secularmerlin

If you understand what I really mean then you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy. If you do not then let me be the first to assure you, it's not those kind of balls.

Indeed if. Just demonstrate it and we can clear this whole issue up. Just open the box Mopac.

This thread is not about sexual orientation but if you would like to start one perhaps I will participate. In the mean time do you intend to address the op?

I don't know that there is anything outside the physical universe. No different really.

(Well this can't be good)

This is not about hate poly this is about burden of proof. How about responding to the op? Don't you think that might be an interesting change of pace?

What do you.mean bybdeeper truths exactly?

In the hypothetical situation I described no one was conning you. In real many people will try and a little healthy incredulity is a good defense against such scoundrels.

Occams Razer is just a good rule of thumb. The answer that makes the fewest assumptions is often the correct one (if there is.a gum.wrapper in a rubbish can it may have been pit there by a trained tap dancing eagle but the most likely answer is the one which makes the fewest assumptions that a human put it there) but the only honest answer to most questions is I don't know. Not knowing isn't losing. It's an opportunity to learn and grow. I hope I never know everything because I love to learn. I am comfortable with I don't know if not entirely satisfied with it.

And for all you know they don't have any special knowledge of any kind. They haven't demonstrated any special knowledge or powers of perception. If you assume they do that is yet another unfounded belief you have no evidence for. This is not the kind of thinking that leads to truth it is the sort of thinking that leads to being taken in by con men and snake oil salesmen.

In addition if you form an opinion in the absence of evidence you run a greater risk of falling victim to confirmation bias.

The same is true even if someone does suggest a color. The people in my example don't know what color the ball is and so the color they suggest does not effect your odds of guessing correctly in any way. One says red only one says blue only you say purple or half red half blue or they are both close to right and still you could open the box and find a yellow ball or an orange one or a clear one or it might end up being a cube or a disc. You can form an opinion in the absence of evidence but you cannot achieve knowledge under such circumstances. Pretending to have knowledge is not analogous to knowing and even if you eventually find out that you were "right the whole time" you weren't right you were just lucky (with the understanding that I don't believe in luck and that luck is just a convenient term for the incidental coincidence).

We are completely off topic. I would like to.make myself clear to you but you don't seem recognize any of my words as having the meaning I am trying to convey. Is talking to you an excessive in futility? Are you simply unable to understand any language that does not dogmatically support your belief system? Have you considered that this might be a tad bit arrogant? 

Then we are in agreement. I am not familiar with you but you don't seem the sort to make a red ball statement so we have reached what I consider to be the natural conclusion of this discussion.

Ok then forget stars I'm not trying to get into your conspiracy theories right now and that misses the point. Do you believe that there are an even number of cells in your thumbnail?

Then simply rejecting a claim does not necessarily incur a burden of proof?

All I mean when I use the word in the context of a debate or intellectual discussion is that I do not believe the claim being made unless it can be proved. That does not mean that I am claiming the opposite or even making a claim at all. Part of the difference between us is that I may not use the dictionary definition but I try to be clear what I mean by way of explanation. You use the definition precisely so that you can obfuscate your actual meaning. I have told you before what I mean by reject and you have not suggested an alternative term with the meaning I wish to convey. I don't know is not synonymous with rejecting a claim but neither is it mutually exclusive to I don't know. I can equally reject an unproved premise and a disproved premise. In one case I don't know in the other I am as close to knowing as I can be. In both cases I am rejecting a claim.

If you object to my specific terminology then I still need a word in my lexicon thay conveys my meaning. If you reject a word I would very much appreciate a replacement. Without that conversation grinds to a halt which is the opposite of my desired goal. Why do you continuously try to shut the conversation down?

Some boxes cannot be opened. Some truths cannot be known by evidence. This is a hypothetical situation. In the hypothetical neither you nor the claimant have looked in the box. The claimant has total faith in the ball and it's redness and you have no evidence with which to disprove this hypothesis. The given definition assures that all balls are red so it is reasonable to assume that the ball is red wouldn't you agree?

How exactly does the north star guarantee anything of the sort? I am genuinely baffled by this pisition.

So do you feel that if you reject the claim that the ball is red you have a burden of proof?

If you accept the definition of a ball as a spherical object which is red although it may appear to be another color then you would also have to accept that the ball is red. The claim would be correct if you would just accept the definition. Why would it be dumb for you to accept that definition?

Do you believe there are an even number of stars?

You can lack belief in a particular proposition. 

You misunderstand my position and mistake the rejection of a claim for the assertion of the opposite claim and did not answer my question. Now what makes it stupid?

So you regard not believing in an unsubstantiated claim is effectively believing a falsehood? I'm afraid I must disagree. A lack of belief is not a belief.

I am trying to determine wether or not rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof. 

But I am open to begin believing the truth when any information about the truth is revealed and I never believed a falsehood on the way. 

What makes it stupid? Not trying to be pedantic we are actually getting close to my point i think. Now if you will just fill in the blanks.

We would seem to. It is equally important to me that I believe as few falsehoods as possible and that I believe as many true things as possible. Believing a falsehood is the only guaranteed failure in that case.

The problem isn't the op it is your refusal to acknowledge the true definition of a ball.

So do you feel that is the correct way to approach all claims?

Not being certain is not analogous with failure. The game is not to guess the ball's color but merely not to believe anything false about the ball's color. 

Think nothing of it my friend. You may have felt like we were feuding but I never did. I enjoy a good argument but I'm not much for fighting and so I was never trying to fight with you.

Neither of these would be my ultimate conclusion. I recognize the possibility that the ball could be red but I do not believe that it is. It could be just about any color or combination of colors or there may be no ball at all but I don't believe any of those things either. Under those circumstances I simply feel the most reasonable thing is to not form a belief and instead admit that we don't know.

The claim now under consideration is that the ball will be red if the person opens it because they believe it is red and any color you believe it to be the moment before the box is opened it will be. It may not be red when you open it but that does not mean it will not be red when they open it. 

What if the claim were of a different nature? What if the claim were that the ball would be whatever color you believed it to be the moment before the box was opened?

@rational madman

And you feel that is a good pathway to truth or do you not particularly care if you believe falsehoods? 

They have absolute faith in the redness of the ball. Thay simply know. Unless you can prove them wrong they don't believe you have any reason to deny the balls redness.

Do you feel you need to have a reason to reject the claim?

So no claim needs to be demonstrated ever and all should be accepted equally with or without proof?

But you cannot prove that it isn't red.

Only they rather than he or she. It is merely an androgynous pronoun. It is still only one "they".

So to be clear you reject both their claims ?

In this hypothetical situation they have never looked in the box. They do not need to they have absolute faith in the redness of the ball.

Respect is beside the point when assessing claims. You could respectfully reject a claim or disrespectful accept it but respect is not the issue. So to be clear you reject both claims.

You are skipping ahead. At first it is just one person and a box which contains a ball which they have never seen but which they insist is red.

Their claims are mutually exclusive if you do not accept one then you reject both by default. 

Some string. Cats like to playbwith string.

Their claims are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be right. You may reject one or the other or reject both but you cannot agree with both of them because they do not agree with each other.