Got the Memo Yet? You Can Indeed Prove a Negative!

[shunyadragon]

You haven't shown why that might be the case.

I have shown you when the fallacy of proving the negative applies. You can dream up negative questions by the millions that may be answered simply and empirically, but of course none apply to the logical fallacy of proving the negative.

This is excruciatingly stubbornly wrong-headed on your part. You need to take a good course on logic apparently to represent fallacies properly.

Logical fallacies DO NOT apply to empirically solvable questions.

@PureX has got it right.

 

[Polymath257]

I have shown you when the fallacy of proving the negative applies. You can dream up negative questions by the millions that may be answered simply and empirically, but of course none apply to the logical fallacy of proving the negative.

What is the 'logical fallacy' of proving a negative then? I have shown it is possible to prove any number of negative statements. Why do you think it to be a logical fallacy?

This is excruciatingly stubbornly wrong-headed on your part. You need to take a good course on logic apparently to represent fallacies properly.

I have probably done more logic, both in courses and professionally, than you have.

Logical fallacies DO NOT apply to empirically solvable questions.

And my point is that it is NOT a fallacy to prove a negative. It is done all the time. Which is what the OP was getting at.

Logical fallacies are mistakes of reasoning. For example, using the deductive scheme

If p, then q
q
-------------
Therefore p

is a fallacy. But using the scheme

If p, then q
not q
----------------
Therefore not p

Is perfectly proper and proves a negative.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the 'logical fallacy' of proving a negative then? I have shown it is possible to prove any number of negative statements. Why do you think it to be a logical fallacy?

I have probably done more logic, both in courses and professionally, than you have.



And my point is that it is NOT a fallacy to prove a negative. It is done all the time. Which is what the OP was getting at.

Logical fallacies are mistakes of reasoning. For example, using the deductive scheme

If p, then q
q
-------------
Therefore p

is a fallacy. But using the scheme

If p, then q
not q
----------------
Therefore not p

Is perfectly proper and proves a negative.

What is the 'logical fallacy' of proving a negative then? I have shown it is possible to prove any number of negative statements. Why do you think it to be a logical fallacy?



I have probably done more logic, both in courses and professionally, than you have.



And my point is that it is NOT a fallacy to prove a negative. It is done all the time. Which is what the OP was getting at.

Logical fallacies are mistakes of reasoning. For example, using the deductive scheme

If p, then q
q
-------------
Therefore p

is a fallacy. But using the scheme

If p, then q
not q
----------------
Therefore not p

Is perfectly proper and proves a negative.

I have shown you when the fallacy of proving the negative applies. You can dream up negative questions by the millions that may be answered simply and empirically, but of course none apply to the logical fallacy of proving the negative.

This is excruciatingly stubbornly wrong-headed on your part. You need to take a good course on logic apparently to represent fallacies properly.

Logical fallacies DO NOT apply to empirically solvable questions.

@PureX has got it right.

Logical fallacies are defined to be useful within certain boundaries of definition, and your approach does not work in the context of a logical fallacy.

I do not care if your education is Pilled higher and Deeper your response is excruciatingly stubbornly wrong-headed

 

[Politesse]

It isn't true for all phenomena though, see above.

It does not need to be, for the axiom in question to be untrue.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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!

No more Red Bull for you.

 

[Sunstone]

You need to take a good course on logic apparently to represent fallacies properly.

I think you might be trying to "teach your grandfather how to suck eggs", as they say.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you might be trying to "teach your grandfather how to suck eggs", as they say.

He would have to be 110 to be my grandfather. He is perfectly capable of sucking eggs all on his own.

Possibly just a little help to understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and how the logical fallacy of proving the negative applies usefully and practically.

Fruitless efforts at trying to be pedantically correct is not productive except on the hamster wheel.

 

[Sunstone]

He would have to be 110 to be my grandfather. He is perfectly capable of sucking eggs all on his own.

Apparently, I didn't make my meaning clear enough, for you have just offered an outstanding example of what it means to miss the point!

 

[Polymath257]

 

[Debater Slayer]

Possibly just a little help to understand [...]

Don't overestimate your knowledge. It doesn't come across well when anyone does it.

 

[Axe Elf]

Let's just say that you can't NOT prove no negatives.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't overestimate your knowledge. It doesn't come across well when anyone does it.

Perfectly willing to deal with a practical intelligent response on the practical application of the fallacy of proving the negative, but it is not there when some are hung up on fancy logic formulas. This view misses the point that logical fallacies have practical applications, and high ended academics can easily get lost in high ended academics.

I am not alone here @PureX pretty much agrees with me as well as my Philosophy teacher at the university concerning the nature and how fallacies apply in Logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice! Fantastic self reflection problem on your part!

 

[PureX]

That, to me, simply says that the whole question is meaningless because the terms haven't been defined well enough.

What you seem to be missing is that the terms CANNOT BE defined "well enough". "God" is not definable by a human. God is conceivable, but not definable. Because we conceive of God as infinite, and inexplicable. As the ultimate mystery.

And applied to good effect. I'm not sure why you call them 'ideological'. They are infinities and we have a consistent theory of such things that works quite well.

A number is an idea. The mathematical relationships between numbers are ideas. They are "abstract" depictions of reality, as opposed to being a reality unto themselves. They do not exist "objectively". Like language, and beauty, and love.

 

[Polymath257]

What you seem to be missing is that the terms CANNOT BE defined "well enough". "God" is not definable by a human. God is conceivable, but not definable. Because we conceive of God as infinite, and inexplicable. As the ultimate mystery.

To me, that only means the whole concept is too vague to be meaningful. It's a hope, not a specific concept.

A number is an idea. The mathematical relationships between numbers are ideas. They are "abstract" depictions of reality, as opposed to be a reality until themselves. They do not exist "objectively". Like language. Or beauty. Or love.

OK. So are you claiming that God also does not exist objectively and is only an idea?

 

[PureX]

To me, that only means the whole concept is too vague to be meaningful. It's a hope, not a specific concept.

That would be your limitation to overcome. Not ours to dispel, for you.

So are you claiming that God also does not exist objectively and is only an idea?

This is what cannot be determined. It is the limitation being discussed.

 

[Sunstone]

"God is conceivable, but not definable.

To me, that's an interesting statement because conceiving of something, thinking about something in symbolic terms (which is the only possible way to consciously think about something. i.e. in symbolic terms), is to define something. You might or might not be aware of having defined god when you think of god as "infinite" -- but you have indeed defined god, so far as I can see.

So I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "God is conceivable, but not definable"? Do you mean any and all concepts of god are inadequate to fully reference the mystery of god? I'm guessing that's what you mean, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

But if that's what you mean, then I must ask whether you think it is necessary to have words that fully reference something in order to refute that it exists?

For instance, Steve says to me, "I'm in love with my wife". I respond, "I do not think you are n love with your wife because I know that you beat her." Then Steve says to me, "Well, you cannot say I'm not in love with my wife. You can't say it because you do not fully know my feelings for her." So I comeback, "I don't need to know everything about your feelings for her. All I need to know is that you beat her. No one who truly loves a person beats them."

Who in that exchange is right? Steve or me?

Put differently, are there not "deal-breakers" such that all you need to know is the deal-breaker, instead of needing to know the "full story". For instance, if I somehow knew that god was X, and that X somehow indicated god could not exist, must I still know everything there is to know about the attributes of god? Would not the deal-breaker mean that particular concept of god was false?

On the other hand, if there are no deal-breakers, then how do we know the concept of god is meaningful? How does saying, "I have a concept of god such that god is X, but you cannot refute that god is X because god is also something Y that you will never know but that refutes any refutation of X" -- how does saying that make any sense at all? How is it a meaningful statement?

To me, by the way, god is a mystery. A genuine mystery. And not something about which much of anything can be said for certain beyond, "I don't know for certain".

 

[Polymath257]

That would be your limitation to overcome. Not ours to dispel, for you.

On the contrary, to be meaningful, the concept has to be defined well enough to have a specific referent. Unless it is defined, it simply isn't a meaningful concept. I don't see that as *my* limitation, but as a limitation of a faulty concept.

This is definitely bringing out my ignostic side.

This is what cannot be determined. It is the limitation being discussed.

Seems to me that the theists have a lot more work to do to make the God concept meaningful.

 

[PureX]

To me, that's an interesting statement because conceiving of something, thinking about something in symbolic terms (which is the only possible way to consciously think about something. i.e. in symbolic terms), is to define something. You might or might not be aware of having defined god when you think of god as "infinite" -- but you have indeed defined god, so far as I can see.

Infinity is an idea that we humans have about reality. It is not, so far as we can determine (know), a reality unto itself.

