In a legal proceeding, the burden of proof falls on the party that is bringing the claim against another. "That guy robbed me."
In a scientific setting, the same can be true: "The Earth revolves around the sun" was a radical new idea that went against everything our culture knew at the time. The burden of proof lay first on Aristarchus and later Nicolaus Copernicus trying to sway a doubting world. Theirs was a heavy burden indeed, especially by the church who employed Copernicus as a cleric.
Back down to Earth and modern times, we are continually asked to provide "proof" that cables matter; we hear differences in circuitry and componentry; layout matters; jitter is audible; high-end speakers are in another world from stalwarts like JBL and Klipsch; electronics that measure close sound different.
But, why? Who cares? Why would any of us expend energy defending a position we know to be true? Why does it seem important to shoulder the burden of proof?
Are we so insecure of our own findings that we spend time and energy convincing others in the hopes of validation?
Isn't that a little like the struggle we see today in a divided nation?
Methinks it better to educate and generously offer knowledge to those willing to learn, rather than do battle with those that seek to tear down.
Sometimes a burden gets too heavy to bear.
