Since many people have been asking me about my position on how I view the concept of burden of proof I decided to make a video about it. I am explaining the how merely saying “Evolution is a fact” is not a claim that requires one to demonstrate evolution is true, but is at most a claim requiring merely the citation of sources substantiating this to be the case. Example: If I am reading a scientific text book that states “evolution is a fact” then it is not a claim, it is just a statement of fact that is not required to substantiate that statement as it is already confirmed established fact that evolution exists.
I try to give specific examples as to what someone means by a challenge to the statement “evolution is a fact” and what exactly someones burden of proof is when someone does challenge that statement and tries to make it into a claim.
Please comment and let me know if you agree or disagree and why.
(Special thanks to Ozymandias Ramses II (Ozy) for letting me borrow (aka blatantly steal) his statement “The king of America is bald” as an example of a propositional statement which can not be properly evaluated because it is a malformed proposition.)