I've been watching some video lectures online, and in some of the videos, the professor argues essentially as follows:
Both the dualist and the physicalist believe in the body. This is status quo. The dualist then expresses a belief in the existence of the soul. Therefore, we can consider the position of the dualist as the claim "there exists a soul", a claim made in a world where we take the existence of the body as given. Therefore, as the dualists are the ones making a claim, they are the ones with the burden of proof.
Is this logically sound?
The reason I don't believe it to be so is that by looking at things from a different perspective, you can easily put the burden of proof on the physicalists:
Both the dualist and the physicalist believe that there exists a body. This is status quo. The physicalist then expresses the belief that no other substance exists. Therefore, we can consider the position of the physicalist as the claim "there exists nothing else but the body". Therefore, the physicalists are now making a claim here, and thus hold the burden of proof.
That is just one perspective. One could keep changing things, such that the burden of proof lies on both parties.
My question is essentially whether I am wrong, or whether the sentiment expressed by the professor really was logically incorrect.