Re:They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Becaus...
by close04 on Friday May 31, 2019 @06:50PM
(#20065793)
> Does it matter where the burden lies
> the burden of proof is, practically, often on the person who needs to make a decision
You're contradicting a logical principle that is strong enough to be put in actual law.
It's the difference between being right and pretending or hoping you're right. Or hoping that the other guy is wrong.
> The premise of the entire article seems to rely on what might be a fallacy.
Just doesn't have the same righteous ring to it :).
You have a decision to make, and Bob makes a claim which could influence that decision.
Does it matter where the burden lies? You have to make the decision, and Bob has presented new information but doesn't well substantiate it.
My point is this: From a pure reason standpoint, I think it's fair to always assume the negative when there is not evidence for a positive claim. But in the real world where you have to achieve real goals based on partial knowledge, reason would dictate that you sometimes evaluate and consider claims that are not yet well substantiated, and you might have to do the legwork to substantiate the claim yourself (if you decide there is enough merit and value in doing that substantiation).
My point is the burden of proof is, practically, often on the person who needs to make a decision based on information and not on the person who makes a claim with related information.
---
For Alpha, I didn't have something specific in mind but some kind of combination of "light the atmosphere on fire" and more crackpot "your particle accelerator will create a black-hole" were definitely both in the back of my mind.