Quote:
Originally Posted by ptgatsby
I think it is simple - if you can't answer "Why" you believe something as an N, then the N theory is unbalanced. Likewise, if the S can't answer "what does that mean?", then the S isn't balanced.
|
People sometimes decide that the question was not answered, without hearing the other party. If that person doesn't wish to continue the discussion, it would be courteous to restrain from claims that the issue was left "unanswered".
If a person doesn't
need some conclusion, he/she can take a "prove me" -attitude and be however demanding on the quality of explanation given. Now there's a practical truth that I try to remember more often.
The discussion context affects the burden of proof in other ways, too. Judical systems place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and scientifical systems place it on the one presenting hyphothesis. This is motivated by the potential damage caused by unsubstantiated claims and the needs for stability.
I may have the problem of considering some question on a whim, without understanding how question would affect the other party. If I would see that the other party would indeed suffer from adopting (or considering) erroneous views, I would recognize that the burden of proof lies on me. Having to use unfamiliar functions to solve the case can be a mild source of suffering, too.
I am starting to like the relativistic view more, in the meaning that perhaps both parties are right if neither are proven wrong. It has the practical use of maintaining a measure of peace.