This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burden of proof (philosophy) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Legal burden of proof was split to Philosophic burden of proof on 17:43, February 16, 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Legal burden of proof. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The article recently read thus.
I removed the final sentence, because it isn't true. Intuitionism and Constructivism allow one to conclude NOT (Ex)Px whenever (Ex)Px entails a contradiction. Whoever added this was presumably thinking about the fact that once cannot conclude (Ex)Px when NOT (Ex)Px entails a contradiction.
I'm not sure why the "citation needed" tag is there. Whoever added it seems to require a citation for a very basic example of indirect argument. Phiwum ( talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For as long as it talk of Matt Dillahunty and "cant prove a negative" and other such nonsense. Cake ( talk) 12:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close, no rationale for the proposed move has been given. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Philosophic burden of proof → Burden of proof (philosophy) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand that probability does not play a role in this article. For example, if I said that the person writing this very sentence is human then the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I am human, and that not an alien or a robot is writing this? The probablity that the person who writes this is human is more than 99.9% to me, (as of 2017 because robots improve in the course of years). But still the burden of proof would be on me, because I make a claim, according to this article? This contradicts common sense to me. Andries ( talk) 13:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that assigning probability to a statement depends on one's world view and in this particular case there may be people who believe strongly in aliens who will asssign the chance that an alien is writing this as 1% instead of 0.000001%. See e.g. UFO religion. Andries ( talk) 13:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a bit of an unaddressed problem at the intersection of logic and probability: Logical inferences do not preserve probability ascriptions. For instance, given a sound a deductive argument, the probability of the conclusion is not a function of the probability of either of the two premises. Work on this issue gets very complicated, however, and far beyond the scope of a typical encyclopedia article on this subject. Approaching ( talk) 10:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Burden of proof (philosophy) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Legal burden of proof was split to Philosophic burden of proof on 17:43, February 16, 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Legal burden of proof. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The article recently read thus.
I removed the final sentence, because it isn't true. Intuitionism and Constructivism allow one to conclude NOT (Ex)Px whenever (Ex)Px entails a contradiction. Whoever added this was presumably thinking about the fact that once cannot conclude (Ex)Px when NOT (Ex)Px entails a contradiction.
I'm not sure why the "citation needed" tag is there. Whoever added it seems to require a citation for a very basic example of indirect argument. Phiwum ( talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
For as long as it talk of Matt Dillahunty and "cant prove a negative" and other such nonsense. Cake ( talk) 12:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close, no rationale for the proposed move has been given. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Philosophic burden of proof → Burden of proof (philosophy) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) 203.109.162.133 ( talk) 20:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand that probability does not play a role in this article. For example, if I said that the person writing this very sentence is human then the burden of proof would be on me to prove that I am human, and that not an alien or a robot is writing this? The probablity that the person who writes this is human is more than 99.9% to me, (as of 2017 because robots improve in the course of years). But still the burden of proof would be on me, because I make a claim, according to this article? This contradicts common sense to me. Andries ( talk) 13:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that assigning probability to a statement depends on one's world view and in this particular case there may be people who believe strongly in aliens who will asssign the chance that an alien is writing this as 1% instead of 0.000001%. See e.g. UFO religion. Andries ( talk) 13:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a bit of an unaddressed problem at the intersection of logic and probability: Logical inferences do not preserve probability ascriptions. For instance, given a sound a deductive argument, the probability of the conclusion is not a function of the probability of either of the two premises. Work on this issue gets very complicated, however, and far beyond the scope of a typical encyclopedia article on this subject. Approaching ( talk) 10:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)