darkfox

When atheists claim God does not exist, they are stating that the case for God has not been made. And as such the atheist assumes no burden of proof. The theist need only ask whether such a sceptical stance is warranted. As illumination, if I deny the existence of Australia, I assume no burden of proof. However given the undeniable evidence for Australia’s existence, my stance cannot really be held as reasonable. But if we shift the time frame back several centuries and I make the same claim, my stance becomes far more reasonable. Since at that time it may have been considered reasonable not to believe, believers would have been more than cooperative in presenting evidence. In such a dialogue between believers and none believers the burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the believer but a separate burden lies on the denier. The denier when presented with reasonable evidence for the existence of something must provide explanation as to why they remain intransigent so that believers can understand why their claims remain unconvincing.

JurgenBM

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just an expression. I don't think any scientist would take that literally.
A scientist makes up a hypothesis, like: "The reason why a brick would fall down faster than a coin when dropping at the same distance from the ground, is that a brick weighs more than a coin." They make a test that will make sure that nothing but the weight of the objects will influence these objects when they're falling and use the outcome of the experiment and the emperical evidence to prove that their hypothesis is correct.
If someone else comes along and has the idea that the fact that that the brick and the coin don't fall with the same speed is not due to their different weights, but due to something else, he doesn't need any special or ''extraordinary'' proof since it's an extraordinary claim, he just needs to prove, by the hand of experimentation and emperical observation, that it's due to something else.
If the two parties would start arguing and the 'standard' scientist would say: "The fact that the brick and the coin don't fall with different speed is due to their different weights, and I don't need to argue my case because any other theory would be a new physical claim." is unreasonable as well as nonsensical. What would you find evidence for if not to show that something is true, and if it's true why would you want to evade your burden of proof when your claim is being challenged?

JurgenBM

You got it!

RAFH

I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever. Regardless of who proposes Pink Unicorns (Preciously Pretty in Her Pinkness), must support them. I don't care whether or not it was your idea or not. If you say there are Pink Unicorns, I have the right to challenge it and you have the duty to support it. It doesn't matter if it was your cousin Joe that told you about it, unless you are simply stating your cousin Joe says there are Pink Unicorns, in which case you need not support Pink Unicorns but you are bound to support your contention cousin Joe says they exist.

You do indeed inherit the burden of the claim if you state the claim as being true. You do not inherit the burden if you are merely stating someone else claims. But then you also cannot argue that claim. As soon as you do, you inherit it.

I can say the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best theory yet that explains the reality we find. Do I have to defend that? Sure, if anybody doubts is, I certainly do. And I could. Because it is. The evidence is there, by the boatload. If that anybody says, "Bullshit, my theory of turtles having created the world just as it is 3 minutes ago is better.", then anybody is going to have to defend that statement.

If I state the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is now the currently accepted scientific explanation, the so-called Standard Model, I do not have to support the Theory itself, only that it is the Standard Model, which I also can do.

In any case, I'd say the general rule would be the burden of supporting a claim goes with the claim. If you make it, you have to support it. Whatever it is. If you don't want to support it, then don't claim it. l

I would suggest contacting some practicing scientists before you speak for them.

Koyaanisqatsi

Vielen dank! Sorry, that's as close as I can come to Dutch.

So, to the rest of you motely crew, that means the "debate" is entirely moot.

You make a claim; you shoulder an axiomatic burden of proof that never goes away until you meet it. And even then, that's merely the beginning of the debate.

That does not ever change, regardless of whatever other claims are open.

Fin.

:huh:

JurgenBM

I'd like to add though, that if your goal in a debate is not to come to an agreement but to overwhelm all your opponents and maybe an audience with an argument so 'powerful' that everyone will stfu, then you can choose to be unreasonable :P There are many ways to be unreasonable and most politicians I've heard, are unreasonable from time to time. It can be easy and effective - it just doesn't help you come to an agreement.

Roq

I think you've just not read or misread the previous posts or maybe my deathless prose is not very clear. As far as I can tell you just restate in your mail what I have already said. Particularly in your first para. You leave me little to argue with except your appeal to authority.

Roq: “The sea is blue”
RAFH: “You’re wrong, the sea is blue and speak to some real swimmers before you have the presumption to comment about the colour of the sea.”
Roq: “Errrm”

Since my own prose seems to be a problem for you, I will quote JurgenBM who has stated my position quite succinctly (although he doesn’t seem to agree with it):

Do you agree or disagree?

This is just an argument from authority and irrelevant. You don't have to be a practicing scientist to enunciate principles of science. Being a scientist or famous gives you no additional authority in any argument. That's also a well known principle of science. Besides I work in a field that relies heavily on scientific theory (physics), although I wouldn’t call myself a scientist exactly.

RAFH

Oh, I would agree. But I would not limit it to just alternative theories. Any claim, even of established and accepted theories must be supported if challenged. You can not defer The burden by saying its an old well supported and accepted theory, that would be an argument from authority. If it is well supported, it should not be difficult to support. However, that does not entitle the challenger to challenge just for sport or to distract, if they do so regularly, they will eventually find themselves arguing with manikins in closets.


As to talking with practicing scientists with regard to how they go about their business, that is not an argument from authority. I made no statement about being a practicing scientist but talking to them before you state what they do and how they do it, they are certainly going to know it better than yourself who isn't doing it. You may know philosophy or whatever, but its the people who do the work on a daily basis that know how its done. You are as the fresh pink-faced ensign who argues there's no point in asking the old salts. And I said nothing about fame, just that knowing how its done by those that do it is a damn sight better than reading about it a book or supposing what's up by your imagination.

Who are you going to have your surgery done by, the fellow just out of school who has never cut on a live human or the practicing surgeon who has done the operation a hundred times? I don't know about you, but I am going with the practiced surgeon.

Besides, some arguments by authority do have authority. It is not always a fallacy. Is referring to the researcher who did the research a fallacy? Would referring to Darwin's own notes be a fallacy? Would talking to the leading authority on the subject be a fallacy?

The argument by authority is only a fallacy when you are relying solely on the image or power of the authority and not its knowledge. That is the point of authority, it speaks with the power of knowledge. All things being the same, I would certainly take the opinion of a supreme court judge over that of a first year law student. That's why he's on the supreme court and the student is still in school.

JurgenBM

That's true.