Impossiblity - Burden of proof
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Recently I got into a discussion where someone expressed their incredulity regarding the ability of NASA to continue receiving transmissions from the Voyager 1 probe. They said it is ridiculous to think that radio signals from a 20 watt transmitter could be picked up over 13 billion miles.
I pointed out that there is very little interference in space, that both the transmitter and receiver use relatively large antennas and that they are directional, unlike Earth-based radio.
He countered by pointing out that radio on Earth has a limited range, so a 13 billion mile transmission should be impossible. I said that radio on Earth lacks the characteristics I had already pointed out and that transmissions on Earth must travel through more, and more consistently dense atmosphere than signals to or from space.
At that point a third person interjected and said that I was trying to shift the burden of proof onto the first person when the burden of proof was on me since I was defending the claim that the transmissions are really taking place.
At no point in the discussion did I positively claim that NASA is truly still receiving transmissions from Voyager, or even that voyager really exists, I was merely countering the evidence the first person was presenting to show that such transmissions should be impossible, by showing that it can't be compared to Earth-based radio.
My question is: was the third person correct? If someone states that a thing is impossible, is the burden on them to show that it cannot take place, or is the burden on the other side to show that it can?
Comments on Question
Answers
2Please permit me to restate the problem presented.
X makes claim NASA continues to receive radio transmissions from Voyager 1.
Y says, “I do not believe it.” So far, there is only one proposition on the table: that NASA receives transmissions. Y does not even dispute the claim. He merely says he does not believe the proposition to be true.
X made the proposition, and X bears the burden of presenting evidence to support the proposition.
X asks Y, “Why not?” and Y responds that he does not think a 20-watt transmitter could produce a strong enough signal to travel 13 billion miles.
All the rest presented in the problem is a discussion about evidence. The third person is correct: X bears the burden of proof.
First, have a look at this thread and all the comments. It think you will find your answer in there in great detail: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/r6pbeKBw/claims_without_evidence.html
Recently I got into a discussion where someone expressed their incredulity regarding the ability of NASA to continue receiving transmissions from the Voyager 1 probe. They said it is ridiculous to think that radio signals from a 20 watt transmitter could be picked up over 13 billion miles.
If this is how it went down, they have the burden of proof, assuming NASA receiving transmission is common knowledge or a fact. The rest of what transpired is just noise. Especially, if they made the claim AND the claim is one contrary to established knowledge.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I agree the burden of proof is on him. He made a claim and you question that claim. You never stated that it could or could not.