In rational discussion any claim is subject to a request that it be supported. It doesn't matter whether or not the claimant believes that their claim is the "rational" or "scientific" position (which should just mean that the claim's support is easily available within those circles), such a request is always in order unless the support has already been provided. To call such a request a "game" denigrates rational discourse, real skepticism and the scientific enterprise which is, in principle, based on them.
It is, of course, a frequent characteristic of Skeptics (as opposed to skeptics) to reject this rule, and to feel that their beliefs are the "rational default" -- what should be considered to hold in the absence of overwhelming evidence. This is one of many ways that Skeptics, as a group, are anti-rational and anti-skeptical.
Of course, when one gets such a challenge, it is perfectly reasonable to answer by a reference to authority, or that you are quite confident about though you cannot put your finger on the reference. When such a response is made, of course, then it should be understood that the claim should reasonably treated as having very little support (there might be some, since, contrary to the all-or-nothing approach that some Skeptics use against people who hold contrary opinions to them, argument from authority does carry some weight -- if Albert Einstein says that Relativity is not incompatible with a modified concept of the ether than we can certainly give some weight to that opinion. Of course the Skeptics agree with this when it works on their side -- if Randi says that something could easily be accomplished by standard prestidigitation techniques then the matter is considered completely closed without any evidence beyond appeal to that authority). One could even choose not to answer at all, relying entirely on ones personal authority. Or you can mark time while you rush off to the Internet confident that since your opinion must be true that support can be found.
The argument, though, that anyone simply asking that a claim be supported, is thereby denying the claim and is therefore making a counterclaim that requires support superseding any requirement to ever support the original claim is such a bold piece of solipsism that I can only stand in awe of its utter freedom from any rational restraints. Maybe I should have left sleeping dogs lie, by I found this too very noteworthy for me not to take note.  |