632:
The book is a tireless exercise of that philosopher's pastime, burden-tennis. Burden, burden, who has the burden of proof now? Fodor mostly plays solitaire burden-tennis, against an imaginary opponent often personified as Granny or Aunty, which permits him to express the opposition view in terms that suit his rebuttal, without having to address the issue of whether this is a sympathetic rendering of any real opponent's claims.
396:
188:
is often used for establishing the plausibility of a claim based on observed evidence. Though inductive reasoning may not provide absolute certainty about negative claims, this is only due to the nature of inductive reasoning; inductive reasoning provides proof from probability rather than certainty.
631:
Fodor is too wise to think his series of arguments can flat disprove the claims of the opposition, so time and again he resorts to claims about shifting the burden of proof, begging the question, outsmarting by embracing the conclusions of reductios, and other exploitations of the rules of the game.
337:
is accepted in its place. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis is not rejected. In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This
235:
In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each
151:
state that the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true. Many negative claims can be rewritten into logically equivalent positive claims (for example, "No Jewish person was at the party" is logically equivalent to "Everyone at
740:
When research presentations advance claims that many or most readers deem incredible, these claims are vulnerable to severe challenge. In response, there will typically be a rebuttal by the investigator, and then a fresh round of criticism. The burden of proof shifts back and forth between the
1335:
here are sentence types that would require a great deal of work for one to get into a position to challenge, such as 'Red is a color,' 'There have been black dogs,' 'Lightning frequently precedes thunder,' and similar commonplaces. These are treated as 'free moves' by members of our speech
248:
a disputed claim. After litigants have met the burden of production and their claim is being considered by a trier of fact, they have the burden of persuasion, that enough evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that their side is correct. There are different
270:
The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action. An example is in an
American
692:
Wittgenstein rejects GIT, but, apparently favouring the "onus game" (or "burden tennis"), he unfortunately concludes (pp. 257–58) that "the burden of proof falls ... squarely on
Wittgenstein's side" because of Wang's own 'principle of presumed
309:
a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.
360:
Proponents of each approach criticize the other approach. Nowadays, though, a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks. The hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent—for details, see
83:, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the
580:
justificatory conversation......characterized by a person's sincere attempt to vindicate his or her entitlement to a belief by providing adequate reasons in its defense and responding to objections.
301:, the null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups. Rejecting or disproving the null
342:, in which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent (null is not rejected) until proven guilty (null is rejected) beyond a reasonable doubt (to a statistically significant degree).
1183:
109:
Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".
1303:
here is no point in venturing to resolve a difference of opinion through an argumentative exchange of views if there is no mutual commitment to a common starting point.
357:, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.
125:
is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.
1399:
1167:
1072:
916:
889:
55:– the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient
325:
The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference. In the significance testing approach of
1509:
792:
554:
514:
1489:
1468:
1223:
283:. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
257:, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts.
933:
1383:
31:
765:
1439:
1361:
1328:
1296:
827:
725:
673:
362:
346:
313:
The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted
540:
he point of articulating reasons in defense of one's belief is to establish that one is justified in believing as one does.
254:
1045:
377:
1088:
221:, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments.
1403:
1387:
713:
267:, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
260:
The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin
137:
claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.
1288:
1206:
848:
461:
1241:
605:
908:
Proven
Impossible: Elementary Proofs of Profound Impossibility from Arrow, Bell, Chaitin, Gödel, Turing and More
333:
unlikely to have occurred if the null hypothesis were true. In this case the null hypothesis is rejected and an
147:
reject the notion that it is intrinsically impossible to prove negative claims. Philosophers Steven D. Hale and
117:
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the
1320:
339:
330:
276:
134:
376:
techniques to choose the most appropriate model. (The most common selection techniques are based on either
118:
334:
298:
193:
425:
230:
1336:
community—they are available to just about anyone any time to use as premises, to assert unchallenged.
106:
to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.
