Monday, September 2, 2013 8:18:49 AM
Rodin, yes we understand that principle but generally it's used for something that is unexpected. For example if I say my 1995 Chevy was built in Michigan and you say "prove it" is quite a different thing than if I say it was specially built in France and you asked for proof. The Chevy built in Michigan in 95 is with reason of what we know. Why would you think it wasn`t built in Michigan? Actually proving this particular car was built in Michigan may be very difficult. Do you see the distinction? So I think what folks and myself are saying is that these rules are within reason for what we know. Also, read the notes at the bottom of the link
Monday, September 2, 2013 5:03:55 AM
Gerry, the burden of proof falls on the person making the original claim. I was being a critic of that claim. Alex Michalos, in "Principles of Logic" states: "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"
That sounds like an interesting book, I'll definitely keep an eye open for it.