ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof

[Sozo]

Allsmiles could just ignore Knight, which would be an acceptable response, or she could try to draw the information out of Knight.

You must know Allsmiles personally!

:chuckle:

 

[fool]

If Knight claims he has such a device then the burden is on him to prove it.

 

[allsmiles]

if this is analogous to the christian god then i have to point out that very often it's said that belief must come before proof. must i first believe the proof exists before i see it?

 

[Spenser 2]

must i first believe the proof exists before i see it?

Seems no one wants to answer you. I think of course not!

 

[allsmiles]

yeah, i don't get it

it's a yes or no question.

 

[Sozo]

if this is analogous to the christian god then i have to point out that very often it's said that belief must come before proof. must i first believe the proof exists before i see it?

If we are talking about God, then yes.

 

[allsmiles]

thanks Sozo.

 

[Spenser 2]

If we are talking about God, then yes.

You seem to advocate it for anti-gravity devices as well.

 

[Tazjhe]

she?

:chuckle:

Oops, sorry 'bout that Allsmiles...

:doh:

 

[Sozo]

You seem to advocate it for anti-gravity devices as well.

No, it's just that someone who possess an extrodinary item such as that, does not owe proof to every idiot that asks him.

You removed the "God" analogy, and so did I.

 

[fool]

Let's break it down.
Premise 1. Antigravity devices may or may not exist.
Premise 2. Knight may or may not be in possesion of one.
If Knight produces said device and it is in fact an antigravity device then it's yes to both premises.
If Knight produces a device that dosen't work then no statements can be made regaurding the premises. (such devices may exist and he may be in possesion of one but not realize it.)
Trying to prove that such devices don't exist would be very hard indeed as it would entail knowledge of all things in the universe, and proving that Knight wasen't in possesion of one would be almost as hard since you'd need knowledge of all things Knight was in possesion of, and total knowledge of the nature and possible fuctions of all those things.

 

[Letsargue]

Burden of Proof

Knight comes along and tells every one that he has an anti-gravity device. All Smiles says no you don't, I don't believe it! Knight says prove I do not have one. All Smiles says prove that you do.

Who is correct here in demanding the Burden of Proof, IOW who does the burden fall on?

---No one HAS the RIGHT TO KNOW anything. No one has the right to demand that a person show them anything if they don't want to show them. Everyone has the right not to speak about anything.
---There is no burden.
*
--------------Paul---
*

 

[Spenser 2]

No, it's just that someone who possess an extrodinary item such as that, does not owe proof to every idiot that asks him.

You removed the "God" analogy, and so did I.

But he is telling people he has one...

 

[Spenser 2]

---No one HAS the RIGHT TO KNOW anything. No one has the right to demand that a person show them anything if they don't want to show them. Everyone has the right not to speak about anything.
---There is no burden.
*
--------------Paul---
*

And people around here don't like you why?

 

[Sozo]

But he is telling people he has one...

Yes, he is! But, he doesn't have to show everyone does he?

 

[Spenser 2]

Only if he wants to prove it to the people he is telling...

 

[fool]

Yes, he is! But, he doesn't have to show everyone does he?

If he dosen't want to show it to Allsmilies then he shouldn't go running his mouth to Allsmilies about it.

 

[Letsargue]

And people around here don't like you why?

---I don't care, if a fool doesn't like me!!!!!.

---I have several anti-gravity devices stuck to my ice box.
*
----------------Paul---
*

 

[Apologist]

Does 84% of America also know that Knight has this device, with only 16% agreeing with The AS?

It doesn't matter, namely because Ad Populum, generally the same as hearsay, is a logically fallacy.

Knight would at least have to show blue prints.

 

[Letsargue]

If he dosen't want to show it to Allsmilies then he shouldn't go running his mouth to Allsmilies about it.

---No law again that.
*
---------------Paul---
*