The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 02:48 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Red herring. (DNA evidence isn't a claim, it is testable and falsifiable evidence)

But when it's later used as evidence to exonerate someone previously convicted, what does that mean in regards to the evidence that prosecution used at the time to convict him? Does the fact that's he's been exonerated by DNA evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have any evidence at all?

Still a red herring.

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, 02:50 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
Your hypothetical felon's "evidence" used to convict is absent. It may be fallacious. The DNA test could be bullshit. He may actually be guilty. The world of "what-if" in which your red herring exists, is an attempted dodge via logical fallacy. Answer the questions and provide the "abundant and compelling" evidence you claim exists for fictionality/nonexistence, or admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're wrong.

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, 03:04 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

He is not claiming that it is proof, just that there is compelling evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 03:06 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 03:04 PM)Chas 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

He is not claiming that it is proof, just that there is compelling evidence.

He's wrong in that claim too if that were the case.

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, 03:08 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 03:04 PM)Chas 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

He is not claiming that it is proof, just that there is compelling evidence.

There is a compelling lack of evidence for a positive claim of Potter's existence. There is however, no evidence of nonexistence as that implies a proof positive demonstration of the conclusion 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
20-10-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Red herring. (DNA evidence isn't a claim, it is testable and falsifiable evidence)

But when it's later used as evidence to exonerate someone previously convicted, what does that mean in regards to the evidence that prosecution used at the time to convict him? Does the fact that's he's been exonerated by DNA evidence, mean that the prosecution at the time didn't have any evidence at all?

(we're assuming here, an honest legal proceedings, and a reasonable jury and judge, that earlier convicted him)

Questions of existence and questions of science are not answered by a court of law.

You and BlowJob need to stop conflating these.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-10-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 02:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Who has the burden of proof here TommyBoy? The person claiming existence, or the person rejecting the claim of existence?

"When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim "

If the person in your example is affirming that a character is imaginary/historical, he has the burden of proof, and if the other person is merely disputing the claim that the character is imaginary/historical he doesn't.

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

A doctor is trying to convince a patient that the object he sees in front of him doesn't exist, that's it not real, that the patient is hallucinating. That it's an object created by his imagination, that his mind is tricking him into believing is real.

Can he provide evidence that the patient is hallucinating, that the object he sees in his head doesn't exist?

"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, 04:19 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Questions of existence and questions of science are not answered by a court of law.

You and BlowJob need to stop conflating these.

Courts of law deal with consideration of evidence, in regards to violations of the law, and criminal activity.

Now are you suggesting that the meaning of "evidence" in a court of law, is distinct from the meaning of evidence in the field of "biology" and "physics"?

"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, 04:23 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 02:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Who has the burden of proof here TommyBoy? The person claiming existence, or the person rejecting the claim of existence?

"When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim "

If the person in your example is affirming that a character is imaginary/historical, he has the burden of proof, and if the other person is merely disputing the claim that the character is imaginary/historical he doesn't.

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

A doctor is trying to convince a patient that the object he sees in front of him doesn't exist, that's it not real, that the patient is hallucinating. That it's an object created by his imagination, that his mind is tricking him into believing is real.

Can he provide evidence that the patient is hallucinating, that the object he sees in his head doesn't exist?

Indeed, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it. So when you make claims about Jesus/Yeshua and fail to support your claims with evidence, they can be dismissed in the same way one would dismiss the claim that Harry Potter is a real person or that Harry Potter is based on a real person.

"Can he provide evidence that the patient is hallucinating, that the object he sees in his head doesn't exist?"

Yes, the doctor can because the claim of the hallucinations are testable through looking at things like brain chemistry and brain activity. Because this too is a red herring (The doctor is actually making a claim that they are hallucinations instead of just rejecting the patient's claims. If the doctor simply rejected the claims by the schizophrenic, the burden would be on the schizophrenic to show they are real).

The fact that the patient (equivalent of the theist claiming a God exists or Jesus was real) won't accept it, has no bearing on reality.

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, 04:25 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  Questions of existence and questions of science are not answered by a court of law.

You and BlowJob need to stop conflating these.

Courts of law deal with consideration of evidence, in regards to violations of the law, and criminal activity.

Now are you suggesting that the meaning of "evidence" in a court of law, is distinct from the meaning of evidence in the field of "biology" and "physics"?

Courts of law accept anecdotal evidence (eye witness accounts that have been shown to be fallacious in many cases) as equivalent to actual evidence. Often resulting in incorrect judgements. (A good example of how your attempted example serves no positive benefit to your arguments)

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: