Comment by threatofrain
5 years ago
This has become a meta-debate, but I'd argue that the burden of proof is on anyone who wants something. If the thing you want is to get to the bottom of a question, then it's your own desire which has imposed that burden on you.
If you want something, it would be a shame if you didn't get it because an internet proponent failed to detail their arguments.
If you want me to believe something, it's up to you to convince me, otherwise I have no obligation to believe it based on what you've said. It doesn't mean I have or don't have an obligation to believe it in general, only that I do not based on what you said. This is all I meant. That someone should look into something they're interested in is orthogonal to burden of proof. One can still look into something while being unconvinced by something because someone didn't give an argument. It's only a judgement that their contribution is not useful in the investigation and is no indication that the investigation does or doesn't continue despite that.
Nobody has any obligations to prove anything here; that's not the premise of this space. You'd have more luck extracting clarifications from me if you either (a) wrote more civilly or (b) directly challenged what I wrote with some kind of rebuttal. You've instead chosen the least productive rhetorical path.
Nobody has any obligations to prove anything, only if they want to convince anyone of anything.
What do you think is uncivil about accurately characterizing your post?
I have no interest in challenging what you said. As I said, I don't necessarily disagree. I just think throwing out unjustified opinions isn't useful or interesting and it would be better if you had said why you think what you do.
3 replies →