I think I'm using the concepts Burden of Proof, Confirmation Bias and Falsifiability inappropriately, or muddling the notions in my way of thinking. I just looked up these concepts on google a few minutes ago, so hopefully someone can clarify things for me.
I have a friend on my team and he's not pulling his weight. Everyone outperforms him and puts in more hours of work than him. He replies, "I like to sleep 16 hours every day because once I'm awake, I'm much more alert and efficient."
I tried to challenge my friend saying he should try to sleep less. If he sleeps 16 hours, that leaves very little time for work (since he also parties with his friends and hangs out at burger king every day). IF he slept less, lived a healthier life style, it will be better for him down the road.
He replied, "I saw a youtube video saying that it is healthier for humans to sleep more and not sleep less. When I compared sleeping 16 hours vs. sleeping 12 hours, I was able to confirm that I felt more refreshed after 16 hours of sleep than 12 hours of sleep."
I tried debating him, but it seems the Burden of Proof is on me to prove to him sleeping 16 hours a day and eating burger king 15 meals per week is not a good idea. And he'll rebuttal by saying he found youtube videos and blog posts to confirm what he already believes.
So my question is, isn't it a dangerous for society for the burden of proof to be on me as the challenger to prove to my friend his life style is unhealthy (because it causes our universal healthcare to sky rocket, bad influence on younger people, etc...)? Isn't it dangerous for society for my friend to use confirmation bias to re-inforce his decision to lead an unhealthy life style?
Wouldn't it be a safer and more productive option for society if my friend used an approach of falsifiability, where he should actively try to falsify his own beliefs and replace it with new+better knowledge? So if I submit a contradictory belief, the burden of proof is on him to try to falsify his own beliefs using the additional data I've provided him?
But then I see a problem with what I just said in my previous paragraph. If my friend says, "Earth's gravitational constant is 9.81m/s^2", and I submit to him, "Earth's gravitational constant is not a constant, but is a box full of cereal, aliens and fuzzy wuzzy wombats." It would be a complete waste of time for my friend to investigate my claim to falsify his beliefs. A good way to avoid wasting people's time is for me making the stupid claim to take on the the burden of proof.
So why does it seem like the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim? Why can't it be SOMETIMES be on the person making the claim? Other times, it is up to the listener to do his on falsifiability research? Or is there already a process for me to follow to decide who should have the burden of proof given each specific context?
I'm so confused.....I'm clearly misunderstanding how these tools are used...