If I were to accuse a random person of murder, without any reason to do so, would anyone insist that the person ought to show that they are not a murderer?
I would be making a claim without evidence, one that clearly ought to be dismissed without a need for any evidence to counter it.
As human beings, when we first hear this quote we instantly agree to it and make a correlation with science. But when we actually listen to this quote and ponder about it, we figure we cannot entirely agree with this quote or disagree with it completely. This quote brings about various knowledge issues and in some cases you agree and some cases you cannot. The knowledge issues that come up are – science, history, human science, religion, belief, and faith.
If there is a lack of any kind of evidence, I think it's common sense to assume that a claim should be dismissed. One must provide some kind of evidence for their claim. Otherwise, anyone could claim anything and the world would descend into madness. Evidence is mandatory for any claim.
Yes, claims without evidence can be dismissed without providing evidence, because without evidence, the claim might not as well exist. However, a person's own testimony can be evidence, as long as it is something that they have seen with their own eyes or heard with their ears. But without even that, a claim is baseless and should be dismissed.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without providing evidence. Although there are people and circumstances that cause evidence to not be available after a crime, there is usually some kind of trace. But without evidence it is fair to legally dismiss a claim. It is the hope that all innocent parties have evidence in their favor.
Claims are made all the time by all sorts of people about all sorts of things but if we have no evidence which supports a claim, how are we to judge if that claim is true. Evidence provides us with the means of establishing what is true, what is false and what is mere opinion. Scepticism is the default position until there is compelling evidence and in cases where no evidence is presented AT ALL, then a claim may be dismissed. The more extraordinary the claim, the more compelling the evidence has to be.
And also define evidence? Evidence like things that just support your claim? Which could also mean using logical statements (think like math proofs) to prove your point. Or is it things like statistics and data that we can use to compare? And why should the claim itself be dismissed? Ok bye.
A claim without evidence should be considered a possibility and remain unresolved until evidence is found, whether it's for or against. You can believe the claim to be true or false, so long as you're aware that your position is not evidence based. Whether a claim without evidence has no merit is a matter of opinion. If you dismiss the claim at face value, you'll never find the answer. If you investigate the matter further you might just come to understand what would constitute the evidence you need, and in time you might find an answer. Even if the claim remains unresolved indefinitely, for some it may open the mind or inspire new ideas.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
Apparently, not all things asserted without evidence are dismissed,
although, they, certainly, can be. Perhaps, evidence is needed when we
seek factual truth, but we often seek other things - justice, comfort,
safety, trust. Often, there is no evidence other than words. Often
requiring evidence would undermine our goals