"I Don't Have to Prove a Negative"

[SalixIncendium]

You are better than that, Salix.

Indeed. However, I was making a point that a negative claim, whether it is a counterclaim or otherwise, still requires evidence.

 

[lukethethird]

Indeed. However, I was making a point that a negative claim, whether it is a counterclaim or otherwise, still requires evidence.

You provided an example of which there is plenty of objective evidence for to make a point about a claim for which there is no objective evidence for, so you failed to make a point and appeared silly in the process. If a claim is made without evidence it is not necessary to provide evidence for dismissing it, besides, what would counter evidence for an unevidenced claim supposedly look like?

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. However, I was making a point that a negative claim, whether it is a counterclaim or otherwise, still requires evidence.

Sorry, but on this respect you are simply wrong.

 

[lukethethird]

The title of this thread should read shifting the burden of proof.

Unevidenced claims do not require evidence to dismiss, in fact the requirement is inane.

What would the evidence of the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns look like? Believers claim pink unicorns are invisible because we can't see them, what evidence is required to counter that, also believers claim these unicorns are pink on faith, what evidence would satisfy you that they aren't? I think the inanity of asking for evidence to counter unevidenced claims becomes self evident should one think about. When considering extraordinary claims, shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You provided an example of which there is plenty of objective evidence for to make a point about a claim for which there is no objective evidence for, so you failed to make a point and appeared silly in the process. If a claim is made without evidence it is not necessary to provide evidence for dismissing it, besides, what would counter evidence for an unevidenced claim supposedly look like?

I provided two examples. To which are you referring? The negative claim about evolution or the positive claim of flat earth?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry, but on this respect you are simply wrong.

How so?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The title of this thread should read shifting the burden of proof.

Unevidenced claims do not require evidence to dismiss, in fact the requirement is inane.

What would the evidence of the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns look like? Believers claim pink unicorns are invisible because we can't see them, what evidence is required to counter that, also believers claim these unicorns are pink on faith, what evidence would satisfy you that they aren't? I think the inanity of asking for evidence to counter unevidenced claims becomes self evident should one think about. When considering extraordinary claims, shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

If I come to this site (or anywhere else for that matter) and state "there is no god" without anyone here making a claim that there is a god, I have made a negative claim. Where is the shift in the burden of proof here? I have just made an unevidenced claim, so I how is the onus not on me to support that claim.

Taking it further, @LuisDantas quoted my posts telling me I was wrong with no further elaboration...a negative claim. Are we just supposed to accept that I am wrong at this point with no further evidence or elaboration? (I mean, we probably should, because most of what I have to say is wrong anyway, but that's beside the point.). Why is there no evidence needed for the assertion that I'm wrong?

If you want to create a thread about shifting the burden of proof, then go right ahead. But in doing so, understand that you've missed the point of this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

How so?

I'm not quite sure yet.

It may be that you are presuming a situation of symmetry where there is none.

I suspect however that you are failing to realize how weighty claims of existence are by necessity - and how even more weigth they acquire when the claim involves an existence that by rights ought to be monumentally meaningful yet is essentially undetectable.

Also, you apparently are unaware of how decisively evidenced biological evolution truly is. It just wasn't at all a good choice to illustrate your point, besides the point itself being unworkable in the first place.

Claims bring a responsibility with them.

God-existence claims by rights ought to be an exception, precisely because they are ultimately a private matter with no epistemological ambitions... but somehow people seem to have lost sight of that fairly self-evident fact.

 

[lukethethird]

If I come to this site (or anywhere else for that matter) and state "there is no god" without anyone here making a claim that there is a god, I have made a negative claim. Where is the shift in the burden of proof here? I have just made an unevidenced claim, so I how is the onus not on me to support that claim.

Taking it further, @LuisDantas quoted my posts telling me I was wrong with no further elaboration...a negative claim. Are we just supposed to accept that I am wrong at this point with no further evidence or elaboration? (I mean, we probably should, because most of what I have to say is wrong anyway, but that's beside the point.). Why is there no evidence needed for the assertion that I'm wrong?

If you want to create a thread about shifting the burden of proof, then go right ahead. But in doing so, understand that you've missed the point of this thread.

If there was no one saying there are invisible Gods out there, there would be no one saying I don't believe you. That is why atheism is predicated on there being theists, if there were no theists there would be no atheists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can only assume that you failed to understand my previous post.

"Presuming" or even "restraining from disbelieving" in something comparable to Abrahamic conceptions of deity because we "can't prove that they are false" is, quite simply, very bad intellectual and ethical practice.

That in no way compares to everyday situations where we make educated guesses or even random choices. The presumption of protection of our beliefs just because isn't there.

Can you give evidence as per objective evidence for the bold one?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You provided an example of which there is plenty of objective evidence for to make a point about a claim for which there is no objective evidence for, so you failed to make a point and appeared silly in the process. If a claim is made without evidence it is not necessary to provide evidence for dismissing it, besides, what would counter evidence for an unevidenced claim supposedly look like?

There is no objective evidence for the supernatural, we agree. But there is also no objective evidence for the natural.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, but on this respect you are simply wrong.

What is your objective evidence for that?

 

[lukethethird]

There is no objective evidence for the supernatural, we agree. But there is also no objective evidence for the natural.

So says the solipsist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So says the solipsist.

Now please prove as per the burden of proof that I am a solipsist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Also, you apparently are unaware of how decisively evidenced biological evolution truly is. It just wasn't at all a good choice to illustrate your point, besides the point itself being unworkable in the first place.

I'm hoping that you know me well enough to know that I am making no argument against evolution here. I'm fully aware of the evidence for evolution. I was, as I said, using the a negative claim of evolution to make a point, making the parallel for the responsibility of the one making a claim of no evolution and the responsibility of making a claim of...say...no gods. Both require the one making the assertion to provide evidence of the claim.

Claims bring a responsibility with them.

And this is exactly the point to the thread. Claims bring a responsibility; both positive claims and negative claims.

God-existence claims by rights ought to be an exception, precisely because they are ultimately a private matter with no epistemological ambitions... but somehow people seem to have lost sight of that fairly self-evident fact.

I fully agree. But I think were this becomes problematic is when the private matter is made public, and those who claim to have subjective evidence of the existence of a god(s) want people to believe as they do when others have not shared that same subjective experience.

 

[PureX]

"One more try" I said. I'll stick to it.

What is it that you are not understanding?

Or is it that you don't want to give up being in the judge's seat? Because many here believe they are in charge of what is and is not evidence, and of course they determine this according to their preconceived biases. Which is why we keep hearing the "no evidence" claim against any position that doesn't agree with theirs. What they mean is "no valid evidence according to MY criteria for valid evidence". Which is of course being determined by weighing it against their preconceived conclusions of truth. There is "no valid evidence" for the existence of any gods because they have already determined that no gods exist. And therefor any evidence that might be used to suggest that one does exist must be invalid. The whole point is that by keeping oneself sitting in the judge's seat regarding what is and is not valid evidence, one can then exclude any evidence that does not comport with the "me-judge's" preconception of the truth.

It keeps all opposing views in the position of having to convince the "me-judge" before they can be considered valid. This is also why we constantly hear the old saw around here about how anyone daring to propose a truth claim then being obligated to 'prove it'. (To the "me-judge", of course.)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


I fully agree. But I think were this becomes problematic is when the private matter is made public, and those who claim to have subjective evidence of the existence of a god(s) want people to believe as they do when others have not shared that same subjective experience.

Yeah, I also agree. But here is the everyday version of that in effect for the problem of e.g. you/they are X.
Some of those claims are without evidence yet they are in effect treated as if the claim is an objective fact.

So strip away religion as a special case and look at where it in practice ends. Namely, how we as humans ought to live. And for that, relgious people are not the only category of people, for which some of them claim objective morality.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Despite the catchphrase, it is absolutely possible to prove a negative. If I say there is no gum in the desk drawer it is trivially easy to open the desk drawer and examine it to conclude that, yes, there is no gum. But the parameters of the claim is strictly limited and accessible. And what is trivially easy with the gum in the drawer is less so when talking about flying teapots. Which is why that thought exercise exists. To show the sort of argument from ignorance to be held responsible to give any credence at all to something which can't be disproved, but also can't be proved. Which also is why 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence until evidence can be presented' came to be.

Honestly I think that one, especially outside strict epistemological debates, is pretty impractical. We don't use it for mundane day to day experiences and I try not to comment overly much on other people's experience even if I haven't shared them. Unless they're trying to leverage their experience to convince me I should accept something about the universe at large, like gods. But even then, instead of getting into tedious and unproductive debates about burden of proof, I just say that I've found the existence or necessity of god(s) unconvincing and leave it at that. I am apatheistic. xD

 

[ratiocinator]

Or is it that you don't want to give up being in the judge's seat?

Wow. Take a look at yourself!

Because many here believe they are in charge of what is and is not evidence, and of course they determine this according to their preconceived biases. Which is why we keep hearing the "no evidence" claim against any position that doesn't agree with theirs. What they mean is "no valid evidence according to MY criteria for valid evidence". Which is of course being determined by weighing it against their preconceived conclusions of truth. There is "no valid evidence" for the existence of any gods because they have already determined that no gods exist. And therefor any evidence that might be used to suggest that one does exist must be invalid. The whole point is that by keeping oneself sitting in the judge's seat regarding what is and is not valid evidence, one can then exclude any evidence that does not comport with the "me-judge's" preconception of the truth.

Yet again you are making proclamations about how people think without any hint of justification. The concept of evidence isn't really controversial otherwise neither science nor the law could operate.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wow. Take a look at yourself!


Yet again you are making proclamations about how people think without any hint of justification. The concept of evidence isn't really controversial otherwise neither science nor the law could operate.

Well, yes and no. It depends on what cultures you include for both categories.
But even for overall Western culture is not really only one version of science.