientific contexts. Supporters of opposing theories bring their arguments forth, the opposing arguments collide, each side attacks the opponent's arguments and premises, and some times they don't reach agreement.
|
This is the wrong path to go down if you want to argue that positive claimants don't have to provide proof. In science the default position is that you have to not only provide proof but that your theory must be testable and repeatable--not "I heard a difference"
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Each side remains seeing stronger support on their side, and remains advocating it. This happens even in papers in scientific journals over years. Two opposing (or alternative) theories remaining under consideration. ...If some guy out of context then meets one of those scientists and asks him for proof of his theory, that scientist might very well ignore completely the request.
|
Yes, because the proof exist
already in the form of a well argued, peer reviewed scientific paper with testable, repeatable findings!!!!! The burden of proof is still on the positive claimant! In your example, the positive claimant had
already provided positive support for his claim and the scientist could refer "some guy" to his detailed, well reasoned, peer-reviewed, testable paper. Your whole argument has been a shaggy dog story of a contrived situation that, in the end, actually contradicts the point you were trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So who has the burden of proof in practical terms may depend on context, motivation, circumstances, and history.
|
A vague statement anyone can make because it says nothing and yet have you have fully failed to prove it.
Your point about absolutes being to rigid was correct but your attempt to disprove that the burden of proof rests with the positive claimant is wholly insufficient and, ironically, does not meet the burden of proof.