3 ms·

So, is burden of proof a good thing ? It's fine for me to listen to an argument without proof. If i'm interested, i could discover myself in many cases. Provi

So, is burden of proof a good thing ? It's fine for me to listen to an argument without proof. If i'm interested, i could discover myself in many cases. Providing a proof is not free knowledge. Providing an argument is free. I can relate me in today's conversations. Sometimes i provide an argument for the topic. Maybe i'm not interested into the details of the why, i just leave it for viewer to know the "what", not the "why", and i'm fine with it.

zaroth 8y ago
> Providing a proof is not free knowledge. Providing an argument is free. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Formulating a cohesive statement requires effort, which can include supporting evidence if you are aware of it. If you make claims and not only fail to support your case but don’t even know yourself if what you’re saying is true, that’s called conjecture. It can be entertaining but is unlikely to be persuasive. If you intend to persuade your audience, the audience should demand proof and you should have to provide it.
- technothrasher 8y ago
  Or more concisely, Hitchens' Razor: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  - revskill 8y ago
    My point is more like this: If i know the one who make argument could prove it, i'd love to pay it. It's not free to me in this case.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > If i know the one who make argument could prove it, Unless they do, you don't know they can.
- revskill 8y ago
  OK, for example, there's an argument in tech world about one technology: Does X scale ? or Is X faster than Y ?... Providing a details answer on these kinds of arguments require a bunch of technical details, man hours of works,... And on my side, i'd like to pay for those details if it's worth for my choice. Even if the person who said it doesn't say about evidence, i don't require him to provide it for free for me.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    It’s when the other person wants to convince you, that they take on the burden of proof and need to present the evidence. They shouldn’t expect you to just believe them. This is closely related to the fallacy of “argument from ignorance”.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  In my view, the audience's negotiating position still isn't inherently strong enough to demand a performance to prove a claim. Shouldn't burden first and foremost be decided by willingness to pay? In a sense WSJ is making claims with snippets of their article and headlines. Do they have a burden to prove themselves by revealing the rest of the article to me, as well as their source material? Without me even paying? But what if WSJ isn't motivated to do anything for me unless I pay them? Are they failing their burden?

zaroth 8y ago

> Providing a proof is not free knowledge. Providing an argument is free. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Formulating a cohesive statement requires effort, which can include supporting evidence if you are aware of it. If you make claims and not only fail to support your case but don’t even know yourself if what you’re saying is true, that’s called conjecture. It can be entertaining but is unlikely to be persuasive. If you intend to persuade your audience, the audience should demand proof and you should have to provide it.

technothrasher 8y ago
Or more concisely, Hitchens' Razor: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- revskill 8y ago
  My point is more like this: If i know the one who make argument could prove it, i'd love to pay it. It's not free to me in this case.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If i know the one who make argument could prove it, Unless they do, you don't know they can.
revskill 8y ago
OK, for example, there's an argument in tech world about one technology: Does X scale ? or Is X faster than Y ?... Providing a details answer on these kinds of arguments require a bunch of technical details, man hours of works,... And on my side, i'd like to pay for those details if it's worth for my choice. Even if the person who said it doesn't say about evidence, i don't require him to provide it for free for me.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  It’s when the other person wants to convince you, that they take on the burden of proof and need to present the evidence. They shouldn’t expect you to just believe them. This is closely related to the fallacy of “argument from ignorance”.
threatofrain 8y ago
In my view, the audience's negotiating position still isn't inherently strong enough to demand a performance to prove a claim. Shouldn't burden first and foremost be decided by willingness to pay? In a sense WSJ is making claims with snippets of their article and headlines. Do they have a burden to prove themselves by revealing the rest of the article to me, as well as their source material? Without me even paying? But what if WSJ isn't motivated to do anything for me unless I pay them? Are they failing their burden?