How to Think Rationally

Who Has Burden of Proof?

     Anyone who makes a claim of truth has a burden of proof. 

Saying "X exists/is true" adopts a burden of proof. 

Saying "X does not exist/is not true" adopts a burden of proof. 

Saying "I do not know if X exists/ is true or not" does not adopt a burden of proof in regards to whether that thing is true or not. It is a neutral statement in regard to the subject of the sentence.

    The subject of the statement is whether X is true or not. 

   The subject of the statement is NOT whether that person personally believes or not.

    Whether or not the person really believes is a different and separate matter of truth that can be questioned. But if you are claiming that someone is being dishonest, that is a claim of truth and adopts a burden of proof. 

The purpose of conversation is not to determine if the speaker actually believes what they are saying. Such a consideration cannot be proven, and people do not tend to need to prove that they believe what they say. It is a pointless consideration, anyway. 

A common misconception is that a "positive claim" is something that claims something positive, and a "negative claim" is something that claims something negative.

Such as "God does not exist," being a negative claim. 

THIS IS FALSE. 

In concept, there is no such thing as a "negative claim" in consideration of whether something adopts a burden of proof. This is a confusion between burden of proof and simply positivity (good) and negativity (bad). 

In regards to whether something has a burden of proof, all claims are positive claims. Something is either a positive claim or not a claim. There is no such thing as "negative claims" in the sense of defining claims themselves. 

Don't confuse the meanings:

1. Positive: Characterized by possession

2. Positive: Constructive, optimistic, or confident.

In regards to burden of proof, we are only concerned with the former definition and not the latter. Whether or not the claim possesses a statement of truth.