Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

added 28 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Meanach
Meanach
  • 2.3k
  • 7
  • 36

I have been surprised to find that some people doubt this principle. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the speaker, not with the one who negates. I cite Russell's Teapot and Hitchen's Razor. Also Occam's Razor provides context to the argument. I have seen no convincing argument against this principle.

I have been surprised to find that some people doubt this principle. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the speaker, not with the one who negates. I cite Russell's Teapot and Hitchen's Razor. Also Occam's Razor. I have seen no convincing argument against this principle.

I have been surprised to find that some people doubt this principle. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the speaker, not with the one who negates. I cite Russell's Teapot and Hitchen's Razor. Occam's Razor provides context to the argument. I have seen no convincing argument against this principle.

Became Hot Network Question
Source Link
Meanach
Meanach
  • 2.3k
  • 7
  • 36

What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?

I have been surprised to find that some people doubt this principle. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the speaker, not with the one who negates. I cite Russell's Teapot and Hitchen's Razor. Also Occam's Razor. I have seen no convincing argument against this principle.