"you cant prove a negative" is dependent on what you mean by "prove"..,
A valid argument can be constructed "proving" that unicorns do not exist:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
The burden of proof falls on the claimant. It Always has.
If I were to say that the Holocaust actually never happened and that it was a myth, wouldn't the expectation be for me to prove that it didn't?
To what extent is induction involved in proving a negative?
We use induction to form positive beliefs, do we not?
What would happen if we always threw induction out the window to form negative beliefs?
What most of us do is assert "you cant prove a negative" ONLY when we wish to, tactically.
I want to believe in aliens despite no evidence whatsoever for their existence.
We "prove" negative beliefs all the time when we want to align the world the way we wish to BELIEVE it is.
The "you cant prove a negative" seems to be largely folklore.
Can someone name some philosophical logicians that claim "you cant prove a negative" ?
I'm really curious about this.
I'm not convinced that new atheists who utilize this gottcha line even know what they're talking about, or have bothered to actually research it.
-
In total there are 36 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 36 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
''You can't prove a negative"
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
- Dexter
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:14 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
Statement #1: Odin cast down the frost giant Ymir and made Earth from Ymir's body.
Statement #2: Odin did not cast down the frost giant Ymir and make Earth from Ymir's body.
Which statement has the burden of proof?
Can you disprove statement #2, and if not do you therefore believe statement #1?
Statement #2: Odin did not cast down the frost giant Ymir and make Earth from Ymir's body.
Which statement has the burden of proof?
Can you disprove statement #2, and if not do you therefore believe statement #1?
I wouldn't call that a "proof" but if you're satisfied with that, then great, you agree with pretty much everything we've been saying about theistic claims.A valid argument can be constructed "proving" that unicorns do not exist:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
Does anyone want to discuss this that doesn't suffer from constipation of the brain?
I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
Actually, it was a stupid response, Geo.
I'm not familiar with the theology of Odin, nor am I aware of any calls for evidence for his existence.
Introducing caricatures of what has been seriously considered by theologians for thousands of years is just a continuance of indirect (and sometimes direct) insults.
The fact that you go along with this mockery like a little girl giggling behind a curtain speaks volumes about your lack of majority.
I don't think these type of "God might as well be likened to Odin or Zeus" are contructive. Nor do they promote rational discussion from people who supposedly value and WANT rational discussion.
You keep caricaturing certain people who have a different worldview and I'll continue to tell you and anyone else to go fuck off someplace else.
I'm not familiar with the theology of Odin, nor am I aware of any calls for evidence for his existence.
Introducing caricatures of what has been seriously considered by theologians for thousands of years is just a continuance of indirect (and sometimes direct) insults.
The fact that you go along with this mockery like a little girl giggling behind a curtain speaks volumes about your lack of majority.
I don't think these type of "God might as well be likened to Odin or Zeus" are contructive. Nor do they promote rational discussion from people who supposedly value and WANT rational discussion.
You keep caricaturing certain people who have a different worldview and I'll continue to tell you and anyone else to go fuck off someplace else.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
Actually I was liking Dexter's previous Odin response. Oops, I missed.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4779
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
'You can't prove a negative' is usually a counter argument to unfalsifiable claims. I don't think it's a formal logical argument.ant wrote:A valid argument can be constructed "proving" that unicorns do not exist:
1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
Also, I don’t think the unicorn argument above stands up to scrutiny. It’s possible that unicorn fossils simply haven't been discovered yet. You can't prove that unicorns don't exist, so it’s actually a good example that you can’t prove a negative.
The point that Hume made was that without actual evidence, belief in unicorns would be unfounded at least rationally. The belief can only be maintained through faith or motivated reasoning (which is emotion-based). The belief is driven by the want to believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
As Hitchens said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But not every belief is subject to the laws of physics. We talked about agnostic atheists. An agnostic theist is someone who acknowledges that there's no credible evidence, but believes anyway. This is an intellectually honest position. Trying to rationalize an emotion-based belief using logic and science just doesn't make sense.
But back to your point about proving a negative. Motivated reasoning can be used to try to justify a positive claim or a negative claim. If someone claims that the Holocaust never happened, they’re actually dismissing a great amount of historical evidence that it did happen. Likewise, we see that motivated belief can lead someone to believe the earth is 10,000 years old. If you want to believe something, it's pretty easy to find your way there.
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: ''You can't prove a negative"
Geo is right, the first premise is faulty. It's not necessarily true that fossils will be found even if unicorns did exist.
Unless the belief is true, I'd say your method of proof is faulty. The issue isn't showing the nonexistence of things. I can show the nonexistence of an elephant in my backyard quite easily. There are many negatives that can be proven(although I wouldn't use that word).
Part of the problem of induction is that it cannot prove a negative. The black swan is the most famous example. Using induction, men believed for a time that swans were only white, that black swans didn't exist. As it turned out, the conclusion, reached inductively, was false.To what extent is induction involved in proving a negative?
We "prove" negative beliefs all the time when we want to align the world the way we wish to BELIEVE it is.
Unless the belief is true, I'd say your method of proof is faulty. The issue isn't showing the nonexistence of things. I can show the nonexistence of an elephant in my backyard quite easily. There are many negatives that can be proven(although I wouldn't use that word).
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams