Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

What propositions require a BoP?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 10:01:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I had a thought, and I want to see what other people think.

Often times, it's stated "Bare assertions require a BoP". But if that's the case, doesn't this assertion need a BoP? Now, it seems impossible for there to be an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere. But then that means that some assertions do not require a BoP. But if that's the case, how are we to know what statements require a BoP, and which don't?

P1: EITHER "All propositions require a BoP" OR "Some propositions do not require a BoP."
P2: "All propositions require a BoP" is false.
C: .'. Some propositions do not require a BoP.

This is a valid disjunctive syllogism. The first premise deals with opposing contradictory statements (statements which differ in quantity and quality) and thus is logically true. The second premise is also true, as shown above.

So then what propositions require a BoP, and which don't? Some would say that self-evident propositions don't require a BoP. But then does that proposition require a BoP? If not, then is it self evident that "Self evident propositions do not require a BoP"? But it seems we could repeat this ad infinitum. Also, who determines what statements are self-evident, and which are not? Can't someone just say "no, that's not self-evident"? Trying to show someone the truth of something which really is self-evident defeats the purpose, and concedes the point.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 10:05:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There isn't any infinite regress though. The buck stops with "all assertions should have a BoP".
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 10:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 10:05:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
There isn't any infinite regress though. The buck stops with "all assertions should have a BoP".

I mean, that covers everything . . . ties everything to sense.

...and then there's your sense for the above assertion. All right, I get you. Let's not be silly about this, though, and assume there's some common sense to be found between people. You're hardly going to prove your every sentence.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 10:39:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/25/2014 10:01:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I had a thought, and I want to see what other people think.

Often times, it's stated "Bare assertions require a BoP". But if that's the case, doesn't this assertion need a BoP? Now, it seems impossible for there to be an infinite regress, so it has to stop somewhere. But then that means that some assertions do not require a BoP. But if that's the case, how are we to know what statements require a BoP, and which don't?

P1: EITHER "All propositions require a BoP" OR "Some propositions do not require a BoP."
P2: "All propositions require a BoP" is false.
C: .'. Some propositions do not require a BoP.

This is a valid disjunctive syllogism. The first premise deals with opposing contradictory statements (statements which differ in quantity and quality) and thus is logically true. The second premise is also true, as shown above.

So then what propositions require a BoP, and which don't? Some would say that self-evident propositions don't require a BoP. But then does that proposition require a BoP? If not, then is it self evident that "Self evident propositions do not require a BoP"? But it seems we could repeat this ad infinitum. Also, who determines what statements are self-evident, and which are not? Can't someone just say "no, that's not self-evident"? Trying to show someone the truth of something which really is self-evident defeats the purpose, and concedes the point.

All claims require a warrant.

Even the claim that all positive claims have a BoP.

Do you think that the claim "All claims require a warrant" has been insufficiently proved?

Do you have any claims which you don't think require a warrant?

And yes, BoP is a warrant. The point is, that all positive claims require a justification for the claim. What is sufficient for that varies from item to item.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2014 10:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An axiomatic claim, it could be argued, has no BoP...but that is technically wrong. Self-evidence statements that can be accepted axiomatically STILL have a warrant.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 9:05:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
All of this BOP nonsense comes down to this:

If you want to convince someone of something, then the burden is on you to convince them of it, that is all of it.

I keep being told I carry the burden of proof because I am a theist, but I don't because I couldn't care less if you are a theist or not. In a court of law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor has the burden of proof simply because the prosecutor wants to convince the judge or jury.

This game of tossing out a negative claim, insisting that it is true, and claiming the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees is pure contrived nonsense. It has nothing to do with "bare assertions" or "self-evidence", it has nothing to do with "positive" or "negative" claims, if you want to convince someone of a negative claim then you have the burden of proof. That is all there is to it.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:04:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"All propositions require a BoP" does require a BoP, there's nothing contradictory in that. BoP means that the proposition must be founded upon something; mustn't be an empty assumption. A proposition requiring BoP isn't baseless; there's plenty of reasoning behind it.

"it seems impossible for there to be an infinite regress"

Language a priori is an infinite regress. What do expect to find in words other than requiring further definitions, or in explanations but requiring explanations for themselves?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:05:01 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
All of this BOP nonsense comes down to this:

If you want to convince someone of something, then the burden is on you to convince them of it, that is all of it.

I keep being told I carry the burden of proof because I am a theist, but I don't because I couldn't care less if you are a theist or not. In a court of law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor has the burden of proof simply because the prosecutor wants to convince the judge or jury.

This game of tossing out a negative claim, insisting that it is true, and claiming the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees is pure contrived nonsense. It has nothing to do with "bare assertions" or "self-evidence", it has nothing to do with "positive" or "negative" claims, if you want to convince someone of a negative claim then you have the burden of proof. That is all there is to it.

Couple things:

1, the legal burden of proof has more reasoning than you're indicating. Some countries have had the burden be on the accused.

2, I've never heard anyone (well, I've probably heard SOMEONE, but it certainly hasnt' been common) toss out the negative claim but deny BoP. I HAVE seen, in general, the point being made that the positive claim has no evidence, and therefore no reason to believe in it. It goes against parsimony to go with the more complicated answer without any reason.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 1:43:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
BoP is on all those who have PROOFS :D
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~