To: To Whomever it May Concern
From: Your Doting Uncle Sunstone
Date: March, 23, 2018
Subject: Have You Gotten "the Memo" Yet On Proving a Negative?
In folk logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. So it is impossible, according to folk logicians, to prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, Bigfoot, and @Debater Slayer's morals don’t exist.
Even some pretty bright bulbs in such power-house disciplines as physics, chemistry, biology, and erotic dance are on record here and there as saying things like, "One of the laws of logic is that you cannot prove a negative".
*cough* *cough* However, all or almost all professional logicians¹ would laugh at such a notion. "Hah! Hah!", they would laugh! "Hah! Hah!" (<--------- Disclaimer: This is a mere simulation of logicians laughing. Real logicians might or might not laugh in a similar manner. No logicians were hurt during the creation of this simulation.)
Seriously, I never in my university days came across even a single text or paper by a professional in logic or in epistemology that said you could not prove a negative. Not one! And I was studying that kind of stuff back then! And women. I was studying women too!
Moreover, I did come across texts and papers in peer-reviewed journals that argued persuasively (in my opinion) that you can indeed prove a negative -- just as well as you can prove anything else (and prove them inductively, deductively, and abductively).
Just one example here, just one example, to keep things short and to the point:
One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.
Please take a moment to notice that the law is a negative statement.
Now, I won't go into the gory details here, but you can actually prove that law is true, prove it according to rigorous, air-tight, reasoning (although it's a little complicated, as I recall). So, right off the bat, with a very basic law of logic, we have a case of proving the negative.
Inductively and abductively speaking, you can also prove negatives! To be precise, you can prove them just as well as you can prove anything else inductively or abductively.
So you have now "gotten the memo" on whether you can or cannot logically prove a negative.
Please enjoy the rest of your day and accept my apologies for yet once again being insufferable.
Comments? Rave Reviews? Observations? Deranged Rants?
cc @Terese
Proving Negatives
You Can Prove A Negative
Evidence of Absence
Burden of Proof
The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative
Argument from Ignorance
________________________
FOOTNOTES:
1) I refer, of course, to the tiny handful of professional logicians that I myself long ago used to know when I was a young and stunningly handsome² philosophy major with a concentration in logic and epistemology. I mean, what on earth did you think I meant by "all or almost all logicians"?
2) I am here citing my esteemed mother's opinion of my natural male beauty. She once or twice said I was "handsome". I've added the "stunning" myself because I am certain she meant that too, but just forgot to say it. And of course, mom would never lie to me. Never!
From: Your Doting Uncle Sunstone
Date: March, 23, 2018
Subject: Have You Gotten "the Memo" Yet On Proving a Negative?
In folk logic, it is impossible to prove a negative. So it is impossible, according to folk logicians, to prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, Bigfoot, and @Debater Slayer's morals don’t exist.
Even some pretty bright bulbs in such power-house disciplines as physics, chemistry, biology, and erotic dance are on record here and there as saying things like, "One of the laws of logic is that you cannot prove a negative".
*cough* *cough* However, all or almost all professional logicians¹ would laugh at such a notion. "Hah! Hah!", they would laugh! "Hah! Hah!" (<--------- Disclaimer: This is a mere simulation of logicians laughing. Real logicians might or might not laugh in a similar manner. No logicians were hurt during the creation of this simulation.)
Seriously, I never in my university days came across even a single text or paper by a professional in logic or in epistemology that said you could not prove a negative. Not one! And I was studying that kind of stuff back then! And women. I was studying women too!
Moreover, I did come across texts and papers in peer-reviewed journals that argued persuasively (in my opinion) that you can indeed prove a negative -- just as well as you can prove anything else (and prove them inductively, deductively, and abductively).
Just one example here, just one example, to keep things short and to the point:
One of the most basic rules or laws of logic is called the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Here's one formulation of it: "A proposition cannot be both true and not true at the same time." Nothing is both true and false at the same moment.
Please take a moment to notice that the law is a negative statement.
Now, I won't go into the gory details here, but you can actually prove that law is true, prove it according to rigorous, air-tight, reasoning (although it's a little complicated, as I recall). So, right off the bat, with a very basic law of logic, we have a case of proving the negative.
Inductively and abductively speaking, you can also prove negatives! To be precise, you can prove them just as well as you can prove anything else inductively or abductively.
So you have now "gotten the memo" on whether you can or cannot logically prove a negative.
Please enjoy the rest of your day and accept my apologies for yet once again being insufferable.
Comments? Rave Reviews? Observations? Deranged Rants?
cc @Terese
Proving Negatives
You Can Prove A Negative
Evidence of Absence
Burden of Proof
The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative
Argument from Ignorance
________________________
FOOTNOTES:
1) I refer, of course, to the tiny handful of professional logicians that I myself long ago used to know when I was a young and stunningly handsome² philosophy major with a concentration in logic and epistemology. I mean, what on earth did you think I meant by "all or almost all logicians"?
2) I am here citing my esteemed mother's opinion of my natural male beauty. She once or twice said I was "handsome". I've added the "stunning" myself because I am certain she meant that too, but just forgot to say it. And of course, mom would never lie to me. Never!
