I'm not disagreeing with the radical empiricism and the fact that the mind is, obviously, just interdependent flow of mental states and there is no "self" to be found there. I'm disagreeing with the assumption and interpretation, which came later from Buddhists who didn't go the full distance, that there is no self at all. If that was the case, who knows that there is no self?

As for burden of proof -- first, Buddhism, misinterpreted or not, does not make any claims in terms of absolute non-existence of self, only that mind is not it. Second, I cannot force you to look into a microscope to show you bacteria and, thus, prove they exists. Similarly, I cannot force you to look within yourself to see for yourself what's really going on. But without looking into microscope you cannot see bacteria; without looking into yourself you cannot see what's up in terms of self -- you just have to reproduce the experiments as many have done before. But flunking the experiment and claiming that it’s irreproducible is a fault and intellectual dishonesty on your part. Howgh.