Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

First of all, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that X causes Y, therefore the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that X causes Y. I'm not claiming that X does not cause Y, I'm simply pointing out there is no evidence to that effect.

Secondly, you are demanding a Negative Proof: a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

What evidence can you provide to support your theory?

<blockquote data-quote="GenSeneca" data-source="post: 174668" data-attributes="member: 1169">First of all, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that X causes Y, therefore the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that X causes Y. I&#039;m not claiming that X does not cause Y, I&#039;m simply pointing out there is no evidence to that effect. Secondly, you are demanding a <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof" target="_blank">Negative Proof</a>: a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:&nbsp; &nbsp; X is true because there is no proof that X is false. If the only evidence for something&#039;s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God&#039;s existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. What evidence can you provide to support your theory?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GenSeneca, post: 174668, member: 1169"] First of all, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that X causes Y, therefore the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that X causes Y. I'm not claiming that X does not cause Y, I'm simply pointing out there is no evidence to that effect. Secondly, you are demanding a [B][URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof"]Negative Proof[/URL][/B]: [I]a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:[/I] [INDENT][I]X is true because there is no proof that X is false. [/I][/INDENT] [INDENT][I]If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. [/I][/INDENT] What evidence can you provide to support your theory? [/QUOTE]

Verification