The burden of proof in arguments

[PuPu]

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

[kotora]

doesn't count in a discussion with religious nuts

[Dignified Pauper]

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.

[demondude]

Truth? You can't handle the truth!

[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.

[Vermachtnis]

i liek unicornz

[NeoCracker]

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.

[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.

[Imperfectionist]

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.

[Madame Adequate]

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...

[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.

[Raistlin]

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.

[Quindiana Jones]

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

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

[Imperfectionist]

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

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

[PeneloRatsbane]

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