The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 10:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Is this a variation of the garage dragon?

In a sense, but I am trying to intentionally use examples for which one might conceivably come across people claiming they know them to be hoaxes/fictions because they are the ones that created/perpetuated them.

In these cases, how does one distinguish between the verbal or written claim of existence, and the verbal or written claim of nonexistence? It should be rather obvious that the burden rests with the person postulating the positive claim, for that is the only one where proof positive evidence can be found. Only a paucity of evidence could be expected in the case of nonexistence.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
20-10-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 12:35 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Well, the author of Harry Potter has a little notice on the copyright page claiming:This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to blah blah is purely coincidental. Thanks for the money.

is it irrefutable proof? Not exactly, but I'll take her word for it.

Right, that's the point. One could still special plead that away as it isn't actually evidence that Harry Potter or wizards/witches or magic don't exist. It isn't proof positive evidence.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 11:19 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 09:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Demonstrate evidence for non-existence of an entity like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or fairies. What would constitute proof positive for fictionality/non-existence? Can one ever provide evidence for something that does not exist or did not occur?

It might be possible if we are discussing physical entities. With fairies (or anything supernatural), you can simply say "magic" and the discussion ends.

So lets focus on Loch Ness.

Loch Ness is a rigidly defined physical location. It's not a forest or mountain range, it's a deep lake with dimensions that can be precisely measured. This gives us a specific area to consider. Compared to the entire world, its a very small area indeed.

I understand the "Loch Ness Monster" to be a cryptozoological animal that is supposed to live in Loch Ness (described above).

So we have an unknown animal living in a small, very specific area.

In an attempt to prove non-existence, I offer the following points:

1. Food Supply - Not enough native fish to support a population of large creatures.

2. Population - There cannot be "a" monster. There has to be a breeding population.

3. No migration - The River Ness is too shallow to allow big critters to migrate unseen.

4. No bodies - No bones, carcasses (carcassi?), etc. have been found. No pieces, parts, chunks, bits or entire, intact corpses.

5. Inconsistent witnesses - the various and numerous accounts vary too much.

6. Inconclusive film/video - All of the films or videos can be explained with mundane explanations. None offer incontrovertible or even intriguing proof.

7. Photographic hoaxes - the best photo is a hoax. The others are like the films/videos.

8. Ulterior motives - the sightings began when hotels were being built on the loch. Now there is a thriving tourist industry.

9. Natural explanations - varying from seismic activity to mis-located animals and beyond.

10. Constant surveillance with no results: There have been observers on the loch for decades. 24/7/365 surveillance in places. Webcams. Satellites. Drones. Every year the number of watchers increases and the quality of the equipment improves. Every year they find nothing. Serious searching for the monster began in the 70's & 80's and continues to this day. Every year that goes by without evidence is another nail in the coffin.

11. Geologic evidence - the favorite monster theory (plesiosaur) was supposed to be extinct millions of years before the loch was formed. And it also breathed air, so would have been on the surface most of the time.

Conclusion:
While we can not know anything with 100% certainty, I believe one could make a solid, convincing and accurate case that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.*





* I would also like to note that it saddens me greatly that this is the case. Mysteries and the unknown, especially cryptids, have fascinated me for most of my life. But without evidence, etc. you all know the rest.

Right, these are all absences of expected evidence, but that makes them negative (or more appropriately titled "absent") evidence. Not proof positive evidence.

I am trying to compare and contrast Tomasia's claim that one could provide proof positive evidence against a character of fiction. It is a nonsensical request that shifts the burden of proof.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 01:24 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:04 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am trying to compare and contrast Tomasia's claim that one could provide proof positive evidence against a character of fiction. It is a nonsensical request that shifts the burden of proof.

Can you clarify if any of these are positive claims:

Harry Potter is a fictional character.

Harry Potter is a character composed primarily by the imagination of his author.

And at no point have I equivocated the terms fictional, and non-existence the way you do. Nor have I said anything of proof positive, or absolute truths.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
I directly quoted your claim in the OP

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Show me evidence of fictionality/nonexistence.

Drinking Beverage I'll wait

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I directly quoted your claim in the OP

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Show me evidence of fictionality/nonexistence.

Drinking Beverage I'll wait

Just because it's easy, I'll cite the information from another post, of the citation on the copyright page:

"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to blah blah is purely coincidental. Thanks for the money." Or some iteration of that.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
20-10-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I directly quoted your claim in the OP

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Show me evidence of fictionality/nonexistence.

Drinking Beverage I'll wait

Just because it's easy, I'll cite the information from another post, of the citation on the copyright page:

"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to blah blah is purely coincidental. Thanks for the money."

So, the book from which the claim emanates would be evidence against the claim?

If J.K. Rowling said years later she put that in because she had to, or someone claimed that she based the story off of their life and it is therefore based on a true story, do these refute the claim that it is a work of fiction? What evidence (actual evidence) exists to corroborate the claim that it is actually a work of fiction?

(Do you read the replies on here since I had already addressed that comment?)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I directly quoted your claim in the OP

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Show me evidence of fictionality/nonexistence.

Drinking Beverage I'll wait

Just because it's easy, I'll cite the information from another post, of the citation on the copyright page:

"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to blah blah is purely coincidental. Thanks for the money." Or some iteration of that.

I'm just going to repost this and highlight a few more things you said.

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
Who has the burden of proof here TommyBoy? The person claiming existence, or the person rejecting the claim of existence?

^Since you can't actually provide evidence of nonexistence, how about you answer these two questions.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 01:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I directly quoted your claim in the OP

"There’s abundant and compelling evidence that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character, and not evidence even remotely in support of him being a historical person, or being based on one."

Show me evidence of fictionality/nonexistence.

Drinking Beverage I'll wait

Just because it's easy, I'll cite the information from another post, of the citation on the copyright page:

"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to blah blah is purely coincidental. Thanks for the money." Or some iteration of that.

That's why unlike this case here with Harry Potter or Matt Dilahunty/other peoples go to of New York exists, does that give evidence that Spiderman exists?!

I prefer the notation that Don Quoxite, actually proclaims to be REAL. The opening of it is about how the text is supposedly translated from these Arabic Moorish texts telling of the locations Spain.

It covers the element well, because of it's intentional mockery at attempting to appear real. The text takes place in real places in La Mancha, does that make Don Quoxite real, how do we define that what the texts says is false or not. That's the point of similar investigation that is done on these accounts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: