1st July 20:41
The question of death!
You appealed to an authority and relayed some information about
"speculation" and the burden is on you to defend yourself or explain
the qualities of this word, else retract your statement as a
fallacious appeal to authority.
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the logical fallacy of putting the burden of proof on
the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the
fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
You commit this fallacy if you make a claim that needs justification,
then demand that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim.
Supposing that a proposition must be true because there is no proof
that it is false.
In a political dog-fight one participant may make an unfounded
accusation towards their rival and demand that the rival politican
show PROOF that they are innocent. In most countries the burden of
proof is on the person making the accusation but by shifting this
burden it implies guilt on their opponent.
The power of this tactic is often enhanced by reliance on the the
accusation being made by a credible third-party and the inability of
the accused to respond effectively by media dedalines. A slow response
- even if credible - is considered less newsworthy and often reported
within the frame of reference set by the original accusation.