If you're gonna believe somethin' then prove it ... or else!

First off, something that doesn't relate to anything: I saw "Sherlock Holmes" yesterday. Enjoyable, stylish movie, but also forgettable in a "Star Trek the Reboot" kinda way. I did uncover a blooper but nobody I have told cares. Indeed, they think I need to get a life. Nonetheless I will share it with you all. Ready? (drum roll) There is a modern bulldog in the film, but that animal didn't exist in the 1890s. Indeed, the breed standard wasn't fixed for several decades afterward. (fizzle) What? Not good enough for you? Fine, down to business.

There is so much packed into the "On Pulling Teeth" thread, it is tough to know where to enter in. I'm indebted to the usual suspects as well as some new voices, and in particular Paracletus who has set a new standard for dedication and analytic precision.

Here I'm going to comment briefly on the comment by Ebonmuse:

The person who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof to support it. If they can't produce convincing evidence to back up their claims, then no one else is under any obligation to believe them.

Ebonmuse seems to make a simple, seemingly harmless and indisputable claim. Admittedly, Paracletus has already thrown a wrench in the works here since P and not-P are both claims, but leave that aside. Instead, here I'll just give a couple examples of positive claims which don't seem to have a burden of proof. Rather, those who dissent from them have the burden of proof (at least according to most rational people; here as elsewhere, there is no unanimity).

(1) There are minds other than my own.

(2) An external world exists.

Yes there are solipsists who deny (1) and there are idealists and antirealists who deny (2). But does Ebonmuse seriously think they are entitled to kick their feet back on the Lazy Boy enjoying their skepticism while the rest of us frantically attempt to establish that other minds and an external world exist?

If we accept that it is the deniers of (1) and (2) that have an evidential burden, then we should ask: which other claims don't have an evidential burden? How about (3) God exists? Hmmm.