I'm just throwing this out here.. So, people say all the time that if you say something is true, the burden of proof on is on you and not on the doubters. So, in your opinion, does this work in numismatics as well? Or is it the complete opposite? If I call a coin genuine, wouldn't the burden of proof be on me to prove/give evidence that it is real and there should not be any burden on the onesthat are skeptical? just a thought. Not really sure how this is supposed to work in numismatics, but it seems like the burden of proof is on the skeptic. stainless
I think the burden of proof should be on anyone making a judgment on a coin. For instance; If you start a post and say a coin is polished, I would then expect you to explain why you believe the coin is polished. I don't think it's necessary for anyone else who agrees with you to explain why they believe it's polished too, because I think that would just be repetitive. So a simple "I agree" would be fine. But now say I come along and say, no way that coin is polished. I believe it is now my responsibility to point out why I believe the coin is not polished.
"Burden of proof" is a legal concept, relating to trial practice. It has no significance in numismatics.
It goes beyond legal. for instance, if I told you I was married to an invisible mermaid, wouldn't the burden of proof be on me? stupid example, but you get my point. :goofer: stainless
If the "thing" or " procedure" or "incident" , etc. is NEW, the burden of proof is with the initiator. If it pre-exists as having a burden of proof accepted, then the burden is with the person trying to negate the prior acceptance. At least it is usually that way with science. The difficulty is if "proof" is undefined or is defined in unmeasurable terms. At least that is my opinion and thus can not be a proof. Jim
It is unmeasurable ( as she is invisible) and doubtful you could be married to a different species in any state or country, thus it would fall under the "faith" area. One may have "faith " that a miracle happened in Lourdes, but it is unmeasurable. One could have "faith" they are visited by aliens every night, but it is unmeasurable. One can have "faith" that the toning on their coin is NT, but since it is unmeasurable it is "faith". IMO. Jim
I think it depends. If you tell me a coin is genuine as a mere observation, then yes, the burden of proof is expected to be on you to tell us why or how you came to this conclusion. If you were trying to sell me a coin and you stated the same, then I would assume most of us would take it upon ourselves to determine if what you said was indeed the truth. I believe thats what we mostly do anyways. Guy~
If you just look up that term in Google you would find that it basically is a judicial terminolgically used phase. Basically but not always. •the duty of proving a disputed charge wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Using this copied from that Googled web site that phase could indicate in Numismatics a contraversial subject of opinions on a coins grade, authenticity, etc. Or it could just be used to confuse others.
