Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> I had challenged you to disprove point b):

>

> “So to disprove b) you need to produce the order wherein Srila Prabhupada

> says he should stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON.”

 

I don't have to prove claims that I did not make. This time you are asking

me to prove the opposite of you claim.

 

 

> You certainly cannot challenge the status quo by asking me to prove a

> negative?

 

I don't mind if you don't prove your point b) because then your point c)

remains unproven and I have defeated you. Further, it is Srila Prabhupada

who is asking you to back up what you are saying:

 

"The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by

the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back

up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport)

 

And this instruction supersedes everything that you might have read about

mundane argumentation and logical fallacies.

 

 

> For example if I claim that I have never shot a policeman then you must

> either:

>

> Accept I am telling the truth;

> Or

> Prove I did shoot a policeman.

 

Or I can say that it is unproven. If a murderer claims that he has never

shot a policeman, then this is unproven, although before one can punish him

one has to prove that he shot a policeman.

 

 

> You clearly still have no understanding of how the burden of proof works.

 

I found following on the Internet

(e.g. at www.locksley.com/6696/logic.htm ):

 

"The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or

proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of 'argumentum ad

ignorantium,' is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who

denies or questions the assertion being made."

 

So if I say for example "you did not help this unjured man", then the burden

of proof is on me. I cannot shift the burden of proof to you and say "now

you have to prove that you did". And I cannot say that it is illogical to

ask me to prove a negative.

 

Give me one example where the burden of proof is not on the person who made

the initial assertion. "I have never shot a policeman" above is not the

initial assertion. Rather, someone accused you of having shot a policeman

and then shifted the burden of proof to you.

 

 

> If you cannot prove this then b) stands and we can go quickly to point c).

 

Your proof of your point b) is incomplete. You still have to prove that the

authorization to be diksa guru has to be recorded somewhere.

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa