[michaelmrose]

In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion.

If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo

If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.

[mistermann]

> In general the burden of proof is upon the person who assert a claim not predicated on facts understood in common by all or at least most credible participants in a discussion.

If you look up the definition on Wikipedia, you may notice that your articulation of it here is slightly off. You may also not be able to notice it, which is what makes "reality" so tricky.

> If we all accept foo no proof is required for foo

And Mother Nature will reward you accordingly for the quality of your thinking/delusion/indoctrination.

> If all reasonable (in the judgement of the particular discussion forum) parties in a discussion about foo would accept foo dissenters may be entertained or ignored.

Yep, you can literally do pretty much whatever you like, but don't whine when unintended consequences show up later ("Ooooooh no, climate change, why doesn't some do something!!!!!).

Best of luck with guessing your way through life, humans!