The burden of proof in arguments

Since I can't talk about this in other places, I figure I'll talk about it here.

So guys, I have always thought that in an argument when somebody makes a certain claim, the one who is asserting a positive must first provide proof, before the opposite side (the negative) has to provide proof.

Example:

Guy: Unicorns are real.
Girl: Do you have any proof that unicorns are real?
Guy: There's no proof that they aren't real.

In this case, is it not true that because the guy couldn't provide any proof for his claim [unicorns are real] then his claim automatically fails and the girl doesn't need to provide proof for the negative [unicorns aren't real]?

Read these for more info if you want:
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallacy: Burden of Proof

doesn't count in a discussion with religious nuts

I'm in agreement with kotora. Religious people find "proof" in life and existence.

But i think this is more suited for EoEO.

That said, I like when someone puts the onus of truth onto me, and I can back it up, and when I turn it around they either have weak proof, personal truth, or something else equally absurd. Personal truths don't matter when reality is involved.

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

Unicorns were real but were hunted to extinction by our predatory ancestors thousands of years ago. The proof is that horses exist. The original horses (a small group of unicorns) were being used by a smarter group of our ancestors who would cut of their horn to fashion weapons of war. The horns would grow back after awhile but the cycle last for so long that the horns just disappeared and that is how evolution works or something.

You know this is true because I have told you it is true, I do not lie (the proof is again that I am telling you that I do not lie and since I do not lie, me not lying here must be the truth; vicious cycle). You should believe me because I am good.

i liek unicornz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Unicorns were real but were hunted to extinction by our predatory ancestors thousands of years ago. The proof is that horses exist. The original horses (a small group of unicorns) were being used by a smarter group of our ancestors who would cut of their horn to fashion weapons of war. The horns would grow back after awhile but the cycle last for so long that the horns just disappeared and that is how evolution works or something.

You know this is true because I have told you it is true, I do not lie (the proof is again that I am telling you that I do not lie and since I do not lie, me not lying here must be the truth; vicious cycle). You should believe me because I am good.

---

Well, I'm sold.

There is no such thing as proof for a negative claim. What's the only "proof" that unicorns don't exist? The fact that there's no evidence that they do. The only thing that can be pointed to as proof of a negative is absence of evidence for the positive claim.

So you're mostly right, but the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Unicorns were real but were hunted to extinction by our predatory ancestors thousands of years ago. The proof is that horses exist. The original horses (a small group of unicorns) were being used by a smarter group of our ancestors who would cut of their horn to fashion weapons of war. The horns would grow back after awhile but the cycle last for so long that the horns just disappeared and that is how evolution works or something.

---

A ludicrous claim! Unicorns aren't extinct, they just got fat and sat out in the sun too long, hence rhinos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

There is no such thing as proof for a negative claim. What's the only "proof" that unicorns don't exist? The fact that there's no evidence that they do. The only thing that can be pointed to as proof of a negative is absence of evidence for the positive claim.

So you're mostly right, but the person asserting the positive claim has the burden of proof. Period.

---

I suppose where he is coming from with this is if you are having a discussion about... I don't know, the effects of gun control? If I provide evidence that gun control reduces crime, you might still produce a study which demonstrates different consequences.

Actually no, I suppose both claims there are positive ones and so proof is required by either side anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperfectionist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Unicorns were real but were hunted to extinction by our predatory ancestors thousands of years ago. The proof is that horses exist. The original horses (a small group of unicorns) were being used by a smarter group of our ancestors who would cut of their horn to fashion weapons of war. The horns would grow back after awhile but the cycle last for so long that the horns just disappeared and that is how evolution works or something.

---

A ludicrous claim! Unicorns aren't extinct, they just got fat and sat out in the sun too long, hence rhinos.

---

Unicorn + Hippo = Rhino. I call them land-hippos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own BRRRAAAIINNSSS

I suppose where he is coming from with this is if you are having a discussion about... I don't know, the effects of gun control? If I provide evidence that gun control reduces crime, you might still produce a study which demonstrates different consequences.

Actually no, I suppose both claims there are positive ones and so proof is required by either side anyway...

---

I love it when people correct themselves. Saves me the trouble!

You made a good point, though, that the line is also not as clear-cut when you're discussing correlation and causation (e.g., there may be a study to show there is no link between X and Y). However, in such cases "no link" is in fact a positive assertion (the difference between "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god"). Still, even in those cases the only evidence the study is using is absence of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Unicorn + Hippo = Rhino. I call them land-hippos.

