Whose Burden is it Anyway?

A look at the burden of proof

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

#21  Postby MS2 » Oct 29, 2021 4:28 am

Greg the Grouper wrote:
MS2 wrote:I agree with you, if denying the affirmative extends only as far as saying the affirmative is not proven. However, if denying the affirmative extends to ‘You are wrong’ then I think it is shouldering some burden. When someone says ‘God exists’ without defining terms and providing evidence in support I can rightly say they haven’t proved it. If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven’t adequately defined ‘God’). And if I say ‘God does not exist’ I think there is a burden on me to explain what I mean by that and why i believe it to be the case


I'm unsure how "You haven't defined 'God'" is substantiation of the position that 'God' doesn't exist

I didn’t say it was. I gave it as one way I could substantiate why their position is wrong. Their position being ‘God exists’.

[Edit]
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1647
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

#22  Postby hackenslash » Oct 29, 2021 10:44 am

You didn't deliver thoughts, you delivered a bare assertion.

Aggression? Holy shit.
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Whose Burden is it Anyway?

#23  Postby Greg the Grouper » Oct 29, 2021 10:49 am

MS2 wrote:
Greg the Grouper wrote:
MS2 wrote:I agree with you, if denying the affirmative extends only as far as saying the affirmative is not proven. However, if denying the affirmative extends to ‘You are wrong’ then I think it is shouldering some burden. When someone says ‘God exists’ without defining terms and providing evidence in support I can rightly say they haven’t proved it. If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven’t adequately defined ‘God’). And if I say ‘God does not exist’ I think there is a burden on me to explain what I mean by that and why i believe it to be the case


I'm unsure how "You haven't defined 'God'" is substantiation of the position that 'God' doesn't exist

I didn’t say it was. I gave it as one way I could substantiate why their position is wrong. Their position being ‘God exists’.

[Edit]


1. You clearly said, "If I say they are wrong then I ought to do some more work to substantiate my position (such as showing they haven't adequately defined 'God')". If this was a mistake, then fine, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me you never said something when I can clearly read that you did say that exact thing.

2. I see no meaningful distinction between substantiating their position as being wrong and substantiating your position as being right when your only position is that their position is wrong.

3. Again, I fail to see how you're substantiating their position as wrong; it seems to me that you're asking them to clarify their position in this case, as it again seems as though you're unsure of what's even being discussed in this hypothetical.
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 330

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest