Burden of proof in paranormal claims rests with the claimant, not the skeptic

Evidence

Based on the philosophy of science, skeptics in discussions about paranormal phenomena could basically retreat to a purely reactive argumentation. After all, a proof for the non-existence of such phenomena cannot be provided in principle – for example, try to prove once that the earth has never been visited by extraterrestrials! Rather, the one who claims such paranormal phenomena, from ghosts to an effect of homeopathic high potencies, is under the obligation to present evidence for his claim. Simply pointing out this burden of proof, however, is itself again part of an active argument. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 232

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the burden-of-proof principle (Russell’s teapot logic) applied to paranormal claims, plus the twist that even invoking it is an active move.

Related

• Believers routinely demand proof of nonexistence for supernatural claims (similarity 0.83)