1276:
452:
176:
56:
430:
197:
185:
144:
80:
1504:
1258:
1138:
1026:
976:
860:
622:
571:
531:
481:
473:
261:
95:
68:
17:
1111:"The Negative Effect Fallacy: A Case Study of Incorrect Statistical Reasoning by Federal Courts"
1494:
1464:
1435:
1395:
1357:
1324:
1292:
1219:
1163:
1157:
1130:
1068:
1018:
998:
968:
912:
885:
761:
731:
721:
717:
679:
669:
401:
369:
1215:
1110:
1062:
879:
1280:
1250:
1211:
1122:
1010:
906:
852:
614:
563:
523:
465:
415:
1391:
1201:
839:
373:
292:
665:
1499:
1457:
1428:
705:
645:
592:
218:
84:
42:
189:
Inductive reasoning also does not provide absolute certainty about positive claims.
30:
This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept. For other uses, see
1483:
1030:
864:
575:
535:
485:
326:
272:
241:
214:
170:
1459:
Model
Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach
1142:
787:
753:
381:
354:
350:
153:
99:
27:
Obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position
200:
argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.
75:
to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived
741:
investigator and the critic in what might be called the game of 'burden tennis'.
420:
237:
165:
157:
148:
122:
192:
A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A
1014:
856:
567:
527:
469:
410:
391:
302:
1134:
1022:
972:
368:
Statistical inference can be done without a null hypothesis, by specifying a
184:
contexts (such as the evaluating the existence or nonexistence of unicorns),
1353:
735:
683:
661:
280:
181:
91:
552:
Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification".
512:
Leite, Adam (2005). "A localist solution to the regress of justification".
644:
Rodych, Victor (1996) . "Wittgenstein's inversion of Gödel's theorem". In
1109:
Enos, Ryan D.; Fowler, Anthony; Havasy, Christopher S. (September 2017).
1064:
Believing
Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole
500:
First
Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth
161:
140:
103:
980:
956:
1262:
1207:
Attacking faulty reasoning: a practical guide to fallacy-free arguments
1126:
626:
596:
477:
305:—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there
71:
that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a
1254:
618:
1414:
1239:
Goldman, Alvin (1994). "Argumentation and social epistemology".
240:
is a minimal burden to produce at least enough evidence for the
450:
Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the burden of proof".
329:, a null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data are
1434:. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press.
372:
corresponding to each candidate hypothesis and using
67:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a
53:
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat
1159:
Statistics from A to Z: Confusing
Concepts Clarified
1456:
1427:
322:(read "H-nought", "H-null", "H-oh", or "H-zero").
217:. Once participants in discourse establish common
90:While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical
265:semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
213:Burden of proof is an important concept in the
999:"The Justification of the Basic Laws of Logic"
236:party, in different phases of litigation. The
1089:"You Can Prove a Negative | Psychology Today"
934:"The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative"
8:
1047:Is It Really Impossible to Prove a Negative?
652:. Vol. 2. The later Wittgenstein: from
992:
990:
650:Ludwig Wittgenstein: critical assessments
1455:Burnham, K. P.; Anderson, D. R. (2002),
957:"I Am Not a Giraffe, and I Can Prove It"
821:
819:
817:
815:
813:
811:
809:
1104:
1102:
688:Thus, in 1991 Wang seems to understand
442:
338:is analogous to the legal principle of
168:can be proven using procedures such as
1430:The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics
411:J. B. Bury § History as a science
1375:
1373:
1156:Jawlik, Andrew A. (24 October 2016).
878:Hales, Steven D. (17 December 2012).
758:Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
7:
1285:A systematic theory of argumentation
997:Russell, Gillian (1 December 2015).
881:This Is Philosophy: An Introduction
793:Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
708:(1995). "Credibility of argument".
1380:Criminal Law – Cases and Materials
1115:Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
1044:Rich, Elaine; Cline, Alan Kaylor.
961:ETC: A Review of General Semantics
768:from the original on 30 April 2009
555:Australasian Journal of Philosophy
515:Australasian Journal of Philosophy
25:
1463:(2nd ed.), Springer-Verlag,
1384:Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
905:Gusfield, Dan (18 January 2024).
710:Statistics as principled argument
253:of persuasiveness ranging from a
18:Burden of proof (logical fallacy)
1413:Transnational principle of law:
932:Saunders, Kevin W. (1984–1985).
826:Hales, Steven D. (Summer 2005).
394:
1184:"6.3: Proving Your Conclusion"
1003:Journal of Philosophical Logic
911:. Cambridge University Press.
363:Statistical hypothesis testing
152:the party was a gentile"). In
1:
1061:Law, Stephen (1 April 2011).
502:, Simon and Schuster, p. 124.
255:preponderance of the evidence
654:Philosophical investigations
378:Akaike information criterion
113:Shifting the burden of proof
1348:Adler, Jonathan E. (2002).
1287:. Cambridge, UK; New York:
955:Steiner, Robert A. (1999).
754:"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"
714:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
1526:
1510:Concepts in metaphilosophy
1289:Cambridge University Press
849:Cambridge University Press
648:; Kilfoyle, David (eds.).
462:Cambridge University Press
290:
228:
121:. It occurs when either a
29:
1242:The Journal of Philosophy
1162:. John Wiley & Sons.
1015:10.1007/s10992-015-9360-z
884:. John Wiley & Sons.
857:10.1017/S1477175600001287
606:The Journal of Philosophy
568:10.1080/00048400500191974
528:10.1080/00048400500191974
470:10.1017/s0031819100056655
79:. This is also stated in
1490:Concepts in epistemology
1321:Harvard University Press
1315:Brandom, Robert (1994).
340:presumption of innocence
277:presumption of innocence
1426:Everitt, Brian (1998).
1093:www.psychologytoday.com
119:argument from ignorance
335:alternative hypothesis
299:inferential statistics
194:proof of impossibility
1277:van Eemeren, Frans H.
1188:Humanities LibreTexts
938:Seton Hall Law Review
828:"Thinking tools: You
788:"Appeal to ignorance"
426:Burden of proof (law)
231:Burden of proof (law)
215:public arena of ideas
145:philosophers of logic
1356:. pp. 164–167.
1067:. Prometheus Books.
664:. pp. 232–265 (
660:. London; New York:
613:(7): 384–389 (389).
421:Burden of Production
238:burden of production
177:reductio ad absurdum
63:Holder of the burden
1350:Belief's own ethics
1190:. 28 November 2019.
275:, where there is a
209:In public discourse
198:evidence of absence
186:inductive reasoning
102:, the standard for
1317:Making it explicit
1127:10.1111/jels.12158
706:Abelson, Robert P.
593:Dennett, Daniel C.
347:hypothesis testing
129:Proving a negative
59:for its position.
1400:978-1-4548-0698-1
1394:, Guyora Binder,
1352:. Cambridge, MA:
1319:. Cambridge, MA:
1281:Grootendorst, Rob
1169:978-1-119-27203-8
1074:978-1-61614-412-8
918:978-1-009-34950-5
891:978-0-470-65883-3
832:prove a negative"
786:Dowden, Bradley.
762:Lander University
712:. Hillsdale, NJ:
402:Philosophy portal
370:statistical model
51:, shortened from
16:(Redirected from
1517:
1475:
1473:
1462:
1452:
1446:
1445:
1433:
1423:
1417:
1411:
1405:
1382:, 7th ed. 2012,
1377:
1368:
1367:
1345:
1339:
1338:
1312:
1306:
1305:
1273:
1267:
1266:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1212:Cengage Learning
1202:Damer, T. Edward
1198:
1192:
1191:
1180:
1174:
1173:
1153:
1147:
1146:
1106:
1097:
1096:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1058:
1052:
1051:
1041:
1035:
1034:
994:
985:
984:
952:
946:
945:
929:
923:
922:
902:
896:
895:
875:
869:
868:
836:
823:
804:
803:
801:
800:
783:
777:
776:
774:
773:
750:
744:
743:
702:
696:
695:
641:
635:
634:
589:
583:
582:
549:
543:
542:
509:
503:
496:
490:
489:
447:
431:Russell's teapot
416:Justificationism
404:
399:
398:
397:
81:Hitchens's razor
21:
1525:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1471:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1442:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1412:
1408:
1392:Robert Weisberg
1378:
1371:
1364:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1331:
1323:. p. 222.
1314:
1313:
1309:
1299:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1255:10.2307/2940949
1238:
1237:
1233:
1226:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1170:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1043:
1042:
1038:
996:
995:
988:
954:
953:
949:
931:
930:
926:
919:
904:
903:
899:
892:
877:
876:
872:
834:
825:
824:
807:
798:
796:
785:
784:
780:
771:
769:
752:
751:
747:
728:
704:
703:
699:
676:
646:Shanker, Stuart
643:
642:
638:
619:10.2307/2026956
601:by Jerry Fodor"
599:Psychosemantics
591:
590:
586:
562:(3): 395–421 .
551:
550:
546:
522:(3): 395–421 .
511:
510:
506:
497:
493:
449:
448:
444:
440:
435:
400:
395:
393:
390:
374:model selection
320:
295:
293:Null hypothesis
289:
233:
227:
211:
206:
131:
115:
73:burden of proof
65:
39:burden of proof
35:
32:Burden of proof
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1523:
1521:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1469:
1447:
1440:
1418:
1406:
1369:
1362:
1340:
1329:
1307:
1297:
1291:. p. 60.
1268:
1231:
1224:
1193:
1175:
1168:
1148:
1121:(3): 618–647.
1098:
1080:
1073:
1053:
1036:
1009:(6): 793–803.
986:
967:(3): 292–295.
947:
924:
917:
897:
890:
870:
805:
778:
745:
726:
697:
674:
636:
584:
544:
504:
498:Marc Kaufman,
491:
441:
439:
436:
434:
433:
428:
423:
418:
413:
407:
406:
405:
389:
386:
318:
291:Main article:
288:
285:
229:Main article:
226:
223:
210:
207:
205:
202:
130:
127:
114:
111:
100:logical proofs
85:Sagan standard
64:
61:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1522:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1485:
1472:
1470:0-387-95364-7
1466:
1461:
1460:
1451:
1448:
1443:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1415:Trans-Lex.org
1410:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1272:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1235:
1232:
1227:
1225:9780495095064
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1179:
1176:
1171:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1057:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
993:
991:
987:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
951:
948:
943:
939:
935:
928:
925:
920:
914:
910:
909:
901:
898:
893:
887:
883:
882:
874:
871:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
833:
831:
822:
820:
818:
816:
814:
812:
810:
806:
795:
794:
789:
782:
779:
767:
763:
759:
755:
749:
746:
742:
737:
733:
729:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
701:
698:
694:
691:
685:
681:
677:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
640:
637:
633:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
607:
602:
600:
595:(July 1988).
594:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
508:
505:
501:
495:
492:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
446:
443:
437:
432:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
408:
403:
392:
387:
385:
383:
379:
375:
371:
366:
364:
358:
356:
352:
348:
343:
341:
336:
332:
331:significantly
328:
327:Ronald Fisher
323:
321:
317:
311:
308:
304:
300:
294:
287:In statistics
286:
284:
282:
278:
274:
273:criminal case
268:
266:
263:
258:
256:
252:
247:
243:
242:trier of fact
239:
232:
224:
222:
220:
216:
208:
203:
201:
199:
195:
190:
187:
183:
179:
178:
173:
172:
171:modus tollens
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
142:
138:
136:
128:
126:
124:
120:
112:
110:
107:
105:
101:
97:
93:
88:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
62:
60:
58:
54:
50:
49:
48:onus probandi
44:
40:
33:
19:
1458:
1450:
1429:
1421:
1409:
1379:
1349:
1343:
1334:
1316:
1310:
1302:
1284:
1271:
1249:(1): 27–49.
