Talk:Burden of proof (logical fallacy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] The only position
In the current article one can find the following line: Weak atheism is the only position that does not have a burden of proof, because there is no belief in weak atheism to prove. In the previous version (before the last edit) the line was as follows: (…) and the Agnosticism (in fact, Weak agnosticism) position is the only one that does not have a burden of proof. It seems this Wikipedia-article is being used by some individuals in defence of their own set of beliefs/ideas, claiming only their (two different!) stances have no burden of proof. Wouldn’t it be fun in a discussion, not having to prove anything?
Yet, in a discussion, everyone who does a claim has a burden of proof concerning this assertion, whether one is a Theist, an Atheist, a Gnost or an Agnost. Without it, a debate will simply 'bleed to death'. Also the statement there is no belief in (weak) atheism/agnosticism/theism/etc to prove is one that has a burden of proof, even more since it is not a core doctrine of rhetoric. In any case, it is not Wikipedia’s task to claim which single theological or philosophical position is cleared from the burden of proof. Regarding logical fallacies, Wikipedia her task is just about addressing which fallacies exist.
Therefore, I will change back this article, and I will delete some lines which are a bit biased, so this article will take a more neutral position concerning the current debate between Theists and Atheists, while still explaining the fallacy of the excluded middle concerning the burden of proof (logical fallacy). If someone has a better suggestion for the article, feel free to jump in! Sincerely, Averroes 14:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The example
The original example was not meant to use this article as a defense of a belief, but simply an example of the fallacy. The point is that there IS a position in that particular philosophical debate which is not making a claim, and hence has no burden of proof. The referenced Wikipedia articles were meant to define those terms such as Atheist, Agnostic, etc., so that the one without the burden of proof would be apparent to the reader. However, it seems as though the editors of this article suffer from the exact fallacy that is being described. Isn't that ironic. In any event, I am not changing the article back, since the example seems to be a bit too controversial, which was not the original intention. Irritate 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] merge to Negative proof
i decided to be bold and merge, i will understand if its reverted Spencerk 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re-starting article
As you can see I have re-started this article. I think there's quite a bit to be said, and have started to say it, but it could do with additions. I don't think it duplicates the old merged material, but to be honest I haven't looked at it because until I re-started this article the history was invisible. NBeale 23:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Could you use smaller, less fancy words that I can understand :(((
