Saturday, December 4, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Fallacy of the Day - Burden of Proof
Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
More at Nizkor Project
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
- Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
- Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).
More at Nizkor Project
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Aspie Community Question
"The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community, because it is the community which is most easily mistreated." -Bayard Rustin, 1986
"The Aspie community is even more easily mistreated." - Erik Anderson, 2010
"The Aspie community is even more easily mistreated." - Erik Anderson, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
They Still Make Good Films These Days (Just Not In Hollywood) - #7
Example #7: Cropsey
I don't know what is scarier: the images of the mental patients from inside Lakewood State School, the idea that somebody must be responsible for the disappearance of seven children between 1972 and 1987, or the way all the police and family members look like they are lying twenty years later.
I don't know what is scarier: the images of the mental patients from inside Lakewood State School, the idea that somebody must be responsible for the disappearance of seven children between 1972 and 1987, or the way all the police and family members look like they are lying twenty years later.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
A Mix Fit For A King
For those few historic occasions when relaxing on the throne is actually possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)