Not at this time unless there is a particular point upon which you wish to know my thoughts.Vajradhara said:Namaste Pilgram,
thank you for the response.
any retort to the rest of the post?
Generally, the burden only shifts when one party (the one who did not first bear the burden) introduces something new that is not agreed upon by the other. This doesn't remove the first asserter's burden, it merely places a different and additional one on the new (second party) asserter. The first asserter still has to carry her burden and the second has to carry his.now... it is quite possible that i could be incorrect... i'm frequently wrong about a great many things...
here's pretty much how i see the whole burden of proof argument:
In debates, one side of the argument often carries the burden of proof, rather than the other. In philosophical debates, often various arguments have the effect of shifting burden of proof from one side to the other. How would we decide who carries the burden of proof?
I agree with you but not for the reason given. I agree that the burden of proof is on the theist because she is MAKING THE ASSERTION i.e. God exists. It doesn't matter that "most people" may find that view contentious. In fact it appears that most people believe that god/gods exist. But belief is a far cry from proof and so the burden of proof is upon the asserter (as it always is).In a dispute between a theist and an agnostic – between someone who wants to show that God exists, and someone who is as yet undecided whether God exists, we would take the burden of proof to be on the theist. This is because the person who wants to show that God exists is making a significant claim about the world, which is in most people’s views somewhat contentious.
I am sorry but you lost me here. You seem to be referring to a true skeptic but since there is no ASSERTION being made, no one has, as yet, any burden of proof. What would be the assertion and who would be the asserter?In a philosophical dialogue concerning the existence of an external world that gives rise to the sensory experiences we have, we might suppose that the person who doubts that such an external world exists bears the burden of proof.
I agree totally with Walton's basic rule. However, perhaps you could clarify this example you've chosen concerning the skeptic and some other? What is the assertion/s being made and who is/are making them?What these cases have in common is that they are positive arguments, making some significant claim, and as such it is the place of the advocates of such claims to defend them, and not the place of the audience to show that they are or might be false. The basic rule of burden of proof is he who asserts must prove. (Walton). It is the person who is advocating a thesis – even if the thesis is one of doubt, such as the argument that our sensory experiences do not prove that external objects exist – who bears the burden of proof. This basic rule is intended to show that when one offers an argument or claim, it is your job to establish it, not your audience’s job to prove you wrong.
Again, you italicized the term "positive" but I think I am beginning to see what you might mean. Correct me if I am wrong. If by "positive" you simply mean the one who first asserts something, then I agree that that person has the burden of proof if the second person does not agree.
But if by positive you mean that the assertion must be worded in a "positive" fashion rather than a negative, then I disagree for the same reasons stated in my last post. A person asserting that there are not 50 states in the USA bears the burden of proving that. It is still a positive statement even though the asserter is saying "not 50". If you agree that the asserter still has the burden of proof even though she uses a "negative" term i.e. "not 50", then I think we are in agreement. But then the word "positive" becomes superfluous, does it not? They are arguments period, no?
Perhaps this may be of help also: where there is agreement, there is no burden of proof on either side since there are then "stipulations" of this or that.
Are we in agreement about who has the burden of proof or do we need further clarification?
Peace and Love,