/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Who ever makes the claim first has to defend it, it's fairly simple. It falls on the person who starts it because he must uphold that he is correct, in response to being told he isn't.

Of course this is just a tool or possibility in an argument. Proof of burden can fall onto the person denying the claim by continuing to prove evidence to the contrary, there is nothing that defines proof of burden as being a rule.

It would be very disruptive to any field of inquiry and to society if people could make wild claims without accountability. Imagine being accused of murder, there would have to be an investigation not because of any evidence that you were guilty but simply because the accusation.

If the burden of proof lay upon the defendant then any claim would be have to be assumed as valid until it was proven otherwise.

>>6502

>>6503

But what if, for example, I claim something first, but it's a negative claim.

For example:

People can't think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Since it's a negative claim, wouldn't it be harder to prove than the reverse (positive claim of the same statement)?

Thanks for being patient with my autism, I'm just starting the presocratics

>>6504

>Since it's a negative claim, wouldn't it be harder to prove than the reverse (positive claim of the same statement)?

Define positive.

>>6505

>People CAN'T think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Negative claim

>People CAN think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Positive claim

I hope this clears it up. Wouldn't the negative be harder to prove?