The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. However, this can take the form of either a negative or positive assertion.
A positive assertion example would be, "Jesus is a historical person that actually existed."
A negative assertion example would be, "Jesus is not a historical person and he never actually existed."
Both types of assertions and both of these examples carry a burden of proof for the person making the assertion.
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood.
So you're wrong Percepi.
If you make a negative claim with respect to refuting a positive claim, then you assume a burden of proof for your negative claim.
In other words, use assume a burden of proof obligation when making a negative claim in an epistemic dispute.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. However, this can take the form of either a negative or positive assertion.
A positive assertion example would be, "Jesus is a historical person that actually existed."
A negative assertion example would be, "Jesus is not a historical person and he never actually existed."
Both types of assertions and both of these examples carry a burden of proof for the person making the assertion.
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood.
So you're wrong Percepi.
If you make a negative claim with respect to refuting a positive claim, then you assume a burden of proof for your negative claim.
In other words, use assume a burden of proof obligation when making a negative claim in an epistemic dispute.
1. "There's no evidence for this Shedeur."
In which case he'd be wrong. Or...
2. "There is evidence for this Shedeur, but not enough to make me believe."
In which case the exact amount of evidence he needs to believe in this Shedeur is neither known, nor does it affect the amount of evidence another needs to believe in this Shedeur. So it seems a matter of personal taste.