1246:
1240:
1234:
1205:
1196:
1187:
1178:
1158:
1151:
1118:
1114:
1092:
1083:
1063:
1056:
1046:
1039:
1006:
1002:
964:
960:
950:
941:
937:
927:
907:
900:
880:
873:
844:
838:
829:
797:. Retrieved
791:
781:
770:. Retrieved
757:
748:
739:
709:
700:
689:
687:
658:On certainty
657:
653:
649:
639:
630:
610:
604:
598:
587:
579:
559:
553:
547:
539:
519:
513:
507:
499:
494:
457:
451:
445:
382:Bayes factor
367:
359:
355:Egon Pearson
351:Jerzy Neyman
349:approach of
344:
324:
315:
314:
312:
306:
296:
269:
264:
259:
250:
245:
234:
212:
191:
175:
169:
154:formal logic
139:
132:
116:
108:
98:or strictly
96:mathematical
89:
76:
72:
66:
52:
47:
46:
38:
36:
1388:John Kaplan
851:: 109–112.
693:innocence'.
597:"Review of
219:assumptions
204:Application
166:proposition
158:mathematics
149:Stephen Law
123:proposition
1484:Categories
1441:0521593468
1363:0262011921
1330:067454319X
1298:0521830753
1214:. p.
799:2016-02-24
772:2009-04-29
727:0805805273
716:. p.
675:0415149150
453:Philosophy
438:References
303:hypothesis
94:, require
92:syllogisms
77:status quo
1505:Reasoning
1354:MIT Press
1135:1740-1453
1031:254739046
1023:1573-0433
973:0014-164X
865:170305277
662:Routledge
576:170261121
536:170261121
486:170772287
464:: 59–83.
281:defendant
251:standards
182:empirical
141:Logicians
1495:Evidence
1283:(2004).
1204:(2009).
1143:53063085
981:42705762
766:Archived
764:. 2004.
736:31011850
684:47938413
388:See also
246:consider
162:negation
135:negative
104:evidence
1263:2940949
627:2026956
478:3751305
460:(279).
345:In the
279:by the
57:warrant
1467:
1438:
1398:
1360:
1327:
1295:
1261:
1222:
1166:
1141:
1133:
1071:
1029:
1021:
979:
971:
944:: 276.
915:
888:
863:
847:(10).
734:
724:
682:
672:
625:
574:
534:
484:
476:
225:In law
196:or an
160:, the
1500:Doubt
1259:JSTOR
1139:S2CID
1027:S2CID
977:JSTOR
861:S2CID
840:Think
835:(PDF)
623:JSTOR
572:S2CID
532:S2CID
482:S2CID
474:JSTOR
262:maxim
180:. In
164:of a
69:claim
43:Latin
1465:ISBN
1436:ISBN
1396:ISBN
1358:ISBN
1325:ISBN
1293:ISBN
1220:ISBN
1164:ISBN
1131:ISSN
1069:ISBN
1019:ISSN
969:ISSN
913:ISBN
886:ISBN
732:OCLC
722:ISBN
680:OCLC
670:ISBN
353:and
174:and
156:and
143:and
37:The
1251:doi
1123:doi
1011:doi
853:doi
830:can
718:170
690:why
668:).
666:261
656:to
615:doi
564:doi
524:doi
466:doi
384:.)
380:or
297:In
244:to
1486::
1402:,
1390:,
1386:;
1372:^
1333:.
1301:.
1279:;
1257:.
1247:91
1245:.
1218:.
1216:17
1210:.
1186:.
1137:.
1129:.
1119:14
1117:.
1113:.
1101:^
1091:.
1025:.
1017:.
1007:44
1005:.
1001:.
989:^
975:.
965:56
963:.
959:.
942:15
940:.
936:.
859:.
843:.
837:.
808:^
790:.
760:.
756:.
738:.
730:.
720:.
686:.
678:.
629:.
621:.
611:85
609:.
603:.
578:.
570:.
560:83
558:.
538:.
530:.
520:83
518:.
480:.
472:.
458:72
456:.
365:.
307:is
133:A
87:.
45::
1474:.
1444:.
1366:.
1265:.
1253::
1228:.
1172:.
1145:.
1125::
1095:.
1077:.
1050:.
1033:.
1013::
983:.
921:.
894:.
867:.
855::
845:4
802:.
775:.
617::
566::
526::
488:.
468::
319:0
316:H
41:(
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.