Since it came up lately, I thought I'd take an opportunity to explain the burden of proof. Though I doubt any of my regular readers will need it.
The burden of proof refers to whose job it is to prove something when a claim is made. Some say it's on the person making the claim to prove what they are saying is right. Others say it is up to the person hearing the claim to "prove them wrong".
To demonstrate which is correct, here is an example.
"You owe me ten thousand dollars. Pay up."
Is it up to hypothetical-me to prove hypothetical-you has a $10,000 debt, or up to hypothetical-you to prove the claim false and that there is no $10,000 debt?
Obviously the former.
Now this comes up in political and religious debates all the time, with articles of faith like "trickle down economics" and so on. But the same rule applies, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.
Case in point, this oft-repeated conversation.
"Obama is a muslim!"
"Wow, really? Prove it."
"No, prove me wrong."
And the matching one about his frequently shown birth certificate.
Or the religious version:
"All my beliefs are true, all yours are false".
"How insulting. Prove it."
"You can't prove my god doesn't exist"
"I don't have to, and you can't prove my god doesn't exist"
*cue the holy war*
Or the similar version vs atheists.
What inspired this exploration of supporting our claims if we want to convince others? You guessed it, exposure to Glen Beck and his completely unsubstantiated historical revisionism and alternative version of reality.
Thanks for listening.
Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.