So I'm wondering what you mean when you say, "God is conceivable, but not definable"?

We can know that we don't know something, without knowing what that something is. We are aware of our lack of knowledge. And we can give this lack a name. And speak of it using metaphors, and symbols, and similes. We do this all the time, at some level, regarding everything.

Do you mean any and all concepts of god are inadequate to fully reference the mystery of god? I'm guessing that's what you mean, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

Some people treat money as their god. That does not make money, God, however. "God", as most people conceive of it, is the great/ultimate mystery. We give it various names and faces and tell all kinds of stories about it, and we argue, because it is a mystery that we cannot define or determine, otherwise.

But if that's what you mean, then I must ask whether you think it is necessary to have words that fully reference something in order to refute that it exists?

What point is there in refuting the existence of something that we can't know exists to begin with?

This is one of several reasons why I find atheism both absurd, and pointless.

For instance, Steve says to me, "I'm in love with my wife". I respond, "I do not think you are n love with your wife because I know that you beat her." Then Steve says to me, "Well, you cannot say I'm not in love with my wife. You can't say it because you do not fully know my feelings for her." So I comeback, "I don't need to know everything about your feelings for her. All I need to know is that you beat her. No one who truly loves a person beats them."

Who in that exchange is right? Steve or me?

The solution is to punch Steve in the mouth, hard, while telling him that you love him. You will both understand the argument, and each other, much better after that.

Put differently, are there not "deal-breakers" such that all you need to know is the deal-breaker, instead of needing to know the "full story".

There is no 'deal' to break but the one you invent as your personal "definition" of the mystery. So why would you invent/adopt a conceptual definition of God that you couldn't accept? That makes no sense. Unless you WANTED to reject it in advance, just for the sake of rejecting it. Yet that makes no sense, either, that I can see. What value is there in rejecting something that was always only a possibility, anyway? Why eliminate a possibility, for no reason?

For instance, if I somehow knew that god was X, and that X somehow indicated god could not exist, must I still know everything there is to know about the attributes of god? Would not the deal-breaker mean that particular concept of god was false?

You can't "know anything about "X" (god)", and neither can anyone else. So that question is of no use to us. You can reject the way someone else names, imagines, and depicts "God", as irrational. But that's a pretty pointless endeavor, too, as it was always just their personal conceptual depiction, and was never an actual representation of "God", anyway. It'd be like rejecting the reality of Christmas because you don't believe Santa Claus wears a red suit and lives at the North Pole and flies around in a magic sleigh.

On the other hand, if there are no deal-breakers, then how do we know the concept of god is meaningful?

By living by our idealization of "God", and seeing if this delivers positive value to us, and to those we care about, in our lives. There is no "evidence" for the truth of God. There is only the result of faith in the ideal of God that we choose to hold.

How does saying, "I have a concept of god such that god is X, but you cannot refute that god is X because god is also something Y that you will never know but that refutes any refutation of X" -- how does saying that make any sense at all?

How doesn't it??? If I said the words "red car" to ten people, all ten would envision, conceptualize, and contemplate something different. And not one of them would be "more right" than another. Not even by how closely their cognitive results align with my own when I said the words.

How is it a meaningful statement?

It's as meaningful as we allow it to be. Language and perception both, are imprecise. "Facts" can be just as misleading as metaphor.

To me, by the way, god is a mystery. A genuine mystery. And not something about which much of anything can be said for certain beyond, "I don't know for certain".

Me too. But as an artist I understand and appreciate the necessity for 'artifice' when it comes to sharing our experience of the mystery of being. And let's face it; all of life is a mystery, to us, depending on how closely we're looking at and contemplating it.

 

[PureX]

On the contrary, to be meaningful, the concept has to be defined well enough to have a specific referent. Unless it is defined, it simply isn't a meaningful concept. I don't see that as *my* limitation, but as a limitation of a faulty concept.

This is an ideal that you may want to reconsider. As an artist, myself, I would find this presumption horrifically toxic to my own psyche. To "define" our reality is itself kind of artifice. To then presume that artifice is "objective factuality" would be to then remove all meaning from it! (shudder!)

Seems to me that the theists have a lot more work to do to make the God concept meaningful.

"God" is already meaningful to them. Whether it's meaningful to you is your own problem/responsibility. If some theist is foolish enough to think what's meaningful to you is somehow his responsibility, then I guess you both deserve each other. And the colossal waste of time that will then ensue.