I chose one from Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion called Shifting the burden of proof. Basically, when one is in an argument, it is usually easier to ask the other person to disprove the claim rather than proving it themselves. If it cannot be disproved so it becomes mistakenly believed for a valid argument without even having the need to prove it yourself.
An example is the debate on the existence of God. One side claims that there is no way to disprove that God exist therefore God exists. However the same argument can be made for the other side. There is no way to disprove that God does not exists therefore God does not exist. Instead of proving a certain side, the one making the claim simply just asks the other side to disprove them and because it is impossible to do so, it makes their claim seem valid although it’s a fallacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As controversial as the topic of God's existence is, I find it to be a perfect example for this topic you're addressing, especially because this "Shifting the burden of proof" is equal for people who are on both sides of the dispute in this case. I also like this post because it makes the topic easier to understand. I recognize that reading other people's posts makes the subject easier to understand than just by reading from the book. It's helpful to see someone take the topic and shorten it down and simplify it, while including a good example, something the book doesn't do.
ReplyDelete