pob14

It has, if you're doing it right :devil1: .

I intended the use of the phrase "self-abuse" mockingly, as something a Muuntu follower might say. Certainly I've heard it used by old-line Catholics often. Should have thrown a smiley in there, maybe.

Be it far from me to disrespect masturbation; I'm a big fan.

RAFH

Fan or practitioner?

I like to practice, not so much to watch.

pob14

Depends on who's playing. You can do both, of course. I remember Olivia Newton-John's video of "Carried Away", from the Physical album . . . she sure seemed to be enjoying that rug . . .

Edit: Aha! Found a picture:



Ahem.

So. Anyway. Burdens of proof. Interesting stuff, no?

JurgenBM

Thanx for your question.

The burden of proof has to do with two of the rules for critical discussions, set by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in their Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies. These are some parts of the theory relevant to what logical fallacies are in general and the rules relevant to the burden of proof:

"In the pragma-dialectical approach, argumentation is treated as part of a reasonable argumentative discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. It does not consist in a single individual privately drawing a conclusion: it is part of a discourse procedure whereby two or more individuals try to arrive at an agreement.

Fallacies are analyzed as incorrect discussion moves in which a discussion rule has been violated. A fallacy is defined as a speech act that prejudices or frustrates efforts to resolve a difference of opinion and the use of the term "fallacy" is thus systematically connected with the rules for critical discussion.

Rule 2. A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so.

Rule 2 can be violated -- at the opening stage -- by the protagonist by evading or shifting the burden of proof. In the first case, he attempts to create the impression that there is no need to defend his standpoint and no point in calling it into question by presenting it as self-evident, giving a personal guarantee of the rightness of the standpoint (special variant of argumentum ad verecundiam) or immunizing the standpoint against criticism. In the second case, the protagonist challenges the opponent to show that the protagonist's standpoint is wrong (special variant of argumentum ad ignorantiam) or that the opposite standpoint is right.

Rule 6. A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

Rule 6 can be violated -- at the argumentation stage -- by the protagonist by falsely presenting something as a common starting point or by the antagonist by denying a premise representing a common starting point. By falsely presenting something as a common starting point, the protagonist tries to evade the burden of proof; the techniques used for this purpose include falsely presenting a premise as self-evident, wrapping up a proposition in a presupposition of a question (many questions), hiding away a premise in an unexpressed premise, and advancing argumentation that amounts to the same thing as the standpoint (petitio principii, also called begging the question or circular reasoning). By denying a premise representing a common starting point, the antagonist in fact denies the protagonist the opportunity of defending his standpoint ex concessis, which is a denial of a conditio sine qua non for all successful argumentation."

So by violating any of these rules, you're being unreasonable and frustrating efforts to resolve a difference of opinion. If the burden of proof wasn't on the one who puts forward an argument, it would mean that we'd have to accept anything (pink unicorn, celestial teapot, etc) until it was disproven.

I hope that gives a sufficient answer to your question.

More on this subject can be found here: http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd.html

Prof. Frans van Eemeren is internationally recognised researcher in the field of argumentation theory and rhetoric, as is visible by his numerous credits (keynotes, awards, guest professorships, translations into Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish, etc.); Supervised 24 doctoral students who all graduated; Editor and member of editorial boards of a large number of international scientific journals (editor of Argumentation, the most important journal in the field) and book series (such as Kluwer Academic’s Argumentation Library); Chairman of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA); Administrator and experienced programme manager who also has experience in leading and attending international educational programmes (among others DASA and University College Utrecht). Acting director of the Institute for Cultural Analysis and director of the research programme Argumentation in Discourse (ASCA). Currently he is also a Guest Professor at New York University.

Dr.Mick

Thanks Jurgen, and everyone else. Some informative posts there.

Stumpjumper

I believe that the "burden of proof" is on the one making the positive claim...

Meaning that I agree with your OP and I am a Christian... I would make the caveat that proof in regards to metaphysical claims means a bit different than proof in some other areas...

I would prefer to consider my beliefs warranted or justified rather than "proven" but oh well... Such is life

MrWhy

Very long ago, in many places, people wondered about mysteries such as thunder, lightening, birth, and what happened after death. Occasionally someone suggested a great powerful being must be controlling such events. The person who originated the idea could not show any proof or evidence of this great powerful being, but almost everyone liked the idea, so they looked up from the fire and grunted in agreement.

The people that first introduced the "great powerful being" ideas had the burden of proof. Because proof or good evidence of GPB has never been produced, the burden has not moved.

spamandham

This is custom, but nothing more. The burden always lies on the individual wishing to convince someone else, unless there is a third party enforcing it.

Doug Shaver

It's not that you think it makes sense. It's that almost everyone else does, too. The burden of proof is established by consensus. That might or might not be a good reason, but it has nothing to do with any principles of logic.

Roq

Isn't it an application of Occam's razor? Statements such as: "There is a teapot orbiting Pluto" or "there is a cat on the roof" are not required by scientific theories about the world on which we tacitly agree. Therefore we can not fall back on consensual knowledge to validate such claims.

The number of possible worlds where there is a cat on the roof is much smaller than the number of worlds where there is not one. So If you say: "There is a cat on the roof" and I ask you to tell me why you think so, I'd find it odd if you answered: "its up to you to explain why there isn't a cat on the roof". So in order to persuade me you have to take the burden of evidence on yourself and say something like "I can hear a scratching noise".

The reason the first answer above seems odd is that when we look at the world and evaluate its patterns our inclination is to explain it in terms of the patterns that have occurred most often in our past. In my past i've seen more roofs that lack cats than roofs that have them.