---

To date, that's still one of the more unusual things I've masturbated to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperfectionist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Unicorns were real but were hunted to extinction by our predatory ancestors thousands of years ago. The proof is that horses exist. The original horses (a small group of unicorns) were being used by a smarter group of our ancestors who would cut of their horn to fashion weapons of war. The horns would grow back after awhile but the cycle last for so long that the horns just disappeared and that is how evolution works or something.

---

A ludicrous claim! Unicorns aren't extinct, they just got fat and sat out in the sun too long, hence rhinos.

---

Unicorn + Hippo = Rhino. I call them land-hippos.

---

Bahha :D

Wait but rhinos exist now... and rhinos come from unicorns... which means unicorns must exist! Yes it's all coming together now!

I mean they don't exist in any real sense but the concept or idea of such a creature exists and so thats sort of an existence as you can see evidence of the idea. I guess it just depends on how a person interprets existence.
but yeah those arguments are really frustrating

WHAT ABOUT YETIS?!

Rhinos are related to horses. This is commonly believed to be the reason for the myth of the unicorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurey

WHAT ABOUT YETIS?!

---

Yetis don't exist, stop being silly. Big Foot is just a hairy mountain man without any social skills.

That explains why BoB collected so much hair all those years ago.

You make a claim, you provide proof. You don't claim something and tell someone to disprove you. The fallacy is that someone's inability to disprove a positive claim does not automatically make that claim true.

you IDIOTS....

The burdon of proof ALWAYS lies with the least loudest one.

It's easy to prove something is true. I can prove that there are four lights, for example.

It's nigh impossible to prove something isn't true, barring obvious things like proving that there are not five lights (because there are four, and four is not equal to five).

Maybe one of those lights is camouflaged

You forget that God wrote the Bible and he said the Bible is true. QED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

You forget that God wrote the Bible and he said the Bible is true. QED

---

no he never

Things are true when they are proven by numerous test subjects dying, we do what we must to prove things, because we can.

So we need to kill a bunch of rhinos to prove unicorns don't exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vermachtnis

So we need to kill a bunch of rhinos to prove unicorns don't exist?

---

UNICORNS EXIST :cry: You horrid person, don't hurt my dreams :(

Of course unicorns exist. If they didn't, then how did we make robot versions of them?

This argument sums up both M-theory (string theory) and Loop quantum gravity debates, which have been happening all around the world in physics since about 1930. They can't prove anything, and can only say: "Well, my theory is more consistent with what we know. You haven't disproved it, so it might be true!"

Unlike general relativity, which has been proven, although some may believe otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

This argument sums up both M-theory (string theory) and Loop quantum gravity debates, which have been happening all around the world in physics since about 1930. They can't prove anything, and can only say: "Well, my theory is more consistent with what we know. You haven't disproved it, so it might be true!"

Unlike general relativity, which has been proven, although some may believe otherwise.

---

Well that's the scientific method. It is up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to try and disprove their own cliams.

What's important is that the person who makes any claim has to do the work of finding the evidence that supports it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sword

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

This argument sums up both M-theory (string theory) and Loop quantum gravity debates, which have been happening all around the world in physics since about 1930. They can't prove anything, and can only say: "Well, my theory is more consistent with what we know. You haven't disproved it, so it might be true!"

Unlike general relativity, which has been proven, although some may believe otherwise.

---

Well that's the scientific method. It is up to the person who came up with the hypothesis to try and disprove their own cliams.

What's important is that the person who makes any claim has to do the work of finding the evidence that supports it.

---

But that has proved impossible in those theories (at this time), however I suppose, at the time of Einstein, they didn't have the equipment to prove many claims in the field of relativity either.

It's fun to note that in the debate of light being particle, wave or both, the proof was given by someone trying to discredit the other side. You gotta give physicists that, they admit it when they're wrong.

Well, relativity could be worked out with maths. Evidently if the numbers add up then that's what's gonna happen when you test it.

It's like the who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

Say, person A actually took the last cookie. Person B goes to take one but finds there is none. The only suspects must be person A and person C (let's say, person B was out all day).

Because person C adamantly insists they did not take it, and knows in themselves there was no posibility they took it, person B believes person A -must- have taken it.

Sure, C is telling the truth, but how DOES person B know this? Surely that would depend entirely on how much trust they have in this person, how well they know them, etc.

Yes this has happened to me. Yes I am person A.