Burden Of Proof

Page: METAPhilosophy
Relevance: Justified Cognitive

Just because someone denies something, does that mean there's no burden of proof?

Many try to evade by saying, 'If it exists, then prove it.' But if I believe it doesn't exist, how do I prove it? So, is there no burden to prove for those who deny the existence of something? Is that it?

If you reject something, it doesn't mean you're free to claim, 'No need to prove something that consider doesn't exists.'

BUT, PROVE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO BE EXISTS❗️

Actually, when someone asserts something, there should be a reason.

And asserting the absence of something also requires a reason (burden of proof). It's just generally not understood.

If someone rejects something, at the very least there should be evidence showing the impossibility of 'its existence.'

Simply put, prove the absence of traces of something considered non-existent.

✅ Let's avoid speaking without evidence, assuming proof isn't necessary; that's how it is.

❇️ For example, 'There was a duck-headed apple strolling along the roadside this morning.'

Then someone refutes it by asserting, 'That didn't happen.'

I would counter with, 'Prove your denial.'

They should then say, 'There are no signs characterizing an apple (here, they must show the absence of signs - apple tracks, head tracks, etc.).'

✅ In short, denial still requires proof. Specifically, proof of 'impossibility,' because those making the claim are proving 'possibility of existence,' thus those refuting the claim need to prove the impossibility of its existence.

❇️ This doesn't mean those who reject don't need to prove; they still need to prove the absence of its traces, its impossibility.