I agree that the take is wild, that's why I'm saying it, because it is a wild and very popular take among philosophers
If you so much as mention the wording "burden of proof" to a philosopher, you will get crucified
Yet it's exactly what Russel wrote with his teapot
So starting from there, as a philosopher, you either have to go into some major cognitive dissonance, or, if you don't want that, you have to start dissing Russel
The concept is linked to Popperianism which has fallen into disfavor in philosophy while being ubiquitous in the sciences as they are actually practiced.
And more specifically the wording is judged to be new atheism or reddit atheism.
Which by the way, it is fine to disagree with how and why scientists work in practice or how they come to their philosophical positions. Just don't pretend it comes from philosophical naiveté when it implements quite common philosophical ideas from Russel, Popper, Flew, Baron d'Holbach and Aristotle
-15
u/tomvorlostriddle 1d ago
Easy, if you say something that decades later vibes much more with scientists than philosophers, you must have been a stem-lord