The claim is that they are profitable -- all businesses are unprofitable until proven otherwise. That's the null hypothesis for business profitability. The null hypothesis is what must be disproven with evidence.
Right, I am saying there is no evidence they are profitable, so we fall back to the default, that they are unprofitable.
Indeed, the other poster seems right: "The burden of evidence is on the side of the person making the claim" is simplistic and reductionist. "The burden of proof lies on the more unbelievable side" is more appropriate.
Taking an example: If I said the earth was not flat, and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because the earth being flat is more unbelievable than the alternative.
>Taking an example: If I said 1+1=2 and someone else told me to prove it, that proof would be unnecessary, because 1+1=2 is more believable than any alternative sum.
