Found something interesting:
"In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesissaying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifacthe is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987
"And when such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof." (This statement is often abbreviated to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.")
Editorial in The Zetetic (Vol. 1, No.1, Fall/Winter 1976, p 4)
_________________________
The guests on these forums are comprised mainly of RE'ers or 'agnostics' which take the positions of common knowledge and mainstream public science, and skeptical of all claims. This site's primary function promotes the 'fact' that the Earth is actually flat. This is a most extraordinary claim, regardless of whether or not you are trying to convert others to your view. It is your Zetetic Duty to ensure that your alleged facts have substantial evidence to support them.
The view that the Earth is not round (as opposed to flat) is also an extraordinary claim, (referred to as a negative hypothesis in the first quote) and also bears the burden of proof.