Changes

In certain types of a dispute the ''[[status quo]]'' is often accepted as the norm, and defenders of the norm need not prove that it is true. Challengers to the norm have the burden of proof.

In certain types of a dispute the ''[[status quo]]'' is often accepted as the norm, and defenders of the norm need not prove that it is true. Challengers to the norm have the burden of proof.

In polite debate, the person making an assertion carries the burden of proof - after all, no debate can begin unless the person provides ground for debate.  Without evidence provided, an assertion can generally be rejected out of hand.

In polite debate, the person making an assertion carries the burden of proof - after all, no debate can begin unless the person provides ground for debate.  Without evidence provided, an assertion can generally be rejected out of hand. For example, a person asserting the reality of [[reincarnation]] has the burden of proof; without such proof, there is no reason to believe in it. This is certainly true if someone makes an assertion that is not [[falsifiable]], since those on the other side cannot be expected to falsify the unfalsifiable.

In some forums, the burden of proof is reversed, and an assertion is allowed to stand unless disproof is offered. Complaints against this sort of thing in jurisprudence led to the American standard of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]."  

In some forums, the burden of proof is reversed, and an assertion is allowed to stand unless disproof is offered. Complaints against this sort of thing in jurisprudence led to the American standard of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]."