The Burden of Proof
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

So if you claim a character is fictional, or imaginary, wouldn't you be making an affirmative claim, and the burden of proof can fall on such parties, but be absent to those disputing these claims? If I'm merely rejecting claims that character is fictional, in relationship to someone trying to affirm that he is fictional, wouldn't I be the one without the burden of proof here?

"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, 04:44 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

So if you claim a character is fictional, or imaginary, wouldn't you be making an affirmative claim, and the burden of proof can fall on such parties, but be absent to those disputing these claims? If I'm merely rejecting claims that character is fictional, in relationship to someone trying to affirm that he is fictional, wouldn't I be the one without the burden of proof here?

Nope, you're shifting the burden of proof. The proof is on proving existence, not 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, 04:44 PM
The Burden of Proof
I guess you're not ready to admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about yet

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, 04:47 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence is determined by the same standards in the sciences: testable predictions, controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity.

Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, History use the same meaning of evidence as well?

You drew a distinction between the meaning of evidence in a law court, and I'm just asking if there are distinction in meaning across academic disciplines as well?

"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, 04:50 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence is determined by the same standards in the sciences: testable predictions, controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity.

Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, History use the same meaning of evidence as well?

You drew a distinction between the meaning of evidence in a law court, and I'm just asking if there are distinction in meaning across academic disciplines as well?

More red herring.

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, 04:53 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nope, you're shifting the burden of proof. The proof is on proving existence, not nonexistence.


So in your view, a mythicist like Carrier doesn't have a burden of proof, only historicist like Bart Ehrman do?

Does someone arguing the Yeshua is amalgamation of a variety of fictional characters, have burden of proof? Does some arguing that Paul believed in a spiritual, non-historical Jesus have a burden of proof?

Does some one arguing that the non-existing messiah were a part of the messianic expectations of Jews in the first century, have a burden of proof?

"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, 04:59 PM
The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nope, you're shifting the burden of proof. The proof is on proving existence, not nonexistence.


So in your view, a mythicist like Carrier doesn't have a burden of proof, only historicist like Bart Ehrman do?

Does someone arguing the Yeshua is amalgamation of a variety of fictional characters, have burden of proof? Does some arguing that Paul believed in a spiritual, non-historical Jesus have a burden of proof?

Does some one arguing that the non-existing messiah were a part of the messianic expectations of Jews in the first century, have a burden of proof?

Even more red herrings.

Rejecting a claim (calling someone else's claims fallacious or pointing out the paucity of evidence for the claims) does not have a burden of proof.

Claims of existence or occurrence have a burden of proof.

You claim Jesus is real and based on a historical Yeshua, but provide no evidence. You provide the same level of "evidence" as exists for other mythological/fictional characters and claim its sufficient. You're simply wrong. In every conceivable way.

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, 05:01 PM
The Burden of Proof
You (and theists in general) are like the schizophrenics claiming their hallucinations are real, but provide only anecdotes to support them. Then you get mad when people reject your claims and tell you that there are far better explanations for what you think you see that are logically consistent with reality.

You need medication.

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, 05:02 PM
RE: The Burden of Proof
(20-10-2015 04:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 04:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Evidence is determined by the same standards in the sciences: testable predictions, controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity.

Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, History use the same meaning of evidence as well?

You drew a distinction between the meaning of evidence in a law court, and I'm just asking if there are distinction in meaning across academic disciplines as well?

Scientific evidence is totally different from legal evidence.

The legal evidence bar is actually quite law because regular people decide.

In other words while lawyers and judges might understand science they aren't scientists.

Biologists decide about biology. An astrophysicist might know a great deal about biology, but they're not considered qualified to decide if a paper by a biologist is correct.

In a court case anyone who sounds authoritative could offer testimony. So in court the aforementioned astrophysicist could offer testimony as to whether a biologist is right or wrong. If the other side doesn't impeach the witness, the jury gets to decide if they liked what was said or not.

In short the rules of evidence standards are different.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
20-10-2015, 05:10 PM
The Burden of Proof
I still haven't seen the "abundant and compelling evidence" of Harry Potter being fictional or an admission that that statement was a blatant lie.

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: