Burden of proof

Hi George, can you provide an example with context where you think this might be the case?

Ok Lets say a person claims a financial crisis in a hypothetical country is a result of peoples actions.In his defence he proposes that along with the possibility that politicians are responsible for it.If there was another possible explanation that the proponent completely exluded ,lets say a devastating war that happened in the region, wouldn't that be an attempt to shift the burden of proof by making the questioner argue for a proposition that the proponent was supposed to include in his possibilities and rule out?

By definition, Shifting of the Burden of Proof is "Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim." The problem here is the the claim is essentially that only X number of options exist and the other person is claiming that X+Y options exist. It is perfectly reasonable for the person who made the initial claim to ask what Y is. What is NOT reasonable, is for that person to conclude that only X exists because the other person cannot name Y (Argument from Ignorance) I don't see any clear shifting of the burden of proof here, however. It is better explained by the other fallacies mentioned.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Ok,i think that still is a false dichotomy.If i'm correct who has the burden of proof.The questioner who proposed a new possibility,or the proponent who didn't include it in the first place?

It depends on the claim.

"I see two options..." != "There are only two options." The first is a statement of fact (that person only sees two options) that requires no proof where the second is a universal claim that does. It also depends on the universality of the claim (i.e., how accepted it is). For example, it was long understood that there were only two genders*, so the burden of proof was on those claiming there were more. The prevailing wisdom was that there we 9 planets (including Pluto), so those who claimed there were only 8 had the burden of proof to demonstrate one option (Pluto) was not a valid option.

* aside from intersex individuals.

So its on the one proposing a new option if i got it correct.Thanks for replying.

That would be an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Argument from Ignorance if it is concluded that X is true because it cannot be proven false.