That post is all handwavey bullshit. The burden of proof "debate"? There is no "debate" about what BOP is. It's not some philosophical mystery. The definition is simple and clear: The burden is always on the person making a new claim. Period.
Not really. In a debate, both sides have a burden to prove their arguments. However, the burden is not always the same for both sides. Generally the side with the less accepted argument incurs the greater burden.
Not true. The side with the less accepted argument does not incur greater burden. The side with the most unobserved or unsubstantiated claims bears the most burden.
Say that we're living in the 1400's. Everyone believes in the existence of witches and witchcraft. Doctors believe it, scientists believe it, everyone takes for granted that witches exist. Even the king himself believes it. Is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of witches to prove that witches don't exist and there is no such thing as witchcraft, or is the burden of proof on everyone else to prove that witches do exist and that witchcraft actually occurs?
Space travel clearly contains the most unobserved and unsubstantiated claims. It is claimed that NASA has developed rockets which can breach escape velocity, that NASA has landed men on the moon, and has sent robots to mars, and sends space ships to explore the solar system. These claims are unsubstantiated. NASA never went through any kind of peer review with the Apollo missions, for example. Indeed, there is
much evidence that the Apollo missions were staged.