The debate "Hitchens' razor is true" was started by
November 14, 2015, 2:15 am.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Sosocratese posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese, PsychDave, pajrc1234, DannyknowsItAll, wmgreen00, Sli and 4 visitors agree.
AngryBlogger and 2 visitors disagree.
Where did I make a strawman argument? I presented no opposing argument which I could have misrepresented.... You should probably look up the definition of a term before using it.... Also the ad hominem fallacy you used doesn't really strengthen your unreasoned, unsupported, assertion (proof by assertion fallacy). See, within a single sentence you committed two logical fallacies...what does that say about your reasoning skills?
No, but keep in making strawman arguments you little b*tch
I don't really want to devolve this into another "is there a God" topic. I'd simply like to see how people think burden of proof works, for any claim.
Climate change, government conspiracy, etc... who has the greater burden, the person advocating X exists, or the person denying X? Are there special circumstances where the burden is reversed?
Hitchens' razor is a epistemological razor based on the Latin proverb "quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur". Hitchens translated it to the more colloquial "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is often seen as a means to assign burden of proof in a debate. The traditional interpretation is that he who makes the grander claim has the burden of proof.