OK Einsteins...Debate This Topic...

[KID ROCK1]

Yeah, I found this question at another board but if you think about it, who's right and who's wrong...

I'm in an argument with someone over which side burden of proof falls on between a positive and negative statement
For example, if I said, "The balloon exists" and someone else said "The balloon does not exist", which side would have to prove theirs?

Would the status quo be non-existence until proof? Or would both side have to prove it in order for one to claim something else other than indifference or ignorance?
 
~i~

 

[Angel]

I want a balloon!

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Holy shit

KidRock discovers epistomology.

what is the world coming to?

 

[lavender]

 

[freakygirl]

I want a balloon!

me too! a red one.. please

 

[freakygirl]

It's called burden shifting. There is an ideological presumption in favor of the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Once the affirmative presents a prima facie case for their side then it is up to the negative of the statement to provide a defense or to negate an element of the affirmative's case. As the game continues, the burden continually shifts.

ummm yeah.. what she said.. *nods*

 

[naudiz]

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

You can prove something exists by presenting it. You can't prove something doesn't exist by presenting scenarios in which it doesn't occur because those scenarios can't possibly encompass all of existence as we do (and don't) know it. Taking 'the balloon does/does not exist' analogy: if you can produce the balloon in question, then you can prove it exists pretty easily. If you claim the balloon doesn't exist because you've never heard or read evidence that there was a balloon, the most you can prove is that you've never seen evidence. Drawing the conclusion that because you've never seen evidence of the balloon it doesn't exist is purely subjective. Logical, sure, but subjective. If the balloon is right there in front of your face, that's an objective observation.

I don't know if there is an official point of order here, but I personally would say that burden of proof falls upon the person supplying the positive argument, since the person supplying the negative argument can't supply proof, they can only supply a lack of evidence in a finite number of situations.

Of course, this argument isn't absolute. Say someone claims the balloon exists and was hanging out on the corner of 15th and Main at four o'clock on Tuesday, and the person denying this produces a photograph of said street corner at said time on said date and there is, in fact, no balloon in the vicinity. Does it mean the balloon doesn't exist? That can't be objectively concluded from the evidence given. What is proven is that the balloon didn't exist in this location at this time under the circumstances in which we would call it a balloon.

So what am I saying, except that I've got way too much time on my hands and am bored out of my gourd?

I don't know. Now I want a balloon, too.

 

[Mensa]

You can't prove a negative

All it takes is for one "prick" to come along and let alll the air out of your proof.

 

[Guru]

 

[Laurel]

me too! a red one.. please

Did any of you watch that movie "The Red Balloon" in school?

Have you seen that foreign movie "The White Balloon"?

Has anyone ever been in a hot air balloon?

 

[Natalie Nessus]

Did any of you watch that movie "The Red Balloon" in school?

Have you seen that foreign movie "The White Balloon"?

Has anyone ever been in a hot air balloon?

Ah...'The Red balloon' ...memories

I have been in a hot air balloon and enjoyed champagne as the Sun came up

 

[freakygirl]

Did any of you watch that movie "The Red Balloon" in school?

Have you seen that foreign movie "The White Balloon"?

Has anyone ever been in a hot air balloon?

The Red Balloon scared me..

 

[Lord Emu]

I say the baloon does not exist. The famous line "I think therfore I am." prooves to me that I am real but what about the rest of the world. Everything around me can be illusions of the senses I can't proove that anything exists with out my senses but I can proove I exist.

 

[Mensa]

This should prove interesting

I say the baloon does not exist. The famous line "I think therfore I am." prooves to me that I am real but what about the rest of the world. Everything around me can be illusions of the senses I can't proove that anything exists with out my senses but I can proove I exist.

Okay! Prove it!

 

[XXplorher]

Lavender impresses once again (watch out – my pecker is on the loose!)
Prove me the balloon. Period.


Oh – and the Red Balloon made me cry (no – I’m dead serious!)

 

[Ordinary Bob]

I don't believe this thread exists.

But then, I wouldn't exist!


Therefore, I am not really responding to this thread! ????

*Oh fuck! My brain just slipped a gear....*

 

[Mensa]

Not to worry

*Oh fuck! My brain just slipped a gear....*

That's okay! It just means you'll fit right in here.

 

[Guru]

 

[Mensa]

Did I read that right?

I can't proove that anything exists with out my senses

Did Lord Emu just say that he didn't have any sense?

 

[Mensa]

The view from afar

"The Red Balloon" is a French film. Doesn't that make it a foreign movie?

Not if you come from France it isn't.

 

[EmeraldEyes]

For example, if I said, "The balloon exists" and someone else said "The balloon does not exist", which side would have to prove theirs?

Better yet, who cares?

 

[sch00lteacher]

me too! a red one.. please

 

[Lancaster]

Burden of proof depends upon the context of the statements being made.
In an English court of law, it would depend on the standing in court of the respective persons, not on the statements themselves.
More tea vicar?

 

[christophe]

ive actually ridden on a hot air balloon, rather fun, thank god it did exist or it would have been a really short trip

 

[SimplySouthern]

Damn...that girl is good!!!

It's called burden shifting. There is an ideological presumption in favor of the negative. The affirmative has the burden of proof. Once the affirmative presents a prima facie case for their side then it is up to the negative of the statement to provide a defense or to negate an element of the affirmative's case. As the game continues, the burden continually shifts.

Yep, she's right.

In layman's terms, you offer your "proof" and then the dissenter offers their proof to refute your proof....and then, you argue like hell until you come to blows and decide to settle it with a nice slippery round of naked Criso twister.

What? That never happens to anyone but me?